Argument against Christianity

[Metatron]

Wow...very lively debate that has many, many roots and off shoots.

As briefly as I can I will try to comment on as many topics as I can remember reading from 10 pages of post.

To the original argument against Christianity...according to the Bible, different generation have been under different covenants with God. Thus, the entire original argument post is null. This of course brings in its own contridictive argument....for another time...

The bible will always be a book of perceived contradictions. It comes down to faith? Can you honestly tell yourself you are a product of chance? If so, enjoy you chance, life is short and will end soon. Otherwise, you believe in intelligent design. As to what deity, that is another issue all together.

I believe in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. I do not subject my faith on others, and do not judge others, and I give friendship to any who desire it, Muslims and Homosexuals alike. I believe that the bible is something we should cautiously interpret. It is full of man made flaws as it was God "inspired" and written by men....many different men. Between of the writers was long passing of time, different cultures with different histories, and different prior belief systems. The bible has been mistranslated to a very high level, but I do believe the general message remains.

When it comes to witnessing or sharing my faith, I let my lifestyle be my example. If someone ask me, I will tell them, but I let them come to me (except of the post....of course).

My view of Christianity have changed greatly in recent years as I finally realize what most christians fail to recognize...who Christ is. If you went looking for Christ during his day, he could be found befriending "tax collectors", hanging out in a pub, chilling with prostitutes, blaspheming the Jewish laws of the time, drinking wine, going to parties, sleeping in a room full of sinners, men and women alike. All without sin as the Bible states.

When one compares the life of Jesus with that of modern Christian, you will not find many similarities. Instead of living with the example Christ left us with, you end up finding stuck up, self-righteous idiots. Thus, I do not go to any church and I pay tithes directly to charities that feed the hungry, care for the improvised, and house the homeless. I am sure that one day I will find a church that is not about adding more gold seats to their stage.

Now I am not okaying living the life that Jesus did if you have raging sexual and alcohol problems. You will only be tempted to make a bad problem worse. One has to put these things in prospective. Christ was their friend, and when these sinners failed in life's trials, they did not find help and love in the Jewish priest, only Christ. Thus, I try to do the same. I am their when I am needed, without judgment. Honestly, modern Christians are more like the Jewish priest that had Christ crucified then like Christ himself.

So what is a sin? Whatever your spirit, or for the atheist, your mind tells you is not right. You are your own judge. When you die and meet God, he will tell you how good your judgement was. Better hope you were honest with yourself.

The topic of Homosexuality kept coming up. I don't agree with it. I personally believe it is a lifestyle, not a natural part of life. But I will never not give you the shirt of my back if a gay person needs it. Like I said, it is "my" belief. I can not speak for God and refuse to do so. What if we get to Heaven just to find countless people who were gay while on earth among us. You are going to feel pretty stupid and ashamed inside for how you treated God's children.

To the Christian: Don't put God in your box. It is arrogant to think you can rationalize God and understand him. If God wanted you all knowing, you would have been born that way. Do your best to save your own soul and help those in need along the way.

To the Non-believers: All your earthly wisdom will ever begin to help you understand the Bible. It is about faith. People see what they want to see. You have faith in your Government, I have faith in God. God has been with man since he beginning. The very idea of God has outlived every Government that was, is, and will come. So don't taze me bro. I will return the favor.

[Iscariot]

^^so would you describe yourself as secular (or a secular Christian)?

[djellison]

You have faith in your Government.

What? I don't know ANYONE who has faith in their government. I sure don't.

Can you honestly tell yourself you are a product of chance?

Yup. A few hydrogen atoms and 13.5 billion years.

[imac/cheese]

...there is disconnect, unless by understanding you mean that they will change their minds and agree with you.

I have come to mutual understanding with many people who do not share my Christian faith. They understand what I believe and I understand what they believe. And we understand the reasons behind each others beliefs. I did not mean that one of us would convert. We can agree to disagree.

Not just to me, I suspect. The whole idea that you can differentiate and validate your deity vis-à-vis others simply by capitalising his title displays a blithe arrogance which is utterly mind-boggling. This attitude is what religious wars are caused by. Everyone whose deity is not capitalised is no doubt an infidel.

So was this a capital offense? I don't realy understand why you would get worked up about this.

Not in the least funny, nor remotely defensible.

I apologize if that offended anyone. I was trying to be funny and didn't want to include djellison since he stated earlier that he has never considered the fact that God might exist. :o

How could that be? You believe that you possess the truth and that they believe in false deities and lying doctrine. Where is there any possibility of finding common ground?

I do believe I possess the truth, yet I can completely respect someone else for their beliefs and engage in friendly debate and discussion with them. I would love to see people develop the same faith that I have, not because I want to be validated, but simply because I believe it is the only true faith.

Sorry, I respect your beliefs but I am going to have to agree with the others that say there probably can't be a mutual understanding due to your beliefs.

It boils down to this, in my opinion, to think that God discriminates against others beliefs is lunacy, and in my opinion blasphemy. Your God teaches you to love thy neighbor and acceptance but then you say he tells you that if those people don't believe the way you believe don't worry, they won't be in heaven for you to deal with.

Since when did you have to stop loving someone because you think they are wrong? I love all my neighbors no matter what their religious faith is, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with their religious beliefs. I don't understand how all of you people think that mutual understanding of two differing viewpoints is not possible.

Now, my cynical view. I am Jewish, I don't believe in Judaism but I do believe in God. I don't believe in any religion that would make anyone think that if you don't believe this way than to hell with you, literally... You want to go on and on about Jesus and the new testament but without the Jews there wouldn't be you and your religion, let's try to have a little respect for what others believe and try to open our minds a bit that God is something greater than what you think. this is directed to imac's post not to anyone that does not believe in God, there is nothing wrong with that, in my opinion...

The Jews are God's chosen people. I completely respect what the Jews believe. I just think they missed the Messiah.

I also doubt if Jesus would want me to reject someone else's beliefs as invalid, especially since that would consist of rejecting his views as a Jew.

How does anyone know what Jesus would want? The only thing we have to go by is the Bible. I can understand that someone might not believe the Bible, but if you are basing your faith on Jesus and the only in-depth evidence of Jesus comes from the Bible, then it would make sense that you followed what the Bible actually says. Of course your beliefs are just as valid as mine, but I personally find the Bible the place to go to try to determine what Jesus might want.

I have never rejected the views of Jesus as a Jew. Jesus recognized He was the Messiah.

[Rt&Dzine]

Until a religion can actually prove the basis for their beliefs, there is no logically sound reason to believe in any of them. Case closed. End of story.
True. However, if you do wish to believe you do so by Faith.

It's all about faith. Full circle back to post #4 :p

[Eanair]

The bible will always be a book of perceived contradictions. It comes down to faith? Can you honestly tell yourself you are a product of chance?

Of course I'm not a product of chance. I am a product of evolution, and evolution is not random chance, as many people seem to believe. I am not here because of some random happenings in the universe or on this earth that put humans (and other animals) here haphazardly, I am here because my species was the most evolutionarily fit compared to other similar competing species. That is hardly random chance.

When it comes to witnessing or sharing my faith, I let my lifestyle be my example. If someone ask me, I will tell them, but I let them come to me (except of the post....of course).

IMO, that's how it should be. Usually, if someones wants to know something, they'll initiate and seek it out. Otherwise, you'll risk coming off as a shover if you try to convert others who don't ask.

So what is a sin? Whatever your spirit, or for the atheist, your mind tells you is not right. You are your own judge. When you die and meet God, he will tell you how good your judgement was. Better hope you were honest with yourself.

Depending how semantic you want to be, there is no such thing as a sin for an atheist, relative to the atheist.

As I understand it, a sin is an act that is a transgression against God's will. As atheists don't believe in a higher power, to them, it is impossible to sin because there's no higher power to transgress against. That doesn't mean there are no morals or ethics to abide by, but that if you don't believe in a higher power to go against, you can't commit a sin.

The topic of Homosexuality kept coming up. I don't agree with it. I personally believe it is a lifestyle, not a natural part of life. But I will never not give you the shirt of my back if a gay person needs it. Like I said, it is "my" belief. I can not speak for God and refuse to do so. What if we get to Heaven just to find countless people who were gay while on earth among us. You are going to feel pretty stupid and ashamed inside for how you treated God's children.

You believe it's a lifestyle? If so, why do animals exhibit homosexual behavior? Are animals (such as harbor seals, for one examle) thus choosing a lifestyle? Do animals choose lifestyles like humans do? Do they choose to be gay or straight?

Many scientists agree that while the exact mechanisms of homosexuality are not fully understood yet, homosexuality is most certainly not a lifestyle choice. It's most likely a complicated relationship between genes, environment, and hormones. The FEM-3 studies in nematodes are rather interesting.

Why would people willingly consciously choose a lifestyle that would subject them to taunts, bullying, denial of legal rights, social and religious stigmatization, rejection from friends and family, and so on? IIRC, a few gay men were killed in Iraq after being disowned by their family not too long ago. Why would you choose a lifestyle that would get you killed?

To the Non-believers: All your earthly wisdom will ever begin to help you understand the Bible. It is about faith. People see what they want to see. You have faith in your Government, I have faith in God. God has been with man since he beginning. The very idea of God has outlived every Government that was, is, and will come. So don't taze me bro. I will return the favor.

I don't have faith in my government, firstly.

Secondly, you claim that the idea of God has outlived every government that was, is, and will come. So, because the idea is still alive and well, that gives credence and validity to the idea? The test of time?

The Egyptians believed in Anubis, the Greeks believed in Zeus and Hera. Those ideas are still around today, and some people still do worship those gods. Does that mean they're valid gods too, along with the Christian god?

Additionally, the idea that god is fictional and mythical has still persisted (along with belief), and will most likely persist in the future as well. Atheism also stands the test of time.

[brad.c]

We can agree to disagree.

There are some other threads where I would respectfully argue some of your other points, but with regard to the clipping above, I can wholeheartedly stand with you on that. :)

(You had me at Mac'n'Cheese, but in my religion, we call it Kraft Dinner.)

[Eanair]

There are some other threads where I would respectfully argue some of your other points, but with regard to the clipping above, I can wholeheartedly stand with you on that. :)

Same here. About the agree to disagree bit.

(You had me at Mac'n'Cheese, but in my religion, we call it Kraft Dinner.)

We call it Kraft Mac 'n Cheese Dinner here... :D

[floyde]

So, you don't believe in Christianity because humans are indecisive?


Nope. One of the main reasons why I don't believe in Christianity (there are hundreds more) is because there isn't even a proper way to be a Christian. The Christian God didn't bother that much with the transmission of his message, therefore being a "true Christian" seems to me to be a matter of chance. Only through sheer luck can a person follow the Christian Gods whim, err... will, to exact specifications. There's just no way a book like the Bible could have a universal meaning.


If you buy into God being perfect, how can His rules be arbitrary?


Well if I believed that the Christian God existed, then I wouldn't buy in to him being perfect, or at least I wouldn't buy into him being benevolent. One of the reasons why I don't buy into Yahweh being perfect, is precisely because a great part of his rules are idiotic and serve no purpose, the rest are detrimental to mankind, and the only good ones are self-evident. In other words, they seem a lot like the kind of rules humans make. If God turned out to be real, I'd be shocked at how incompetent this deity turned out to be.


You have a better communication method available to us? He used the highest form of communication we had. There was no Stomp Out Loud performance which conveyed His principles to us.

He's supposed to be omnipotent, that means he doesn't have to use our communication methods to communicate with us. That means he could've made us better at communicating. That means endless possibilities. But instead he chose a method that is poor even by human standards, and thus we have people killing each other over the specifics.

Curiously, all the other non-true or pagan religions use this same method of divine communication. I wonder why that is.

[djellison]

The only thing we have to go by is the Bible. I can understand that someone might not believe the Bible, but if you are basing your faith on Jesus and the only in-depth evidence of Jesus comes from the Bible, then it would make sense that you followed what the Bible actually says..

The bible lays some utterly outrageous and disgusting and immoral rules. I imagine you elect to ignore them. The gospels dictate you to sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, for example. You have not done this. You are picking and choosing. Of course, you will call it 'interpreting' - but if it's the word of God, and God is perfect, then it is not your position to pick and choose - as the words themselves must be perfect.

The Bible is awash with rules demanding violence, rape, torture and the segregation of women. It is a million miles from anything by which one should attempt to live a life.

Incidentally - if your god exists (and there is no evidence that he/she/it does) - he's nothing short of an evil bastard. Hitler was a SAINT compared to any 'God' that you think might exist.

If the Bible has a universal meaning - it's meaning is this...

"Some men tried to write down the stuff they had been using to control the population, but they sort of screwed it up"

[rhsgolfer33]

The bible lays some utterly outrageous and disgusting and immoral rules. I imagine you elect to ignore them. The gospels dictate you to sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, for example. You have not done this. You are picking and choosing. Of course, you will call it 'interpreting' - but if it's the word of God, and God is perfect, then it is not your position to pick and choose - as the words themselves must be perfect.

The Bible is awash with rules demanding violence, rape, torture and the segregation of women. It is a million miles from anything by which one should attempt to live a life.

Actually, the argument for not abiding by those rules as a Christian often is: 1) They're generally in the Old Testament and Christianity doesn't follow most of the so called "laws" laid out in the Old Testament. 2) Its an influence of the type of culture and socially accepted behavior at the time the bible was written that shouldn't be followed today. Its not really picking and choosing if you recognize that those passages were society's affect upon what was supposed to be God's word.

Also, you're making the assumption that all of Christianity believes the bible is infallible, that's hardly the case. I believe that the bible is fallible, but I'm a Christian, gasp!


How does anyone know what Jesus would want? The only thing we have to go by is the Bible. I can understand that someone might not believe the Bible, but if you are basing your faith on Jesus and the only in-depth evidence of Jesus comes from the Bible, then it would make sense that you followed what the Bible actually says. Of course your beliefs are just as valid as mine, but I personally find the Bible the place to go to try to determine what Jesus might want.

I have never rejected the views of Jesus as a Jew. Jesus recognized He was the Messiah.

It doesn't necessarily always make sense that you follow what the bible actually says. If you believe that the bible is fallible and written by humans, then why does their word on what Jesus would want have any more weight than my own? Is it because there is a slight possibility that some of the authors actually knew the man? Because some of the authors were the earliest Christians? Or maybe its because I'm supposed to believe that a biblical Canon, set by a few influential supposed religious "scholars" from 1500-1700, translated by numerous people and groups, influenced by the desire of a few religious rulers and wealthy nobleman, actually contains more about how Jesus would want me to act than I do in my own heart?

I do enjoy the bible and I do read it, but I also think that many things in it are extremely colluded from what the actual intent of their message was. I also respect many people that think the people is God's word and pure, even though I very much disagree.

[Delta608]

Atheism also stands the test of time.

You know what they say, there are no atheists in foxholes...:o

[bobber205]

Of course it is foolishness to you.



You sound surprised. What exactly were you expecting? Did you think I was going to say that I believe in Christianity, but all the otehr religions are just as valid? Jesus says that the only way to heaven is through Him (Wasn't that one of the points that started this entire thread) so of course I would believe that others trying to get into heaven or reincarnation or Nirvana or whatever through other means are not going to make it.

I do not see a fundamental flaw of Christianity in this belief. I believe that people are given a natural, in-born desire to seek God (except djellison). In that seeking, people will latch onto partial truths or even complete lies and deceptions. I also believe that the Bible is the revealed Word of God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.

Might I possibly be latching onto something untrue in my own desire to seek God? Possibly. I will not deny that it is a possibility. Despite that possibility, I still believe that Christianity is correct. My belief comes from personal experience, spiritual reflection, prayer, reading the Bible, and most importantly obedience. The more I obey God, the more He reveals to me.

I also understand that people of other faiths are able to say that they believe only their religion is correct and that they have come to that belief in much the same way I came to mine. I will gladly have discussions with those people about their experiences and tell them about my own. Hopefully, some mutual understanding will occur between the two of us.


So part of the way you're sure Christianity is correct is because you read a book that tells you as such? That makes no sense.

Also how does God reveal himself to you? Does her personally telephone you or something? That line about obedience reminds me of sheep. Does your spiritual reflection include questioning your faith or just reinforcing it? What do you pray about? That you're correct and all others are wrong?

Yes Jesus did say that the only way through heaven is through him. What if Jesus has existed in multiple forms throughout history and has been interpreted in different ways? The Bible is a extremely poor source of information. Earlier revisions of the Bible had Jesus as only "another prophet".

[chrmjenkins]

Nope. One of the main reasons why I don't believe in Christianity (there are hundreds more) is because there isn't even a proper way to be a Christian. The Christian God didn't bother that much with the transmission of his message, therefore being a "true Christian" seems to me to be a matter of chance. Only through sheer luck can a person follow the Christian Gods whim, err... will, to exact specifications. There's just no way a book like the Bible could have a universal meaning.

This is why the Bible shouldn't be the only source of your spiritual guidance. Prayer is essential.


Well if I believed that the Christian God existed, then I wouldn't buy in to him being perfect, or at least I wouldn't buy into him being benevolent.

So you admit a situation where He could be perfect but not benevolent?

One of the reasons why I don't buy into Yahweh being perfect, is precisely because a great part of his rules are idiotic and serve no purpose, the rest are detrimental to mankind, and the only good ones are self-evident. In other words, they seem a lot like the kind of rules humans make. If God turned out to be real, I'd be shocked at how incompetent this deity turned out to be.

Do they fail as rules because they're inherently bad or humans follow them imperfectly?


He's supposed to be omnipotent, that means he doesn't have to use our communication methods to communicate with us. That means he could've made us better at communicating. That means endless possibilities.

Which is why the importance of prayer is stressed, a direct connection to God.


But instead he chose a method that is poor even by human standards, and thus we have people killing each other over the specifics.

Written word is poor by human standards? What is better? Besides, I've never heard of Christians killing other Christians, Jews killing other Jews, or even Muslims killing other Muslims for purely religious reasons. I'm sure it has happened on some small scale somewhere, but I can't think of a single case where an internal debate within a faith caused violence to any considerable degree. Different arms of the monotheistic religions have fought before, but these wars have been just as much, if not more, about claims to land and the spoils of war.


Curiously, all the other non-true or pagan religions use this same method of divine communication. I wonder why that is.

Well, my guess is that if that if the God of Abraham does exist, they were using His followers' examples.

The bible lays some utterly outrageous and disgusting and immoral rules. I imagine you elect to ignore them. The gospels dictate you to sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, for example. You have not done this. You are picking and choosing. Of course, you will call it 'interpreting' - but if it's the word of God, and God is perfect, then it is not your position to pick and choose - as the words themselves must be perfect.

Following the word of God in the gospels literally would leave us homeless, naked, eventually arrested, and blind for having pulled our own eyes out (and in direct conflict with other rules given strict literal interpretations). I think I'll stick to using my brain to interpret it.

[Iscariot]

You know what they say, there are no atheists in foxholes...:o

Yes, there are.

[brad.c]

You know what they say, there are no atheists in foxholes...:o

I sometimes wonder if that means it's impossible to convince an atheist to get in one.

[Eanair]

You know what they say, there are no atheists in foxholes...:o

Which of course is not true. :)

[skunk]

Do foxes believe in God? :confused:

[arkitect]

Besides, I've never heard of Christians killing other Christians, Jews killing other Jews, or even Muslims killing other Muslims for purely religious reasons. I'm sure it has happened on some small scale somewhere, but I can't think of a single case where an internal debate within a faith caused violence to any considerable degree.

I suggest you put down the bible and buck up your history studies then.

Christians killing other Christians is common as muck: Marian Persecutions, St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, Hussite Wars…
As for the Muslim state of affairs, I guess news of Shia-Sunni sectarianism has passed you by.

[.Andy]

Do foxes believe in God? :confused:
Google "hot christians".

[djellison]

I think I'll stick to using my brain to interpret it.

Which is why, quite obviosuly, it can not be the literal word of your 'god', if your 'god' is perfect.

It's a back catalogue of wives tails and fairy stories. Written by men, edited by men, picked and chosen by men, and now read by men. That you 'got Religion' from it is terrifying. It's also demonstrates that some of the best marketing campaigns this planet has ever seen happened more than a thousand years ago.

Oh - and with its stance on contraception - the Catholic church is killing thousands every day. God's perfect, right, got to do what his messenger on Earth says.
:rolleyes:

[Iscariot]

Do foxes believe in God? :confused:
Google "hot christians".

I would have gone with an All Dogs Go To Heaven reference, personally.

[Delta608]

Do foxes believe in God? :confused:

Have you asked them....:confused:

[Cromulent]

Of course I'm not a product of chance. I am a product of evolution, and evolution is not random chance, as many people seem to believe. I am not here because of some random happenings in the universe or on this earth that put humans (and other animals) here haphazardly, I am here because my species was the most evolutionarily fit compared to other similar competing species. That is hardly random chance.


I have to disagree with you here. Life on Earth was random. Therefore you are a result of random events. You are just looking at it from when life already existed.

The only way to claim that life was not a random event is to argue for intelligent design (am I the only one who thinks intelligent design is a misnomer? bloody stupid design might be a better term).

[.Andy]

I have to disagree with you here. Life on Earth was random. Therefore you are a result of random events. You are just looking at it from when life already existed.

The only way to claim that life was not a random event is to argue for intelligent design (am I the only one who thinks intelligent design is a misnomer? bloody stupid design might be a better term).
Genetic rearrangement is random, the selection of gene combinations as the most "fit" is non-random.

[Cromulent]

Genetic rearrangement is random, the selection of gene combinations as the most "fit" is non-random.

I was talking about the origin of life as a whole, really the first single celled organisms.

[imac/cheese]

So part of the way you're sure Christianity is correct is because you read a book that tells you as such? That makes no sense.

Yes, part of the way I am sure of Christianity is based on the Bible. Why does that make know sense. I have read the Bible and through the Bible, God revealed a small portion of Himself to me. As I continue to reread it and study it and obey Him, more is revealed.

Also how does God reveal himself to you? Does her personally telephone you or something?

Nope, I haven't gotten a phone call yet. God reveals Himself through His word. By reading and studying the Bible, I gain additional insight into the way God wants me to live my life. God reveals Himself through the Holy Spirit living within me. The Spirit gives promptings and urgings that propel me in different directions than I normally would have taken.

That line about obedience reminds me of sheep.

There are numerous biblical references about us being sheep and Jesus being our shepherd.

"The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. " John 10: 3-4


Does your spiritual reflection include questioning your faith or just reinforcing it? What do you pray about? That you're correct and all others are wrong?

Of course I question my faith. The bible tells us to do so. We are not to blindly follow what others say we are to examine everything and try to find what is true and what is false. We are not sheep following a pastor or priest. We are to be sheep listening for and following the voice of Jesus.

Yes Jesus did say that the only way through heaven is through him. What if Jesus has existed in multiple forms throughout history and has been interpreted in different ways? The Bible is a extremely poor source of information.

Very possible. God can do whatever He wants to. But this is also a bit dangerous, in my belief. The Bible tells us that many will claim to be the Messiah:

"Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many." Matthew 24:4-5

Since the Bible warns against this, I am not really comfortable putting faith in the possibility.

Earlier revisions of the Bible had Jesus as only "another prophet".

I am not exactly sure what you are talking about here. Are you speaking of Act 3:22? What revisions do you mean?

[Eanair]

I have to disagree with you here. Life on Earth was random. Therefore you are a result of random events. You are just looking at it from when life already existed.

The only way to claim that life was not a random event is to argue for intelligent design (am I the only one who thinks intelligent design is a misnomer? bloody stupid design might be a better term).

Ahh, sorry about that - let me clarify - I was speaking regarding human evolution, not abiogenesis. I thought Metatron was referring to human evolution with the comment about how we couldn't be here by chance.

[brad.c]

Google "hot christians".

I did (http://datetosave.com/). That's the kind of thing a heathen guy like me can't resist. :D

[arkitect]

I did (http://datetosave.com/). That's the kind of thing a heathen guy like me can't resist. :D

Grief!
6. If he tries to kiss you...
Remind him that a kiss killed your Savior.
(and you're not ready to "speak in tongues")
How weird is that?

[brad.c]

Grief!

How weird is that?
Not nearly as weird as
1. If he tells your that you are hot...
Tell him God made you hot.
Apparently, her made her a manipulative tease as well.
Let's just assume this isn't a serious site. :)

[chrmjenkins]

I suggest you put down the bible and buck up your history studies then.

Christians killing other Christians is common as muck: Marian Persecutions, St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, Hussite Wars…

These are from a time where religious power meant political power. It was about having power and influence as well. I qualified my statement as such.

As for the Muslim state of affairs, I guess news of Shia-Sunni sectarianism has passed you by.

And this was my point. It's hardly ever only religiously motivated.

Which is why, quite obviosuly, it can not be the literal word of your 'god', if your 'god' is perfect.


You're confusing the meaning of the term "literal." The literal word of God does not mean it must all be taken literally. A parable of Jesus is the word of God but clearly uses a metaphor to communicate its message.

[Cromulent]

These are from a time where religious power meant political power. It was about having power and influence as well. I qualified my statement as such.

Using you definition then there has never been a religious war as it was always to do with power.

Religion is and always has been about power. It is just an alternative method to get it as opposed to politics. They just dress it up nicely, have a 2,000 year old book and a God which they all pretend to worship while taking your money.

Ever wondered why the Catholic church is so rich? Because they don't give as much to the poor as they would like you to think. Same goes for other denominations.

[arkitect]

These are from a time where religious power meant political power. It was about having power and influence as well. I qualified my statement as such.

So disagreeing over munching a wafer suddenly becomes political?
:rolleyes:

And this was my point. It's hardly ever only religiously motivated.


No, that was not your point.
Do you actually understand what secterianism means?

[chrmjenkins]

Using you definition then there has never been a religious war as it was always to do with power.

Religion is and always has been about power. It is just an alternative method to get it as opposed to politics. They just dress it up nicely, have a 2,000 year old book and a God which they all pretend to worship while taking your money.

Ever wondered why the Catholic church is so rich? Because they don't give as much to the poor as they would like you to think. Same goes for other denominations.

While I'm not about to defend the Catholic church, their political power has waned considerably since the days of the Crusades. They've even gone from dictating what science can say about the world to acquiescing to many of its recent discoveries. They exert much less influence than the once did politically. This is true for all denominations in this country. As for your assertion that all other denominations are out for power and profit, I heartily disagree.


No, that was not your point.
Do you actually understand what secterianism means?

Yes, in this case, it's a perceived difference in people rather than an actual difference. That's no different than racial, sexual etc. differences. The hate doesn't come from what they believe, it comes from them simply being different. (this can be perpetuated a number of ways. Look at the artificial divide created in Rwanda and the resulting mayhem) This is why I say I struggle to find evidence of a conflict where two denominations of the same belief system went to arms because they simply interpreted their beliefs differently and felt physical conflict was necessary. For instance, I know many Protestant denominations are highly skeptical and wary of the Catholic church, but they're not about to go attacking them over it.

edit: To be clear, a war ideas of usually just that, a war of ideas. If people have genuine ideological differences, they usually talk them out or learn to accept them. It comes to violence when either a) they use a difference to inject a perceived inferiority or threat (they must be dominated or removed as a threat) or b) it's a way to gain power or influence. In these cases, religion is an incidental belief, it's not actually the root cause for the conflict. While moral superiority may be high on some lists, power and greed sit comfortably at the top.

[Cromulent]

As for your assertion that all other denominations are out for power and profit

It's a fundamental tenant of religion. It isn't just limited to Christianity either.

[chrmjenkins]

It's a fundamental tenant of religion. It isn't just limited to Christianity either.

No, that's just your projection of people's corruption onto a belief system.

[Cromulent]

No, that's just your projection of people's corruption onto a belief system.

People are corrupt.
A belief system can't exist without people.

Ergo the belief system is corrupt.

[djellison]

By reading and studying the Bible, I gain additional insight into the way God wants me to live my life.

This is a lie.

You read the bible, you interpret the things that suit you, and ignore the things that don't - labelling them (despite being clear, specific, explicit instructions) as 'metaphors' or 'out dated'.

The more you read it - the more you weasel out of it.

And religion IS corrupt. It's nothing but a means of grasping control over the population. Sadly - most people fall for it.

Witness, the greatest cover up in human history.

God does not exist.

If she/he/it DOES - then there is a level of evil, incompetence, cruelty and vile hate filled emotion in that God that defeats ANY of the worlds worst tyrants, murderers and dictators. That's what people who believe in a God are worshipping - evil and incompetence.

[chrmjenkins]

People are corrupt.
A belief system can't exist without people.

Ergo the belief system is corrupt.

Sure it could. No one (practically) believes in the Roman and Greek gods anymore, but the texts still exist, meaning the belief system can.

Even if it couldn't, the only way a belief system would be corrupt is if the founders of it were corrupt. The current leaders, no matter how corrupt, don't change the text of the Bible, which is the foundation of the belief system. This is a non sequitur with a bad premise.

This is a lie.

You read the bible, you interpret the things that suit you, and ignore the things that don't - labelling them (despite being clear, specific, explicit instructions) as 'metaphors' or 'out dated'.

The more you read it - the more you weasel out of it.

And religion IS corrupt. It's nothing but a means of grasping control over the population. Sadly - most people fall for it.

Witness, the greatest cover up in human history.

God does not exist.

If she/he/it DOES - then there is a level of evil, incompetence, cruelty and vile hate filled emotion in that God that defeats ANY of the worlds worst tyrants, murderers and dictators. That's what people who believe in a God are worshipping - evil and incompetence.

For someone who says we can't project any ideas or concepts onto him, you presume a whole lot about him and his belief system when you don't even share them. That's a little unfair.

[SLC Flyfishing]

People are corrupt.
A belief system can't exist without people.

Ergo the belief system is corrupt.

I see how this works. Let's take this idea to it's logical conclusion...

Biologists are people, people are corrupt. As a result, biology is corrupt, and false.
Physicists are people, people are corrupt, physics is corrupt, and false.
Chemists are people, people are corrupt, chemisty is corrupt and false.
Atheists are people, people are corupt, atheism is corrupt and false.
Greenpeace is composed of people, people are corrupt, greenpeace is corupt.

Etc etc etc.....take your group of choice, as long as
There are people involved, it's impossible for said group to be anything apart from corrupt.

This explains a lot, thanks cromulent!

SLC

[bobber205]

Yes, part of the way I am sure of Christianity is based on the Bible. Why does that make know sense. I have read the Bible and through the Bible, God revealed a small portion of Himself to me. As I continue to reread it and study it and obey Him, more is revealed.

<snip>

I am not exactly sure what you are talking about here. Are you speaking of Act 3:22? What revisions do you mean?

What exactly do you question your faith about? Have you ever questioned your faith and found it to be wrong? There's references in the Bible about how slavery is ok, how selling your daughter into slavery is ok etc.

Just because the Bible says so doesn't make it right. Men wrote the Bible. Not god.

It was dictated, not signed.

[Cromulent]

as long as
There are people involved, it's impossible for said group to be anything apart from corrupt.

Pretty much. But none of the other groups hide behind a divine power some how saving them.

At least they have the decency to be honest about it and say that in actual fact the only people responsible for their actions and their lives are themselves rather than trying to lay the blame on other religious groups or atheists somehow destroying their perfect world (which isn't and could never be).

[skunk]

Sure it could. No one (practically) believes in the Roman and Greek gods anymore, but the texts still exist, meaning the belief system can.Greek and Roman religion, in fact almost all flavours of polytheism, are essentially forms of animism, wherein different gods and goddesses personify different energies, activities, loci and phenomena. All of these polytheistic systems could be translated across borders into different pantheons, without the need for one pantheon to crush another. The classic example would be the Trojan War, where members of the same pantheon supported members of opposing alliances. Nobody even thought of fighting over their gods. Abraham, Akhenaton or Moses or whoever came up with the supremely arrogant concept of monotheism really has a lot of grief to answer for.

[imac/cheese]

This is a lie.

You read the bible, you interpret the things that suit you, and ignore the things that don't - labelling them (despite being clear, specific, explicit instructions) as 'metaphors' or 'out dated'.

The more you read it - the more you weasel out of it.

And religion IS corrupt. It's nothing but a means of grasping control over the population. Sadly - most people fall for it.

Witness, the greatest cover up in human history.

God does not exist.

If she/he/it DOES - then there is a level of evil, incompetence, cruelty and vile hate filled emotion in that God that defeats ANY of the worlds worst tyrants, murderers and dictators. That's what people who believe in a God are worshipping - evil and incompetence.

What exactly is my religion controlling me to do? Who are these people trying to get me under their power? I hear this type of thing a lot from non-believers. What did the writers of the New Testament do to try to control people? How did Jesus try to control people? Christianity is not about control, it is about a relationship with Christ.

djellison, you have stated earlier that you enjoy heated debate, but debate is not about calling other people liars and weasels. Your entire statement about what I do when I read the Bible is based solely on what you think happens and not reality. You seem to get rather upset when other people tell you what your beliefs are so I find it a bit strange that you would try to tell me what I do when I read the Bible.

I will agree that there are difficult parts of the Bible. I do not understand everything about it and I struggle with some parts, but just because I can't understand why some things happened in certain ways, doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way or that my understanding of what happened is even correct.

[.Andy]

I will agree that there are difficult parts of the Bible. I do not understand everything about it and I struggle with some parts, but just because I can't understand why some things happened in certain ways, doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way or that my understanding of what happened is even correct.
I found the same thing when I was reading Proust. And also The Watchmen Comics.

[Shotglass]

What exactly is my religion controlling me to do? Who are these people trying to get me under their power? I hear this type of thing a lot from non-believers. What did the writers of the New Testament do to try to control people? How did Jesus try to control people? Christianity is not about control, it is about a relationship with Christ.
This question annoys you because it isn't asked properly. Here's what people mean:
It is safe to assume that Christianity started out as a way of manipulation, possible even before the middle ages, where evidence of abuse of religious power is most evident. Religion teaches humility and absolute obedience towards God. Of course, this means also towards God's representatives on earth - the church. As you can see, this makes the church a very powerful organ, because everyone obeys the church. Now the church can order people to do a lot of things, like donate a fraction of their income to a "good cause", or to remove a fringe group from society that is hostile towards the religious authorities. The church can even order you to go to war, claiming that "god wills it", and that fighting in this holy war will secure you a place in paradise.
Not all of this applies to the present day religious community, but this is where it started. The whole story of Jesus dying for us basically just makes us all ashamed of ourselves and more humble. Humble towards God. And his representatives. You see where I'm going with this.

I will agree that there are difficult parts of the Bible. I do not understand everything about it and I struggle with some parts, but just because I can't understand why some things happened in certain ways, doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way or that my understanding of what happened is even correct.God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent and omniawesome. How come he's too stupid to write a book his mindless servants will understand? I mean seriously. Take for example the history of our earth. We don't know where we come from, so we look into it and look for solution. We came up with a hypothesis, Evolution from single celled organisms through billions of years of genetic mutation. We tested this hypothesis, and it worked. We cross-tested it and looked for evidence that supports it, and everything works out - so, Evolution is now an accepted theory (the name "theory" is the closest to "proven science" that a hypothesis can get btw, it does not imply uncertainty). After all this research, we finally now a bit more about where we come from. In fact, we really have a general idea of how this whole world got started. Yay! Let's be happy we're a bit smarter now.
OR, we could do what religious people do and simply ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence and claim that we were created 6000 years ago from dust. I know, dust, but hey - this way we can feel more important! Great, isn't it?? :rolleyes:

[Macaddicttt]

This question annoys you because it isn't asked properly. Here's what people mean:
It is safe to assume that Christianity started out as a way of manipulation, possible even before the middle ages, where evidence of abuse of religious power is most evident. Religion teaches humility and absolute obedience towards God. Of course, this means also towards God's representatives on earth - the church. As you can see, this makes the church a very powerful organ, because everyone obeys the church. Now the church can order people to do a lot of things, like donate a fraction of their income to a "good cause", or to remove a fringe group from society that is hostile towards the religious authorities. The church can even order you to go to war, claiming that "god wills it", and that fighting in this holy war will secure you a place in paradise.
Not all of this applies to the present day religious community, but this is where it started. The whole story of Jesus dying for us basically just makes us all ashamed of ourselves and more humble. Humble towards God. And his representatives. You see where I'm going with this.

How is there "where it all started." It might be "where it ended up going at certain points in history," but the idea that someone like Jesus or Paul or Peter or the writers of the Gospel spread their religion to gain power and control is ridiculous. The founders of Christianity lived in abject poverty and most were killed for their beliefs. Explain to me how Christianity was created in order to control people and gain power. It makes no sense. People might have adopted it in order to achieve those things, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Christianity was founded for the purpose of control.

And second, just because some people used it for evil purposes does not ipso facto make it wrong. Let's take another example: government. Hitler legally came into power and killed millions. Ergo, government and democracy, established legal traditions are completely wrong, immoral, used just to control people. Because we all know that if something is used by certain people for evil deeds, the thing itself was created for that express purpose. :rolleyes:

[Iscariot]

How is there "where it all started." It might be "where it ended up going at certain points in history," but the idea that someone like Jesus or Paul or Peter or the writers of the Gospel spread their religion to gain power and control is ridiculous. The founders of Christianity lived in abject poverty and most were killed for their beliefs. Explain to me how Christianity was created in order to control people and gain power.

Power and control are not inherently bad things. When you think about it, the rules of society represent the use of power to control the population. Jesus, Paul and Peter may very well have been using these tools towards a positive end — they were seeking to improve society and the lives of the people.

[djellison]

God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent and omniawesome. How come he's too stupid to write a book his mindless servants will understand? I mean seriously.

Not just Evil....an Evil MORON given his total inability to communicate in a coherent, honest, clear way.

God - demonstrating incompetence since Genesis Chapter 1.

Why anyone would believe in such a thing is just so far outside any definition of sensible it defies belief. But because it's a 'God' - society rolls over and calls it 'faith'.
:eek:

[djellison]

Explain to me how Christianity was created in order to control people and gain power. It makes no sense.

You ever seen the Vatican? The Arch-bishop of Canterbury was on £55,660 10 years ago. Significantly more now. No mortgage. No project management issues. Just con people out of cash to replace the Church roof, under the vulgar pretense that if a 'god' exists, he would rather you built a building with a new shiny roof, having the stained glass picture of the crucifixion restored * than do something good.

* "You shall not make for yourself any graven image, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth." - every single Church I have ever seen is adorned was vast swathes of vulgar, expensive depiction's of Jesus, The Angel Gabriel etc etc etc. EPIC EPIC fail.

Vicar's and other religious leaders are no more honest or worthy of respect than palm readers, homeopathists, and other cultural snake oil pushers.

SO MUCH MONEY is spent on the maintaining of churches, vicarages, etc etc. Yet these same people try and tell their congregation to 'give'

I've met someone who was talking about his local church pulling together >$3MILLION to buy a new church building.

That is so morally abhorrent, the English language just fails to deliver.

And billions of people, unable or unwilling to comprehend the reality of their existence, fall for it.

Oh what progress this species could make if it could just throw of the shackles of the God fraud and did something constructive instead.

It is in the direct interests of religions to slow the progress of science...and they have done so. GWB did it, the Spanish Inquisition did it, the Catholic Church did it. People have died, people are dying now - RIGHT NOW - because of Religion.

And people wonder what the harm is.

[Shotglass]

How is there "where it all started." It might be "where it ended up going at certain points in history," but the idea that someone like Jesus or Paul or Peter or the writers of the Gospel spread their religion to gain power and control is ridiculous. The founders of Christianity lived in abject poverty and most were killed for their beliefs. Explain to me how Christianity was created in order to control people and gain power. It makes no sense. People might have adopted it in order to achieve those things, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Christianity was founded for the purpose of control.
I'm going to be hypothetical just to be safe now. Nothing I will say now is proven, it's pure theory:
I'm not saying Jesus or Paul or Peter founded Christianity to gain power. I'm saying someone founded Christianity to gain power and made up Jesus and Paul and Peter and the rest of the NT to accomplish that. If you read the bible from that perspective, it starts to make a whole lot more sense.
Now if you don't believe this to be possible, take into consideration that what little evidence we have of the existence of Jesus and friends has been handed down by the Church. In the dark ages, nobody outside the church could read or write - obviously, this gave incredible power to the church, which I personally have no doubt they used and abused to no end.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that while it's very unlikely that Jesus was a bad person, it's also very unlikely that he existed at all. It is much more likely that he was made up in the process of creating a way of manipulating the population.

And second, just because some people used it for evil purposes does not ipso facto make it wrong. Let's take another example: government. Hitler legally came into power and killed millions. Ergo, government and democracy, established legal traditions are completely wrong, immoral, used just to control people. Because we all know that if something is used by certain people for evil deeds, the thing itself was created for that express purpose. :rolleyes:
You're completely right about that. But you can't draw that comparison to my little story, so it doesn't matter if you are.

[Burnsey]

I see how this works. Let's take this idea to it's logical conclusion...

Biologists are people, people are corrupt. As a result, biology is corrupt, and false.
Physicists are people, people are corrupt, physics is corrupt, and false.
Chemists are people, people are corrupt, chemisty is corrupt and false.
Atheists are people, people are corupt, atheism is corrupt and false.
Greenpeace is composed of people, people are corrupt, greenpeace is corupt.

Etc etc etc.....take your group of choice, as long as
There are people involved, it's impossible for said group to be anything apart from corrupt.

This explains a lot, thanks cromulent!

SLC

Good thing Engineers aren't corrupt. I always knew there was something up with those biology kids though.

[iJohnHenry]

I'm not saying Jesus or Paul or Peter founded Christianity to gain power.

Perhaps, just perhaps, they saw Christianity as a means to move society beyond tribal influences?

Now if you don't believe this to be possible, take into consideration that what little evidence we have of the existence of Jesus and friends has been handed down by the Church.

If you consider Jesus as a mortal, but a seer ahead of his time, it all becomes more clear.

In the dark ages, nobody outside the church could read or write...

Yes, that is essentially correct. Learning was for the elite.

...obviously, this gave incredible power to the church, which I personally have no doubt they used and abused to no end.

Many a well meaning innovation has been purloined for the abuse of power.

[Burnsey]

In central Africa they put people on trial for witchcraft. They believe that witchcraft comes from the mother's side of the family, and if she is a witch, her offspring are witches as well. People from other parts of the world go there and ask why they trial and kill people based on such a dumb premise, and one that clearly does not exist. They respond by "they come here and tell us witchcraft does not exist, but thousands of people around the world believe, live and fight for god, and yet they cannot prove he exists."

That struck me as interesting.

[iJohnHenry]

That struck me as interesting.

Perverse, for sure. Interesting, well I will hold my opinion on that.

[colinmack]

This thread has been illuminating, and certainly not in the way it would have been intended.

On one side of the debate is people trying to explain something they believe in deeply, and for the most part being pretty tolerant of opposing/conflicting views. On the other side is what comes off at times as heated frothing of the mouth, with terms thrown around like liar, weasel, evil, incompetence, stupid, disgusting, immoral, and my particular favorites: "if your god exists...he's nothing short of an evil bastard", and "an Evil MORON".

If someone is incapable of debating a serious topic without resorting to name-calling and very clearly inflammatory/nasty/derogatory/insulting language, then to me it says something about the cause they're arguing for.

[Shotglass]

Perhaps, just perhaps, they saw Christianity as a means to move society beyond tribal influences?Society was already way past tribal stuff at the time Christianity is said to have been founded, but it did take a huge step down when Christians started taking control. Ever wonder why they call them the dark ages?
Yes, that is essentially correct. Learning was for the elite.
Totally. And the elite needed a way to get the little people to do their work for them. The way they came up with is quite fascinating if you think about it.
Many a well meaning innovation has been purloined for the abuse of power.What are you blathering about? This isn't about innovation, this is about religious authorities being the only people able to write and re-write history.

[djellison]

By all means, someone counter the argument. No one has tried. if there is a God, given the quantity of suffering, pain, death etc that this 'God' piles upon the people of this earth - one can only come to the conclusion that such a God is intentionally evil.

Given that same God's inability to succefully communicate with the people of the word, despite being in a position to wander, at will, into the minds of some people (so we are told) - then it's fairly moronic to not do so for all people of this earth, rather than about 2 billion of them.

Thus - if a God exists, the only logical conclusion I can come to is that if there is a God (which there isn't) then he/she/it is an Evil moron.

Of course, for this to be considered name calling, one would have to demonstrate that I was calling something a name. Given that there is no evidence for the existence of a God, what, exactly, have I been calling names? Nothingness!

By all means, come back with a counter argument against the stupidity and monumental evil of 'God' (this stands for all Gods, incidentally, not just the Christian flavour)

One could, for example, consider Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu. The Creator, Destroyer and Maintainer respectively. Given the existence of the Appendix, one can certainly write off Brahma as being anything other than incompetent. Given the suffering and pain in this word, it's fair to classify Vishnu as falling someone short of maintaining things, and of course, Shiva, the destroyer. Well - top marks there, it has to be said. The Asian Tsunami was an exquisite bit of destruction, a big high death toll, the whole wave thing. That's got to be an A+.

I simply say things as I see them - and given the massively illogical nature of a 'God', do my best to draw any logical conclusion that I can.

Forgive me for thinking.

[Burnsey]

By all means, someone counter the argument. No one has tried. if there is a God, given the quantity of suffering, pain, death etc that this 'God' piles upon the people of this earth - one can only come to the conclusion that such a God is intentionally evil.

All the evil in the world is the direct result of human action. It is not god who created or piled on the evil you see, it is man. Actions have consequences, by your logic if god was "loving" and did not "pile on evil" then actions would have no consequences, and no matter what you did you could never create evil, or in other words, a reaction or a consequence. To that end you wouldnt exist.

[iJohnHenry]

What are you blathering about? This isn't about innovation, this is about religious authorities being the only people able to write and re-write history.

The 'revolution' has been stolen. Sound familiar??

[adrianblaine]

if there is a God, given the quantity of suffering, pain, death etc that this 'God' piles upon the people of this earth - one can only come to the conclusion that such a God is intentionally evil.

I haven't read through the entire thread... but Christianity does include in it's narrative the "devil" that is responsible for the evil in the world and not God. I am not a theologian, but as I understand it, Satan has freewill just as we have freewill. If God stopped Satan from doing everything, God would be a hypocrite and would cease to exist.

[jonbravo77]

By all means, someone counter the argument. No one has tried. if there is a God, given the quantity of suffering, pain, death etc that this 'God' piles upon the people of this earth - one can only come to the conclusion that such a God is intentionally evil.

Given that same God's inability to succefully communicate with the people of the word, despite being in a position to wander, at will, into the minds of some people (so we are told) - then it's fairly moronic to not do so for all people of this earth, rather than about 2 billion of them.

Thus - if a God exists, the only logical conclusion I can come to is that if there is a God (which there isn't) then he/she/it is an Evil moron.

Of course, for this to be considered name calling, one would have to demonstrate that I was calling something a name. Given that there is no evidence for the existence of a God, what, exactly, have I been calling names? Nothingness!

By all means, come back with a counter argument against the stupidity and monumental evil of 'God' (this stands for all Gods, incidentally, not just the Christian flavour)

Say what you will. I don't believe God is an evil moron as you claim. People on the other hand, that's a different story. God has given free-will. People commit crimes, commit murder, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but it's easy to blame God since there is no tangible evidence towards his existence.

I am not going to try to convince you that there is a God, it's something that I believe. I really don't care what you believe since you don't want to take the time to care what I believe. But I would appreciate if you would calm down on the whole "God is evil" crap since you don't know who God is nor do you care to really find out.

As humans we learn (at least some do) through challenges and adversity, This is what we are here for, to live our lives and hope to learn something along the way. God doesn't do bad things, he doesn't kill for pleasure, he doesn't give someone a disease so God can sit there and watch them suffer. That is just a sick narrow minded view of something you know nothing about.

I am not a bible thumper, could care-less about organized religion. But I do believe in God and know he is good and gracious and loving, does not have an evil bone in his body, I leave that up to man to have through arrogance and narrow-mindedness.

[Rt&Dzine]

If someone is incapable of debating a serious topic without resorting to name-calling and very clearly inflammatory/nasty/derogatory/insulting language, then to me it says something about the cause they're arguing for.

So this says something about Christianity ....

168590

[skunk]

If someone is incapable of debating a serious topic without resorting to name-calling and very clearly inflammatory/nasty/derogatory/insulting language, then to me it says something about the cause they're arguing for.The Bible, the OT at any rate, is full of terrible stories of divinely inspired, sanctioned or instigated revenge, warmongering, pestilence and massacres, together with a long list of restrictive, repressive, oppressive, ignorant, unenlightened and archaic rules and punishments for violating them. The NT insists that the same unchanging god described in the OT is now miraculously transformed into a god of love and mercy, and yet this God 2.0 has been used to sanction just as many violent interventions as God 1.0. This is hard for an atheist or indeed a believer in any other religion to take seriously. One tends to feel somewhat put upon when believers insist that their unsupported faith can square this circle, especially when the supposed god of love is still being used to justify hateful policies and ideologies.

[chrmjenkins]

By all means, someone counter the argument. No one has tried. if there is a God, given the quantity of suffering, pain, death etc that this 'God' piles upon the people of this earth - one can only come to the conclusion that such a God is intentionally evil.


The original sin of man brought death and suffering into the world.

The Bible, the OT at any rate, is full of terrible stories of divinely inspired, sanctioned or instigated revenge, warmongering, pestilence and massacres, together with a long list of restrictive, repressive, oppressive, ignorant, unenlightened and archaic rules and punishments for violating them. The NT insists that the same unchanging god described in the OT is now miraculously transformed into a god of love and mercy, and yet this God 2.0 has been used to sanction just as many violent interventions as God 1.0. This is hard for an atheist or indeed a believer in any other religion to take seriously. One tends to feel somewhat put upon when believers insist that their unsupported faith can square this circle, especially when the supposed god of love is still being used to justify hateful policies and ideologies.

Is God changing if it was all in His plan the whole time? Perhaps it had been tailored for how humanity worked at those times? The apparent difference in rules is clear in reason, Jesus paid the debt for our sins. And the behavior of believers has nothing to do with the actual content of the message.

[djellison]

I do believe in God and know he is good and gracious and loving, does not have an evil bone in his body, I leave that up to man to have through arrogance and narrow-mindedness.

Know?

How....EXACTLY.

Look as his words....the Bible. RAMMED full of evil. Rules that are frankly, sick with evil.

Don't ask me to behave in a coherent, restrained manor - then make such an outrageous claim as that. That, is hypocritical.

And the free will thing is a lie. 'Do what you want...but THESE ARE MY RULES AND IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW THEM YOU GO TO HELL'.

That's not free will.

That's blackmail.

I see people who believe in a God in the same way I see people who get conned via an email scam or door-to-door rip-off sales man. 'Oh dear, what a poor gullible person. What a pity they have no critical thinking skills'

[skunk]

The original sin of man brought death and suffering into the world.This is frankly a pretty vile and vacuous justification for millennia of death, disease, disfigurement, deformity, stillbirth, war, famine, epidemic and natural disasters. The alleged god you revere was allegedly responsible in person for many of these visitations.

Is God changing if it was all in His plan the whole time? Perhaps it had been tailored for how humanity worked at those times?At no time has putting people to death for wearing mixed cloth been a justifiable or fair policy. Buddha was around at much the same time as most of these barbaric regulations were first committed to paper, and he saw no contemporary imperative for such barbarity.
The apparent difference in rules is clear in reason, Jesus paid the debt for our sins.Jesus allegedly preached the difference before he paid the price, so how does that work?
And the behavior of believers has nothing to do with the actual content of the message.It certainly has some bearing on the quality of the interpretation of the dogma if it can so often be subverted.

[iJohnHenry]

God 1.0 .... God 2.0

Not just your average revisionist. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/highfive.gif

[jonbravo77]

Look as his words....the Bible. RAMMED full of evil. Rules that are frankly, sick with evil.

Well, Like I said, I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, it is man's interpretation of what God's "rules" should be to control the masses. And I do not agree with it.

Don't ask me to behave in a coherent, restrained manor - then make such an outrageous claim as that. That, is hypocritical.

No, what I ask is that you respect others beliefs as you would have them respect yours and not go around flaming their beliefs. If you don't want to understand God that's fine, you don't believe in God, that is fine. But just because you want to see what you want to see doesn't make you right and everyone else is wrong.

And the free will thing is a lie. 'Do what you want...but THESE ARE MY RULES AND IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW THEM YOU GO TO HELL'.

Again, I don't believe this. God gives you free-will, simple as that. Do what you want, it's your life...

[rhsgolfer33]

Know?

How....EXACTLY.

Look as his words....the Bible. RAMMED full of evil. Rules that are frankly, sick with evil.

Don't ask me to behave in a coherent, restrained manor - then make such an outrageous claim as that. That, is hypocritical.

And the free will thing is a lie. 'Do what you want...but THESE ARE MY RULES AND IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW THEM YOU GO TO HELL'.

That's not free will.

That's blackmail.

I see people who believe in a God in the same way I see people who get conned via an email scam or door-to-door rip-off sales man. 'Oh dear, what a poor gullible person. What a pity they have no critical thinking skills'

You do realize that Christians aren't obliged to follow the rules of which you speak in the Old Testament? You know, stoning your child if he misbehaves, etc.

People who believe in God do have free will. I can choose not to abide by those rules and still be a Christian can't I? Sounds like free will to me. In fact, I can actually not abide by those rules and still go to heaven if I'm truly repentful, hardly blackmail.

Don't worry, I see people with true hatred for and unacceptance of other peoples religious choices in a fine light too, whether they're atheists unaccepting of others choices to believe in religion or religious peoples unacceptance of atheists. If you can't get past the fact that a persons belives in God or doesn't, you're certainly missing out on some very meaningful interactions with some brilliant people.

I've got plenty of critical thinking skills and I'm a Christian. In fact, I believe in evolution and the scientific method, but I suppose that means since I also believe in God that invalidates all of my beliefs in science. To me they are completely separate realms. I can recognize the creation stories in the bible as what they are, ways for people to explain how earth was created before any major scientific techniques. I can believe in something faith based, but still learn new more complex things about the Earth and life through science. They don't have to be contradictory.

[ucfgrad93]

So this says something about Christianity ....

Just like some suicide bombers say something about Islam, right?:rolleyes:

Look, there are a lot of wingnuts out there. Some profess belief in a particular religion, some don't. However, they are not representative of the religion as a whole, regardless of which religion.

[Iscariot]

Just like some suicide bombers say something about Islam, right?

Some of them certainly do.

[Shotglass]

The 'revolution' has been stolen. Sound familiar??Not at all. This might make me look stupid, but I haven't the foggiest idea what on earth you are talking about. Or why this should be in any way relevant to this topic.

[skunk]

Not at all. This might make me look stupid, but I haven't the foggiest idea what on earth you are talking about. Or why this should be in any way relevant to this topic.This is quite a common reaction. Humour him. He's as old as the hills and as daft as a brush. :)

[Rt&Dzine]

Just like some suicide bombers say something about Islam, right?:rolleyes:

Look, there are a lot of wingnuts out there. Some profess belief in a particular religion, some don't. However, they are not representative of the religion as a whole, regardless of which religion.

You missed the point. Did you read the comment I was responding to?

[iJohnHenry]

This is quite a common reaction. Humour him. He's as old as the hills and as daft as a brush. :)

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/Heart-felt.gif I love you too.

I was referring to Karl Marx, and the Bolsheviks.

[chrmjenkins]

And the free will thing is a lie. 'Do what you want...but THESE ARE MY RULES AND IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW THEM YOU GO TO HELL'.

That's not free will.

That's blackmail.


This is a misunderstanding of the concept of salvation. The idea of salvation is that all your sins are forgiven if you believe Christ was put on this earth to atone for them. There's no rules to follow. Simply believe in God's grace.

This is frankly a pretty vile and vacuous justification for millennia of death, disease, disfigurement, deformity, stillbirth, war, famine, epidemic and natural disasters. The alleged god you revere was allegedly responsible in person for many of these visitations.

God made a perfect world for us. Man chose to destroy that world through disobedience. That perfect existence couldn't persist with sin in the world. The only other option would be to give man no free will, a concept that would apply to every single person and many people find abhorrent.


Jesus allegedly preached the difference before he paid the price, so how does that work?

He had foreknowledge of what would take place.


It certainly has some bearing on the quality of the interpretation of the dogma if it can so often be subverted.

There are some bad apples, but there's also a whole lot of virtuous people dedicated to the faith. Sadly, positions of power and influence bring out the worst in people.

[Burnsey]

If Jesus is the son of god, who's his mother? And how did god and she meet? Is she hot?

[skunk]

TGod made a perfect world for us. Man chose to destroy that world through disobedience.So, this allegedly perfect world lasted only a few days, until Eve fancied a bit of fruit, and then it all went to blazes? Not much of a plan, was it?

[djellison]

God made a perfect world for us. Man chose to destroy that world through disobedience.

Just one example - 229,000 people killed via the Indian Ocean Tsunami.

That wasn't man's doing. If God made this world - then he made that Tsunami.

Yet you worship him.

Is he exists, he's a mass murderer, and you worship him.

You can't just consign all the good things that happen to being Gods work, without attributing the bad thing as well. Sorry - that just doesn't work.

[colinmack]

Just one example - 229,000 people killed via the Indian Ocean Tsunami.

That wasn't man's doing. If God made this world - then he made that Tsunami.

Yet you worship him.

Is he exists, he's a mass murderer, and you worship him.

You can't just consign all the good things that happen to being Gods work, without attributing the bad thing as well. Sorry - that just doesn't work.

Many of faith would argue that there's a number of viewpoints/conclusions that could be reached long before 'mass murder' - that this is some form of judgment, or that these disasters may be exacerbated by things like global warming (the result of man being short-sighted and greedy stewards of the Earth), and so on.

Having said that, your lack of respect for other people's core beliefs continues to be somewhat stunning...a little tip, if you want to have an honest debate with others, it's normally better to avoid being blatantly insulting and disrespectful.

As was pointed out earlier, there are clearly zealots on any side of a topic, it's unfortunate that they tend to drown out the real discussion.

[skunk]

Many of faith would argue that there's a number of viewpoints/conclusions that could be reached long before 'mass murder' - that this is some form of judgment...Judgment for what? What were those 229,000 people guilty of? Or was it exemplary punishment, as outlawed by the Geneva Conventions? I know, I know, Jehovah wasn't a signatory - but he certainly can't claim the Nuremburg Defence, can he?

...or that these disasters may be exacerbated by things like global warming (the result of man being short-sighted and greedy stewards of the Earth), and so onBesides the entirely questionable linkage there, what about Krakatoa? Was that caused by Global Warming too?

Come on, what else you got?

[djellison]

Come on, what else you got?

Nothing. They have NOTHING. Just a book of fairy stories, and lack of critical thinking. It's like watching a poor old granny who's been ripped off by a con man.

[Jack Flash]

Judgment for what? What were those 229,000 people guilty of? Or was it exemplary punishment, as outlawed by the Geneva Conventions? I know, I know, Jehovah wasn't a signatory - but he certainly can't claim the Nuremburg Defence, can he?

Who needs guilt? If Christians believe God gave humans free will and that God created the tsunami was it not an exercise of human free will to live there? You can't have it one way and not the other.

[imac/cheese]

..Is he exists, he's a mass murderer, and you worship him...

If he exists, the soul is eternal. If the soul is eternal, murder is relegated to a human action and not a divine one.

[skunk]

Who needs guilt? If Christians believe God gave humans free will and that God created the tsunami was it not an exercise of human free will to live there? You can't have it one way and not the other.That is possibly the most ludicrous argument in this thread, and it's up against some pretty stiff competition, notably the one above this, since the concept of an eternal soul is not even part of biblical teaching.

[arkitect]

Who needs guilt? If Christians believe God gave humans free will and that God created the tsunami was it not an exercise of human free will to live there? You can't have it one way and not the other.

That is insane.

At first I thought you were joking… then I realised, no.

Wow.

[edesignuk]

If he exists, the soul is eternal. If the soul is eternal, murder is relegated to a human action and not a divine one.Well, thank goodness for that.

[Jack Flash]

That is possibly the most ludicrous argument in this thread, and it's up against some pretty stiff competition, notably the one above this, since the concept of an eternal soul is not even part of biblical teaching.

Ludicrous why? If there is a notion in Christianity that humans live a life free of predestination from an omnipotent God how can you assign blame to that religion when what is essentially bad luck occurs?

That is insane.

At first I thought you were joking… then I realised, no.

Wow.

Why is it insane?

[iBlue]

Why is it insane?

Because you proclaim that you can't have it both ways right after telling everyone that you thought all those people had it coming living where they did when that loving god of yours sent that big ass tsunami crashing through. I think this is a pretty pathetic logic fail.

[Jack Flash]

Because you proclaim that you can't have it both ways right after telling everyone that you thought all those people had it coming living where they did when that loving god of yours sent that big ass tsunami crashing through. I think this is a pretty pathetic logic fail.

No, my claim would be that if Christianity proclaims free will there is implied accountability to those granted the reigns.

If God makes a cliff and you drive a car of the cliff is it God's fault or your fault?

You can't 'have it both ways' by having free will and simultaneously having a God responsible for ensuring a favorable outcome. Nothing insane about that reasoning.

[iBlue]

Reasoning? Don't make me laugh. What I find insane is belief in god, period. I don't have it both ways. If there were a god in the way "he" is explained throughout christianity, I think he's an illogical, insecure, needy and sadistic prick. I think even if someone could provide proof, I'd still want no part of his BS.

[Jack Flash]

Reasoning? Don't make me laugh. What I find insane is belief in god, period. I don't have it both ways. If there were a god in the way "he" is explained throughout christianity, I think he's an illogical, insecure, needy and sadistic prick. I think even if someone could provide proof, I'd still want no part of his BS.

So what you're admitting is that you have real no response to my argument.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

So what you're admitting is that you have real no response to my argument.
Most people don't have free will about where they live... how was that tsunami avoidable?

That was a ridiculous question and definitely did not merit an answer.

[iBlue]

So what you're admitting is that you have real no response to my argument.

What argument?

I don't believe in god. If I jump off a cliff, that's my own fault. If a tsunami wipes out a bunch of land and people I think that's rotten luck and such is life on this planet.
Maybe I can't respond to your argument because our points of view are entirely too different.

[Jack Flash]

What argument?

I don't believe in god. If I jump off a cliff, that's my own fault. If a tsunami wipes out a hoard of land and people I think that's rotten luck and such life on this planet.
Maybe I can't respond to your argument because our points of view are entirely too different.

You can't respond because you essentially agree. (Also, who said I was Christian?)

Christianly believes in a God who granted free will to humans. As such, God certainly couldn't be held accountable for either the success or failings of humanity.

[iBlue]

^ I would not say "agree".

However, I think the statement: "God certainly couldn't be held accountable for either the success or failings of humanity." is true.

[iJohnHenry]

Godly Turpitude. The Devil, you say. :eek:

[jav6454]

I am not going to argue in this type of thread, it may heat up a bit or maybe its already burning:D;)

In any case, this quote made me laugh for a good amount of time...

If Jesus is the son of god, who's his mother? And how did god and she meet? Is she hot?

I needed a moment of humor.:cool::p

[djellison]

God certainly couldn't be held accountable for either the success or failings of humanity.

If one believes in a God as a divine creator - then does this statement not reduce all human endeavor essentially to the status of Gods petri dish...a pointless little experiment? It reduces his 'flock' to basically, play things.

And, a Tsunami has nothing to do with success of failure ont he part of humanity. It is a natural disaster - a disaster caused not by man, but by nature. If, again, one believes in a God as a divine creator, then that natural disaster happened on his watch at his behest.

One can not cite 'miracles' such as a child delivered from a women who was told she had no chance of getting pregnant, without citing anti-miracles, such as the death of a quarter of a million people by natural disaster.

Religion is about picking and choosing a route that misses the facts, evidence and logic. Thank 'God' for everything good, but not call him out on anything bad. Seems like a fairly crap deal.

[arkitect]

Godly Turpitude. The Devil, you say. :eek:

You do realise that some of your posts seem a lot like crossword puzzle clues?
So, was that 12 down again? (9)

;)

[colinmack]

...because our points of view are entirely too different.

Now *that* is probably the most reasonable thing said on this topic recently.

Acknowledging that people are too far apart to come to any consensus is certainly a far cry better than belittling someone else's core beliefs, and resorting to insults when they don't agree with your point of view ;)

[sammich]

Believe in God, go to heaven.
Don't believe in God, go to hell, where you suffer forever.

Good enough incentive.

[iBlue]

If you open your mind too much (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w).

And if anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single spiritual or religious person who has been able to prove either logically or empirically the existence of a higher power that has any consciousness or interest in the human race or ability to punish or reward humans for there moral choices or that there is any reason - other than fear - to believe in any version of an afterlife

I will give you my piano
One of my legs
And my wife

It just needed to be in this thread.

[yg17]

Believe in God, go to heaven.
Don't believe in God, go to hell, where you suffer forever.

Good enough incentive.


Or, you can use common sense and logic to come to the conclusion that heaven and hell don't exist and not waste your time believing in an invisible man in the sky.

[sammich]

Or, you can use common sense and logic to come to the conclusion that heaven and hell don't exist and not waste your time believing in an invisible man in the sky.

So you're going to beat it into me?

It appears Christians are under-represented here. Logic tells you that everything you can see exists, and everything you can explain exists. Sounds like a fulfilling life.

[brad.c]

Believe in God, go to heaven.
Don't believe in God, go to hell, where you suffer forever.

Good enough incentive.

It appears Christians are under-represented here.

It also appears that trolling is a multi-faith activity.

[iBlue]

Logic tells you that everything you can see exists, and everything you can explain exists. Sounds like a fulfilling life.

It is.

I don't understand why the god phenomenon sweetens the deal with life. I find the concept of nature evolving and changing over time simply incredible. Watch Planet Earth or any such fact-based nature programme and tell me that it isn't still awesome even though David Attenbrorough isn't crediting god for all of it.

[djellison]

Believe in God, go to heaven.
Don't believe in God, go to hell, where you suffer forever.
Good enough incentive.

Incentive? I thought an incentive was 'go and clean your room and you can stay up late to watch that movie on TV'. not 'go and clean your room, if you don't, I'll kill you'.

How about me. I can't 'believe' in something for which I see no evidence, justice, reasoning. If your God 'exits' - then that's how he made me. Skeptical. If this God exists, then he's just saying "Ahh - screw that one, let him go to hell". That's not very friendly is it. If I've got this moral manager who's judging me and, once I die, will be comparing my performance to some job description, it'd be nice if he popped down and discussed terms, or at least gave me a copy of the contract I could have a look through.

Sounds like a fulfilling life.

How can a made up god help in that regard? If you need this moral crutch to consider your life fulfilling, then you've got big issues. My life is pretty much awesome right now - no God, no Jesus, no Religion.

[colinmack]

My life is pretty much awesome right now

Sounds like we're all good then...we're not going to agree, but at least we're happy.

[sammich]

Ah ok. Look, I'm not equipped to partake in this argument because I'm kinda agnostic myself. But it's interesting to see the kind of response that comes out of my poorly written response.

Interesting in the fact that it's been said over and over again to bash it into people's minds that Christianity is just a self-contradicting, illogical, mad-man's belief.

Tell me, what was the point of this thread? I thought we were arguing against the religion, Christianity, as opposed to the people who make posts that are suggestive of their beliefs?

I'll be keeping my mind open, but not to this thread.

[That-Is-Bull]

Believe in God, go to heaven.
Don't believe in God, go to hell, where you suffer forever.

Good enough incentive.

Don't believe in God, go to heaven.
Believe in God, go to hell, where you will suffer forever.

My post has just as much supporting evidence as yours does. Which are you going to believe? There's an equal chance of both being true, so I'm choosing the option where I don't have to do anything.

[floyde]

Damn, I've been way too busy to post here unfortunately. chrmjenkins I still owe you a reply. For now I'll just let Jesus and Mo illustrate one of the biggest absurdities of Christian theology:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2009-04-24.jpg

Link (http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/04/24/thor/)

[iJon]

Believe in God, go to heaven.
Don't believe in God, go to hell, where you suffer forever.

Good enough incentive.

Oh man, good' ol' Pascal's wager. Haven't heard that one before.

Believe in a God cause you're scared. I feel for you.

jon

[chrmjenkins]

Damn, I've been way too busy to post here unfortunately. chrmjenkins I still owe you a reply. For now I'll just let Jesus and Mo illustrate one of the biggest absurdities of Christian theology:

*Image snip*

People have children knowing full well they'll make them angry frequently for a long time. That doesn't stop us from doing it. Why? Because it's fulfilling, and maternal/paternal love is one of the strongest and most pleasing forces in our world.

[floyde]

People have children knowing full well they'll make them angry frequently for a long time. That doesn't stop us from doing it. Why? Because it's fulfilling, and maternal/paternal love is one of the strongest and most pleasing forces in our world.

I think the central point is that the allegedly perfect God messed up creation. He did make us with an incredibly high tendency to disobey his rules. He is responsible for our disobedience since he is the one who made us flawed. That seems pretty inept IMHO.

I simply don't think there's room for a "fallen creation" in the works of a perfect God.

[chrmjenkins]

I think the central point is that the allegedly perfect God messed up creation. He did make us with an incredibly high tendency to disobey his rules. He is responsible for our disobedience since he is the one who made us flawed. That seems pretty inept IMHO.

I simply don't think there's room for a "fallen creation" in the works of a perfect God.

He made us with a free will, which includes the will to disobey Him. The alternative is that He creates us without a free will and our perfect world persists (is that what anyone wants, given the choice?). Is it possible to have a will of your own but never disobey the rules and commands given to you?

[Cromulent]

He made us with a free will, which includes the will to disobey Him. The alternative is that He creates us without a free will and our perfect world persists (is that what anyone wants, given the choice?). Is it possible to have a will of your own but never disobey the rules and commands given to you?

a) our world is about as far from perfect as you can get.
b) if God gave us free will and also created us in his image (and by that I am assuming mental image rather than physical) then one would assume humans would naturally follow his will regardless of whether it was a result of their own free will or not. After all we are all Gods children and as such are closely related to his way of thinking.

[floyde]

He made us with a free will, which includes the will to disobey Him. The alternative is that He creates us without a free will and our perfect world persists (is that what anyone wants, given the choice?). Is it possible to have a will of your own but never disobey the rules and commands given to you?

It is possible for an omnipotent being to create another being which is both righteous and autonomous. That is, a being with a tendency to do good who can operate freely within the realm of good actions. And yes, if that is what it takes to end the violence, the wars, the famines, the torture, the diseases, the crippling accidents, the genocide and the hatred, that's what I would want, given the choice.

Now, if this omnipotent being doesn't think that this kind of lesser being is free enough, and wants to give it freedom to do bad things also, and chooses to equip this being very poorly to resist its evil desires (which God himself infused in the being), then the least that God can do is not whine about disobedience.

In other words, it is His effed-up design. What did he expect would happen with such mediocre work? Is free will that important? Could he not have made us blissful slaves? Perhaps add something to our brains that would make us feel a nice freedom-like sensation whenever we followed his commands.

There are endless possibilities when you are omnipotent. The Christian God chose human suffering in this life and eternal torment in the afterlife for those who reminded Him of His incompetence. We're truly fortunate that He doesn't exist.

Anyway, think about this:

Some dude: God, am I allowed to disbelieve you?
God: Sure you can, you are free to do so. You'll spend eternity in hell if you do that, though...

Now I ask you, is that free will? Seems like a bad joke IMHO.

[jonbravo77]

Just one example - 229,000 people killed via the Indian Ocean Tsunami.

That wasn't man's doing. If God made this world - then he made that Tsunami.

Yet you worship him.

Is he exists, he's a mass murderer, and you worship him.

You can't just consign all the good things that happen to being Gods work, without attributing the bad thing as well. Sorry - that just doesn't work.

So I guess it never occurred to you that Tsunami's have been happening well before man ever existed in those regions and that man moved themselves into areas effected most by natural disasters. Sounds like natural selection to me.

Yes, yes... By all means be just like the hypocritical religious types that praise God when something goes right and then condemn God when something goes wrong. You're arguments are weak, you don't want to debate you just want to point fingers and name call. You have your beliefs which we are all aware of now, time to come up with a fresh approach.

[djellison]

You have your beliefs .

Which are?

People praise God for making the world. They fail to condemn him for destroying little pieces of it.

That's an untenable position.

[jonbravo77]

Originally Posted by jonbravo77
You have your beliefs .


Which are?

People praise God for making the world. They fail to condemn him for destroying little pieces of it.

That's an untenable position.

So now you want me to tell you what you believe in? Now you are just grasping at straws. If you don't know what you believe maybe you should refrain from making grandiose accusations.

I'm done trying to explain to you what God is about. If you insist on continuing your condemnation of God then that is your free will to do so.

[chrmjenkins]

It is possible for an omnipotent being to create another being which is both righteous and autonomous. That is, a being with a tendency to do good who can operate freely within the realm of good actions. And yes, if that is what it takes to end the violence, the wars, the famines, the torture, the diseases, the crippling accidents, the genocide and the hatred, that's what I would want, given the choice.

It can't be a tendency. It has to be an unwavering pattern.


Now, if this omnipotent being doesn't think that this kind of lesser being is free enough, and wants to give it freedom to do bad things also, and chooses to equip this being very poorly to resist its evil desires (which God himself infused in the being), then the least that God can do is not whine about disobedience.

If you aren't free to disobey, then you aren't free.


Some dude: God, am I allowed to disbelieve you?
God: Sure you can, you are free to do so. You'll spend eternity in hell if you do that, though...

Now I ask you, is that free will? Seems like a bad joke IMHO.

There's a difference between disbelieving and not believing in. For instance, right now, I disbelieve you, but I believe you exist.

[djellison]

So now you want me to tell you what you believe in?

Nothing. That's the point. I don't believe in Santa, Fairies, Ghosts, or God.

You can't call me a hypocrite for calling out God on bad stuff without praising him for good. Because he doesn't exist. I'm not saying "God caused the Tsunami, therefore he is bad"

I'm saying IF you believe in a God (which I don't) - then surely, one must, in counterpoint to giving praise for creating the earth, give criticism and question this god for destroying little bits of it, and the people unfortunate enough to be living on them at that time.

I don't believe in God. So I don't believe the world was made by a God. Thus I don't have to thank said God for creating it, nor blame him for destroying it.

But if you DO believe in a God, it's an untenable stance to praise him only for the natural good in the world, without questioning the mass slaughter of innocent people. Either he's conducting this show, or he isn't. If he isn't - stop giving credit for things he's not done. If he is - then it's about time you asked him to justify his mass slaughter of innocent people.

There isn't a single part of this planet that will not, at some point in the future, be rendered utterly uninhabitable. Be it flood (some bits of it) earthquake (more of it) tsunami (even more of it) small asteroid impact (big chunks of it) larger asteroid or comet impacts (all of it) or the eventual self destruction of the sun (rendering most, if not all of the solar system uninhabitable)

This world WILL be rendered uninhabitable eventually. How - exactly, is that natural selection? There's no selection in the asteroid impacts. It's totally and utterly random. One could land right in the middle of the Vatican just as likely as landing on the Amazing Meeting Sceptical convention. What, exactly, was this supposed God thinking in creating a world that WILL end. Was he simply being ironic? Which bit of it do you suggest people live in to avoid being killed, at random, by asteroid impact?

I'm asking fairly simple, fundamental questions that no one has given an answer to. If that's you 'done' trying to explain God - you've not done a very good job - there can not be much, if any, case to be made for his existence if you just throw your hands up and mock offence because I call out the obvious logical fallacies in the existence of some divine creator that only 1/3rd of the world believes in.

[anjinha]

You can't respond because you essentially agree. (Also, who said I was Christian?)

Christianly believes in a God who granted free will to humans. As such, God certainly couldn't be held accountable for either the success or failings of humanity.

So, if God made the Earth explode it would be our choice to die because we didn't build a space ship and moved everyone to Mars?

Yeah, it sounds like a crazy analogy but most people who died in the Tsunami had as much choice about where they lived as we have about living on Earth.

[floyde]

It can't be a tendency. It has to be an unwavering pattern.


Whatever it is, it's God creation. He made us either good followers or bad followers. It is His responsibility if we choose not to follow. A being can't be expected to be righteous if it wasn't created with the ability and the desire to do so.

Edit: I think I misunderstood. Here's the actual response:

Imagine this: A being who is free to go where he pleases, earn a living in whichever way he chooses, marry whoever he loves, have preferences in tastes, colors, etc. but, isn't capable of causing harm to others because he doesn't have the ability to get pleasure out of it or to come up with such actions.

Is that really so bad? Wouldn't it be better than what we have now?


If you aren't free to disobey, then you aren't free.


Who cares. There's a billion ways in which God could've made up for that lack of freedom. If freedom is to blame for the state the world is in right now, then freedom might not be such a good thing after all. Besides, freedom is only a good thing because we feel pleasure when we are free. Couldn't the omnipotent God make us feel the same way about unquestioning obedience?


There's a difference between disbelieving and not believing in. For instance, right now, I disbelieve you, but I believe you exist.

If your choices can get you an eternity of torment, then you aren't free either. It's akin to going through life with a gun pointed at your head. You can go wherever you please, but make Mr. gunpointer mad and you're dead.

Either way, isn't being a slave to God's will the right and desirable thing to do? We're supposed to follow His rules even if we desire to do something else. What value does freedom have then? (In your theology, that is)

[jonbravo77]

Nothing. That's the point. I don't believe in Santa, Fairies, Ghosts, or God.

You can't call me a hypocrite for calling out God on bad stuff without praising him for good. Because he doesn't exist. I'm not saying "God caused the Tsunami, therefore he is bad"

I'm saying IF you believe in a God (which I don't) - then surely, one must, in counterpoint to giving praise for creating the earth, give criticism and question this god for destroying little bits of it, and the people unfortunate enough to be living on them at that time.

I don't believe in God. So I don't believe the world was made by a God. Thus I don't have to thank said God for creating it, nor blame him for destroying it.

But if you DO believe in a God, it's an untenable stance to praise him only for the natural good in the world, without questioning the mass slaughter of innocent people. Either he's conducting this show, or he isn't. If he isn't - stop giving credit for things he's not done. If he is - then it's about time you asked him to justify his mass slaughter of innocent people.

There isn't a single part of this planet that will not, at some point in the future, be rendered utterly uninhabitable. Be it flood (some bits of it) earthquake (more of it) tsunami (even more of it) small asteroid impact (big chunks of it) larger asteroid or comet impacts (all of it) or the eventual self destruction of the sun (rendering most, if not all of the solar system uninhabitable)

This world WILL be rendered uninhabitable eventually. How - exactly, is that natural selection? There's no selection in the asteroid impacts. It's totally and utterly random. One could land right in the middle of the Vatican just as likely as landing on the Amazing Meeting Sceptical convention. What, exactly, was this supposed God thinking in creating a world that WILL end. Was he simply being ironic? Which bit of it do you suggest people live in to avoid being killed, at random, by asteroid impact?

I'm asking fairly simple, fundamental questions that no one has given an answer to. If that's you 'done' trying to explain God - you've not done a very good job - there can not be much, if any, case to be made for his existence if you just throw your hands up and mock offence because I call out the obvious logical fallacies in the existence of some divine creator that only 1/3rd of the world believes in.

But that's just it. No where in this thread have I seen you question anything. You have done nothing but condemn something which you do not believe in and basically condemn the people that believe in it. I cannot prove something which you have in your heart and mind set to not believe. Not my job in this world to convert you.

It's easy to condemn, but it's hard to understand. You have good therefore you have evil, Eastern philosophy calls it the Yin and the Yang, it's the balance to everything. God created free-will, God can only point man in the right direction so much it is ultimately up to man to decide what is right for himself. If man decides to gun down a group of people is that God's will for him to do so, no, man decided to execute his free-will to do it. And you did say God is bad for causing Tsunami's by saying that God murdered 229,000 people in that Tsunami. God is not causing the destruction of the earth, man is by altering the environment. Due to our own arrogance we have deemed this planet ours to do what we want to it without regards to the other creations that are also on this world.

But if you want to blame God for all that has gone wrong, then that is your free-will to do so. And I am not going to judge you, not my job in life. But if you are truly trying to ask questions and figure this out please stop referring to God as a murderer or any other negativity that you can place on God.

[skunk]

God certainly couldn't be held accountable for either the success or failings of humanity.Living in the path of a tsunami which is part of the "creation" of this "god" is not a failing of humanity, it is a monumental failure of design, if design it was.

[anjinha]

Believe in God, go to heaven.
Don't believe in God, go to hell, where you suffer forever.

Good enough incentive.

What if your worshiping the wrong god? What if (christian) god doesn't exist and the real god sends you to hell for not believing in him?

[ZiggyPastorius]

But if you want to blame God for all that has gone wrong, then that is your free-will to do so. And I am not going to judge you, not my job in life. But if you are truly trying to ask questions and figure this out please stop referring to God as a murderer or any other negativity that you can place on God.

I wonder if he repeats himself again, if you'll understand what he actually said instead of what you wanted to hear...

[skunk]

If freedom is to blame for the state the world is in right now, then freedom might not be such a good thing after all.Oh, but it is. We are free to work our way past this archaic idea of a divinely ordained creation and take wing into a self-created future these "gods" could never have dreamed of.

[jonbravo77]

I wonder if he repeats himself again, if you'll understand what he actually said instead of what you wanted to hear...

I hear what he says, he doesn't believe in God. But he is trying to make his argument that a God he doesn't believe in is a murderer and trying to convince everyone else through his arguments of what he believes is fact. Again, it's easy to condemn than to understand.

[michael.lauden]

What if your worshiping the wrong god? What if (christian) god doesn't exist and the real god sends you to hell for not believing in him?

what if what if what if

and your is possessive. the word you were looking for is you're (you are)


if you've talked to God you know he's there, some things are too strange to just be coincidences. the numbers add up too well. i may have a tainted view as a guitarist in a worship band.. but say for a second that none of it is real

are you really doing anything bad by 'doing the right thing' all the time, or helping people in need?


i'm not going to try to convince anyone but i will say if you get involved in your church reguardless if you believe or not - you will do some amazing things.

i built a house for a family in Juarez, i fed the homeless, i prayed with the homeless, i was extremely involved with children who had down syndrome and autism, i helped the old take communion at a retirement center, i hung out with underprivelaged kids, i went to the hospitals, the centers. i brought people thanksgiving dinners.

i dont care who you are and what you believe in but if you don't want to do things like that sometime in your life something is wrong with you

[ZiggyPastorius]

I hear what he says, he doesn't believe in God. But he is trying to make his argument that a God he doesn't believe in is a murderer and trying to convince everyone else through his arguments of what he believes is fact. Again, it's easy to condemn than to understand.

I'm pretty sure he said that if you do believe in God and praise him, you should also not ignore the horrible things that happen in life. Not that the God he doesn't believe in is a murderer.


if you get involved in your church reguardless if you believe or not - you will do some amazing things.

I'm more than capable of doing good things, helping people, et cetera, without God or the church.

[skunk]

But that's just it. No where in this thread have I seen you question anything. You have done nothing but condemn something which you do not believe in and basically condemn the people that believe in it. I cannot prove something which you have in your heart and mind set to not believe. Not my job in this world to convert you. He has asked many questions, most recently in the post to which you are apparently replying. You appear to have no answers. You cannot prove the existence of your "god", period, or any "god" for that matter: his credulity has nothing to do with it. Nobody wants to be converted, whether you see it as your "job" or not, but it would be interesting to have an occasional stab at answering the points raised.

And you did say God is bad for causing Tsunami's by saying that God murdered 229,000 people in that Tsunami. God is not causing the destruction of the earth, man is by altering the environment. Due to our own arrogance we have deemed this planet ours to do what we want to it without regards to the other creations that are also on this world. This is a staggeringly blithe and intelligence-insulting response to the question. Anthropogenic global warming cannot be given as the cause of any of the myriad disasters which have happened before this century, as should be blindingly obvious. Or are you claiming that this tsunami was man's fault but the one caused by the eruption of Krakatoa was down to something else?.

But if you want to blame God for all that has gone wrong, then that is your free-will to do so.A truly pathetic reply. Must try harder. You continue to ascribe anything good to "god" - your "god", of course, not anyone else's - but ascribe anything bad to a different cause. According to your church's dogma, this alleged "god" created everything, good and bad.

And still nobody has answered my question about the creation of angels (and Satan, for that matter). When were they created, and why did "god" forget to mention this tiny detail in the course of his extensive dictaphone sessions?

[djellison]

I hear what he says, he doesn't believe in God. But he is trying to make his argument that a God he doesn't believe in is a murderer and trying to convince everyone else through his arguments of what he believes is fact. Again, it's easy to condemn than to understand.

No - I'm ASKING - if you believe in this God - why?

And don't give me the 'man altering the planet' nonsense. Man has NOTHING to do with Volcanic activity, NOTHING to do with Earthquakes, NOTHING to do with Asteroid or Comet impacts. And yet those have killed thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people.

I am not blaming God for the bad things in the world. I don't believe in a God. No such thing exists. I'm asking those that DO believe in him - why DON'T they blame him for the bad in the world.

You seem to find it easier to condemn me, than understand what I'm asking.

Let me try it again :
How can someone believe in a God that created this world, without asking why he's destroying it?
How can someone thank God for creating him, yet forget to ask him why he gave them an appendix, or a life shortening genetic disorder, or made them ugly.

[djellison]

why did "god" forget to mention this tiny detail in the course of his extensive dictaphone sessions?

Maybe his dictaphone broke - like my appendix did on Dec 26th, 1986.

:cool:

[skunk]

and your is possessive. the word you were looking for is you're (you are)When you can speak Portuguese as well as anjinhamarota can speak English, then you can make petty comments about her use of language. Until that time, stick to the point. Oh, and learn to capitalise and spell correctly, if you can.

What makes you assume that without membership of a church one cannot help others?

[anjinha]

what if what if what if

and your is possessive. the word you were looking for is you're (you are)


English is not my first language.

When you can talk Portuguese as well as Anjimhamarota can speak English, then you can make petty comments about her use of language. Until that time, stick to the point. Oh, and learn to capitalise, if you can.

Awwww, thanks. :o

[michael.lauden]

I'm more than capable of doing good things, helping people, et cetera, without God or the church.

good... then do it? i was just saying they are a medium to get involved with things like trips to mexico - i don't really see too many of them listed on the community bulliten

[Jack Flash]

He has asked many questions, most recently in the post to which you are apparently replying. You appear to have no answers. You cannot prove the existence of your "god", period, or any "god" for that matter: his credulity has nothing to do with it. Nobody wants to be converted, whether you see it as your "job" or not, but it would be interesting to have an occasional stab at answering the points raised.

You cannot disprove the existence of a deity, period. That doesn't seem to stop you from holding your opinion as fact.

I said it much earlier in this thread. Theism and atheism are personal decisions and should be left as such. No side can convince the other because at this time there exists no explanation for the missing pieces of logical puzzle.

It's either:

There must be a deity because there's no explanation for matter, life, etc without one.

or

There isn't a deity because there's no evidence or explanation to prove the existence of one.

Pick your side, bitch at the other.

Goodbye thread.

[chrmjenkins]

Edit: I think I misunderstood. Here's the actual response:

Imagine this: A being who is free to go where he pleases, earn a living in whichever way he chooses, marry whoever he loves, have preferences in tastes, colors, etc. but, isn't capable of causing harm to others because he doesn't have the ability to get pleasure out of it or to come up with such actions.

Is that really so bad? Wouldn't it be better than what we have now?

If we're going off the Biblical definition of sin, that description isn't enough (not to mention the contradictions that would arise when one's free will infringes upon another's).


If your choices can get you an eternity of torment, then you aren't free either. It's akin to going through life with a gun pointed at your head. You can go wherever you please, but make Mr. gunpointer mad and you're dead.

There's no choices. One choice. Either believe in God or don't. To be without God is hell. No fire and brimstone needed.



Either way, isn't being a slave to God's will the right and desirable thing to do? We're supposed to follow His rules even if we desire to do something else. What value does freedom have then? (In your theology, that is)

We're not slaves to His will. We follow it when we choose. That's why we have to be repentant. That doesn't mean I can't choose between being a teacher or a dentist. I can live try to live righteously either way.

[anjinha]

are you really doing anything bad by 'doing the right thing' all the time, or helping people in need?


Just because I'm not a Christian and don't believe in God doesn't mean I don't help people. Last time I checked good deeds weren't exclusive to those who believed in God.

[djellison]

It's either:

There must be a deity because there's no explanation for matter, life, etc without one..

Is that why people believe in a God?

There are fairly good explanations for most natural phenomenon, and for some of the big picture questions (like why is there something rather than nothing, what started the big bang etc etc ) - what, exactly, is wrong with 'Don't know'.

[djellison]

like trips to mexico

That would be a really really stupid thing to do right now.

[imac/cheese]

...This world WILL be rendered uninhabitable eventually. How - exactly, is that natural selection? There's no selection in the asteroid impacts. It's totally and utterly random. One could land right in the middle of the Vatican just as likely as landing on the Amazing Meeting Sceptical convention. What, exactly, was this supposed God thinking in creating a world that WILL end. Was he simply being ironic? Which bit of it do you suggest people live in to avoid being killed, at random, by asteroid impact?...

How do you know the world will eventually be rendered uninhabitable? You are assuming there is no God when you make that statement and then try to use that statement as argument against God existing. If God does exist, there is no certainity that the world will be destroyed by an asteroid. He could very easily protect this world forever, or at least until He decides to recreate it.

[Jack Flash]

Is that why people believe in a God?

There are fairly good explanations for most natural phenomenon, and for some of the big picture questions (like why is there something rather than nothing, what started the big bang etc etc ) - what, exactly, is wrong with 'Don't know'.

Thought you had ignored me. But, I will live up to my promise of leaving this thread and let you decide and believe what you will. Yes DJ, believe. ;)

[skunk]

You cannot disprove the existence of a deity, period. You cannot disprove the existence of anything. That is entirely irrelevant.

No side can convince the other because at this time there exists no explanation for the missing pieces of logical puzzle.

It's either:

There must be a deity because there's no explanation for matter, life, etc without one.

or

There isn't a deity because there's no evidence or explanation to prove the existence of one.

Pick your side, bitch at the other.No, it's either "There must be a deity, my deity, not yours, because somebody said so in a book" or "There is absolutely no reason to suppose that that there is a deity of any kind, and we will in all likelihood be perfectly capable of discovering the processes which led to this point of our existence in due course".

[michael.lauden]

That would be a really really stupid thing to do right now.

i was stating it as an example. and right now might not be the best time to go - plus you would be unable as most of the organizations there have pulled out.

the war there has been held off for atleast the last 4 or 5 years.

next year you could go for relief though :)




sory about the Portuguese thing btw!


and to anjinhamarota..

who said that you aren't doing good things if you aren't christian. some people try to twist your words.

SORRY i believe in God - and i guess you don't.. don't hate me for it


and

[Eanair]

i'm not going to try to convince anyone but i will say if you get involved in your church reguardless if you believe or not - you will do some amazing things.

i built a house for a family in Juarez, i fed the homeless, i prayed with the homeless, i was extremely involved with children who had down syndrome and autism, i helped the old take communion at a retirement center, i hung out with underprivelaged kids, i went to the hospitals, the centers. i brought people thanksgiving dinners.



And folks are don't believe in a higher power (or get involved in a church) can't do amazing things? This seems to be what you are intimating here.

I've done similar volunteering, and I most certainly didn't need to attend a church to do so.

[chrmjenkins]

Is that why people believe in a God?

There are fairly good explanations for most natural phenomenon, and for some of the big picture questions (like why is there something rather than nothing, what started the big bang etc etc ) - what, exactly, is wrong with 'Don't know'.

Scientists are starting to get more skeptical about the big bang theory. The problem of origins is a common problem, both for physics and biology. There's lots of big questions we have yet to wrap our heads around. That doesn't mean we'll never find answers, but it also means it's a lot harder to discredit the idea of God.

[anjinha]

who said that you aren't doing good things if you aren't christian. some people try to twist your words.


Well...

i dont care who you are and what you believe in but if you don't want to do things like that sometime in your life something is wrong with you

Again, just because I'm not christian doesn't mean I don't/I can't do things like that.

[djellison]

How do you know the world will eventually be rendered uninhabitable? .

Unless you are a young-earth creationist (in which case, we're wasting our time debating this......)

It's been rendered near inhabitable on several occasions - the great mass extinction's in geological history demonstrate that quite well. 99% of all species that have ever existed....are extinct.

It's a matter of when, not if, another large asteroid of comet impact will hit the Earth. Depending on it's size, such an event might wipe out New York, All of China, or render the entire planet into a dark, lifeless world. The Tunguska event, for example, just last century, would have wiped out an entire city. It is pure chance that it landed in Siberia, rather than Sacramento.

Ignoring the medium term ( the next few million years) - the long term outlook for the Earth is terminal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle is a good starting point. Other options were brilliantly covered in a recent book by Dr Phil Plait called 'Death from the Skies'. The various means the world will end are covered, most are unlikely but the death of the sun, ultimately, will mean the death of this planet as well - and the death of the Sun is as certain as the death of you or I.

[Jack Flash]

You cannot disprove the existence of anything. That is entirely irrelevant.

I came back just for you. If it's not a valid argument in the defense of theism why is it valid against theism? Because you want to be right. That's how you work. I have to say that I originally admired your posting style until I came to realize how you're just another expert deflector.

Cheers, skunk.

[djellison]

There's lots of big questions we have yet to wrap our heads around. That doesn't mean we'll never find answers, but it also means it's a lot harder to discredit the idea of God.

I'm yet to see anything that 'credits' the idea of God. We have to start with that before having anything to discredit.

Why is an appropriate response to gaps in our understanding not 'Don't Know' rather than 'God'?

[skunk]

That doesn't mean we'll never find answers, but it also means it's a lot harder to discredit the idea of God.No, it has nothing whatever to do with it. Every single primitive people had their own creation myth, every one of them with a god or gods included. There is zero (0) reason to believe one version in preference to another: they are all fantastical imaginings in the absence of rational explanation. As our rational explanations expand to fill the gaps in our understanding, the idea of a creator becomes increasingly redundant, besides not providing any convincing answer as to which creator might be the true one.

[floyde]

If we're going off the Biblical definition of sin, that description isn't enough (not to mention the contradictions that would arise when one's free will infringes upon another's).


Well perhaps, but my failure to describe the workings of such a being doesn't mean it isn't possible. I'm sure it'd be a piece of cake for an omnipotent deity. For now just add some deterrent to prevent the being from infringing upon another's free will. Like a stomach ache or something. ;)

There's no choices. One choice. Either believe in God or don't. To be without God is hell. No fire and brimstone needed.


Whoever thought of that scored a 10 on their marketing techniques. What better way to persuade than to instill fear.

In reality though, being without God is pretty neat. I actually value my life and that of others a lot more and can experience true freedom, without having to feel guilty for enjoying my life.

We're not slaves to His will. We follow it when we choose. That's why we have to be repentant. That doesn't mean I can't choose between being a teacher or a dentist. I can live try to live righteously either way.

Ok, tell me if I'm wrong then. According to your theology:

- The more you follow God's will, the better you are.
- Every human has at least some desires that are contrary to God's will.

So can we conclude then, that God rewards those who relinquish their free will and follow rules that are often contrary to their own desires?

Why would a Christian value freedom if their ultimate goal seems to be to follow the will of this God? What purpose would freedom serve if it is not to be used?

Why would God want to make you want to do things that are contrary to his will and then blame you for it?

[chrmjenkins]

I'm yet to see anything that 'credits' the idea of God. We have to start with that before having anything to discredit.

Why is an appropriate response to gaps in our understanding not 'Don't Know' rather than 'God'?

I never said it was. It was simply an argument from the negative. Besides, don't know and God aren't mutually exclusive explanations.

No, it has nothing whatever to do with it. Every single primitive people had their own creation myth, every one of them with a god or gods included. There is zero (0) reason to believe one version in preference to another: they are all fantastical imaginings in the absence of rational explanation. As our rational explanations expand to fill the gaps in our understanding, the idea of a creator becomes increasingly redundant, besides not providing any convincing answer as to which creator might be the true one.

Fine, don't place preference on any version. Think of it in simple terms. Divine origin or not.

Well perhaps, but my failure to describe the workings of such a being doesn't mean it isn't possible. I'm sure it'd be a piece of cake for an omnipotent deity. For now just add some deterrent to prevent the being from infringing upon another's free will. Like a stomach ache or something. ;)

That's the issue I'm bringing up. It can't be a deterrent. It has to be absolute.


Whoever thought of that scored a 10 on their marketing techniques. What better way to persuade than to instill fear.

What's to fear? You should be driven to God out of your love for Him, not punishment. This is no different than daily life. Reward driven goals are much more fulfilling than those achieved out of fear of wrong.


Ok, tell me if I'm wrong then. According to your theology:

- The more you follow God's will, the better you are.
- Every human has at least some desires that are contrary to God's will.


The first point has some qualifications. The better you are spiritually. You can be an atheistic billionaire who has everything he desires in life. "Better" is relative.


So can we conclude then, that God rewards those who relinquish their free will and follow rules that are often contrary to their own desires?

Sometimes exercising free will puts in a worse situation than if we hadn't. Life is about a balance (discipline). Pragmatically, it never makes sense to only follow your desires.


Why would a Christian value freedom if their ultimate goal seems to be to follow the will of this God? What purpose would freedom serve if it is not to be used?

Is love not best when freely given?


Why would God want to make you want to do things that are contrary to his will and then blame you for it?

He doesn't want to make us disobey His will (nor has He ever), He simply wants us to freely believe in Him.

[Eanair]

Scientists are starting to get more skeptical about the big bang theory. The problem of origins is a common problem, both for physics and biology. There's lots of big questions we have yet to wrap our heads around. That doesn't mean we'll never find answers, but it also means it's a lot harder to discredit the idea of God.

If scientists eventually disregard the Big Bang theory, it will be because a superior theory will take its place. I'm not sure how that makes it harder to discredit the idea of a higher power.

[michael.lauden]

Well...



Again, just because I'm not christian doesn't mean I don't/I can't do things like that.

WELLLLL...

i didn't say if you aren't christian+do good things.

i said if you DONT do good things.

please read my post jeez

[brad.c]

Scientists are starting to get more skeptical about the big bang theory. The problem of origins is a common problem, both for physics and biology. There's lots of big questions we have yet to wrap our heads around. That doesn't mean we'll never find answers, but it also means it's a lot harder to discredit the idea of God.

It's highly doubtful that any scientist who finds problems with current theories will reach for the bible instead. That is the strength of science in that it requires verification, and allows for dissenting theories to be proposed.

[skunk]

I came back just for you. If it's not a valid argument in the defense of theism why is it valid against theism?I did not say it was. I said it was irrelevant. Which it patently is.

[anjinha]

You said

i'm not going to try to convince anyone but i will say if you get involved in your church reguardless if you believe or not - you will do some amazing things.

i dont care who you are and what you believe in but if you don't want to do things like that sometime in your life something is wrong with you

Why are you assuming that we don't do things like that then?

[chrmjenkins]

If scientists eventually disregard the Big Bang theory, it will be because a superior theory will take its place. I'm not sure how that makes it harder to discredit the idea of a higher power.

It's highly doubtful that any scientist who finds problems with current theories will reach for the bible instead. That is the strength of science in that it requires verification, and allows for dissenting theories to be proposed.


I never suggested they would. My point is that the scientific process is an iterative one without an implicit guarantee that the chain has a knowable end. It's not the current state of scientific knowledge that gives credence, it's the lack of a guarantee that all systems are knowable. If you believe the universe is of natural origins, it follows that a set of rules and constants govern this universe. Since those rules and constant exert influence in our universe, we can test those influences, and thus, apprehend the underlying rules and constants. Simply, this would imply that all systems are knowable.

[Eanair]

i'm not going to try to convince anyone but i will say if you get involved in your church reguardless if you believe or not - you will do some amazing things.

This implies that church attendence/membership was necessary to "do some amazing things" which is what we have been discussing, not trolling.

[skunk]

are you really doing anything bad by 'doing the right thing' all the time, or helping people in need?

i'm not going to try to convince anyone but i will say if you get involved in your church reguardless if you believe or not - you will do some amazing things
....

i dont care who you are and what you believe in but if you don't want to do things like that sometime in your life something is wrong with you This contained the crystal clear implication that it was expressly by seeking membership of a church that she - or anyone - would be able to undertake charitable works.

[brad.c]

I never suggested they would. My point is that the scientific process is an iterative one without an implicit guarantee that the chain has a knowable end. It's not the current state of scientific knowledge that gives credence, it's the lack of a guarantee that all systems are knowable. If you believe the universe is of natural origins, it follows that a set of rules and constants govern this universe. Since those rules and constant exert influence in our universe, we can test those influences, and thus, apprehend the underlying rules and constants. Simply, this would imply that all systems are knowable.

I must be misreading you, because it seemed you did. If a setback in the current hypothesis for how the universe was created strengthens the pro-god argument (by complicating an effort to discredit him), then aren't you saying that creationism becomes a possibility for the scientist to consider?

This seems to be the "I didn't say that" thread.

[chrmjenkins]

I must be misreading you, because it seemed you did. If a setback in the current hypothesis for how the universe was created strengthens the pro-god argument (by complicating an effort to discredit him), then aren't you saying that creationism becomes a possibility for the scientist to consider?

This seems to be the "I didn't say that" thread.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing at the scientific process as a whole. I responded to djellison because he provided a specific example, which I continued with. I never suggested any scientist would forsake the process because of the discrediting of a particular theory; that was incorrectly inferred.

This isn't the "I didn't say that" thread, it's the "I'm going to assume you meant this because it makes my argument easier" thread.

[Iscariot]

Scientists are starting to get more skeptical about the big bang theory.

Since when?

[floyde]

That's the issue I'm bringing up. It can't be a deterrent. It has to be absolute.


But it doesn't have to be a certain way. There are many ways in which it could've been, given the infinite possibilities available to an omnipotent being.


What's to fear? You should be driven to God out of your love for Him, not punishment. This is no different than daily life. Reward driven goals are much more fulfilling than those achieved out of fear of wrong.


Well he doesn't give many reasons for me to love him. In fact, I personally feel that he is the most despicable character in all of fiction. Which brings us to another important point, if he is real then he hasn't really taken the time to show that he is. There are as many reasons to believe that the Christian God is real as there are reasons to believe the same about Santa. It's not a very compelling thing for me to consider loving a cruel tyrant, specially not a fictitious one.


The first point has some qualifications. The better you are spiritually. You can be an atheistic billionaire who has everything he desires in life. "Better" is relative.


But I'm talking about "better" from the perspective of your theology. Which means, better by God's standards. And what's that about atheistic billionare? :rolleyes: Just because we are not spiritual doesn't mean that we only cherish material goods. To me being spiritual means selfishly looking after your own ticket to the after life. There are more productive and beneficial things to do in life.


Sometimes exercising free will puts in a worse situation than if we hadn't. Life is about a balance (discipline). Pragmatically, it never makes sense to only follow your desires.


Well, most of the time, exercising free will (even on trivial harmless things) will make the Christian God angry. (This might lead one to believe that Yahweh isn't really cool about us being free after all)


Is love not best when freely given?


If it is not freely given it is not love. That's why I can't choose to love someone. That's why I shouldn't be punished if I don't.


He doesn't want to make us disobey His will (nor has He ever), He simply wants us to freely believe in Him.

Well if He exists I'd say that what He really wants is to amuse himself by tricking us. Because he really made it seem as though he doesn't exist at all.

[brad.c]

No, I'm not. I'm pointing at the scientific process as a whole. I responded to djellison because he provided a specific example, which I continued with. I never suggested any scientist would forsake the process because of the discrediting of a particular theory; that was incorrectly inferred.
My apologies. I focused on the part about making it harder to discredit god, and took that a single statement.
This isn't the "I didn't say that" thread, it's the "I'm going to assume you meant this because it makes my argument easier" thread.
I don't have an argument, I was just trying to clarify yours.

[skunk]

He simply wants us to freely believe in Him.Sounds as if he'd have been better off getting a puppy.

[chrmjenkins]

Since when?

I'm still looking for the article I read. Hopefully I can post it tonight after I get home. If I cant' find it, I'll make a post saying so.

But it doesn't have to be a certain way. There are many ways in which it could've been, given the infinite possibilities available to an omnipotent being.
Sure it does, you're suggesting a free world where it's impossible to sin. There's only one way to do that. Make it impossible to sin.


Well he doesn't give many reasons for me to love him. In fact, I personally feel that he is the most despicable character in all of fiction. Which brings us to another important point, if he is real then he hasn't really taken the time to show that he is. There are as many reasons to believe that the Christian God is real as there are reasons to believe the same about Santa. It's not a very compelling thing for me to consider loving a cruel tyrant, specially not a fictitious one.

If you believe in God and his plan, irrespective of this world, an eternity in His presence is the ultimate expression of love.

You guys love the Santa argument, eh? The problem is origins. We can clearly point to the santa image as a fictional creation. You cannot point to the origin of the Judeo-Christian God as definitively fictional. You can't create all the theories you want about it was created as a primitive system of control, but there's no way to exactly how the religion started.


But I'm talking about "better" from the perspective of your theology. Which means, better by God's standards. And what's that about atheistic billionare? :rolleyes: Just because we are not spiritual doesn't mean that we only cherish material goods.

I never suggested those were the principles of anyone here. I gave an example of success that some adhere to.

To me being spiritual means selfishly looking after your own ticket to the after life. There are more productive and beneficial things to do in life.

And that does not jive with the Christian imperative. We are told to share our faith so that others may have God's gift of salvation. How is that selfish?


If it is not freely given it is not love. That's why I can't choose to love someone. That's why I shouldn't be punished if I don't.

How can a child help but love a parent who obviously wishes them well in life?


Well if He exists I'd say that what He really wants is to amuse himself by tricking us. Because he really made it seem as though he doesn't exist at all.

What more do you want than the Bible? Would you prefer belief in God was not faith based?

My apologies. I focused on the part about making it harder to discredit god, and took that a single statement.

I don't have an argument, I was just trying to clarify yours.

No apology needed, and that wasn't directed at you, but at the thread as a whole (both sides).

Sounds as if he'd have been better off getting a puppy.

Yes, but puppies poop in the house.

[djellison]

How can a child help but love a parent who obviously wishes them well in life?

Children can see their parents. They can see the food they give them, they tuck them into bed, they rub their knee when they fall over. They can see touch feel both the physical existence of a parent, and directly experience the actions and influence of that parent.

You may say you feel the same way about a 'God'. But I, for one, neither see any existence, nor any influence or actions of one.

Swine Flu?

Thanks Dad.

(Just googling - found this - http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/imposs.htm - very nicely sums up man of the non-christian views expressed in this thread)

[imac/cheese]

Unless you are a young-earth creationist (in which case, we're wasting our time debating this......)

It's been rendered near inhabitable on several occasions - the great mass extinction's in geological history demonstrate that quite well. 99% of all species that have ever existed....are extinct.

It's a matter of when, not if, another large asteroid of comet impact will hit the Earth. Depending on it's size, such an event might wipe out New York, All of China, or render the entire planet into a dark, lifeless world. The Tunguska event, for example, just last century, would have wiped out an entire city. It is pure chance that it landed in Siberia, rather than Sacramento.

Ignoring the medium term ( the next few million years) - the long term outlook for the Earth is terminal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle is a good starting point. Other options were brilliantly covered in a recent book by Dr Phil Plait called 'Death from the Skies'. The various means the world will end are covered, most are unlikely but the death of the sun, ultimately, will mean the death of this planet as well - and the death of the Sun is as certain as the death of you or I.

This is really the strangest argument against God I have ever heard. Let me try to understand what you are saying, if I may paraphrase:

1. All of the evidence points to the fact that the earth will one day be destroyed by an asteroid (no matter what Ben Affleck does).
2. If it is not destroyed by an asteroid, it will be eventually destroyed by some other means such as the death of our sun.
3. If there is a god, he created a world doomed to be destroyed.
4. No rational god would create such a world.
5. God does not exist.

If that is your argument, the following is my rebuttal. If that is not your argument, I am confused and would love some clarification.

The problem with the argument is that if there is a god, our world is no longer destined to be destroyed. Just because the odds say there will eventually be something that destroys the earth doesn't mean that god would allow that to happen.

1. An omnipotent god could have created a world that was in the precise location to prevent it from ever being hit by an asteroid large enough to wipe out humanity.
2. An omnipotent god could have created an everlasting sun.
3. An omnipotent god could bring the end times long before our earth would have ever been destroyed by asteroids or our sun dying.

The bible doesn't even suggest that the earth will last forever. In Revelation 21:1, we read: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea."

Swine Flu?

Thanks Dad.

He did warn us that swine were unclean.

[yg17]

He did warn us that swine were unclean.

And people have been eating pork and working around pigs for thousands of years without getting sick. If anything, the swine flu proves the theory of evolution, the swine flu virus has evolved to be able to infect humans as well.

[Eanair]

You guys love the Santa argument, eh? The problem is origins. We can clearly point to the santa image as a fictional creation. You cannot point to the origin of the Judeo-Christian God as definitively fictional. You can't create all the theories you want about it was created as a primitive system of control, but there's no way to exactly how the religion started.

Is that not also true of other ancient religions and mythology? We cannot know exactly how the other ancient religions started.

How can a child help but love a parent who obviously wishes them well in life?

I have no evidence that such parent even exists.

[iJohnHenry]

Because you seemed to emphasize prior to that statement that good acts of volunteerism and charity were done because people joined churches.

A joke, in my case. I have been "recruited" by two churches, to join them. Perhaps they wanted a bump in their charitable curve??

Sounds as if he'd have been better off getting a puppy.

If God had a puppy, the SPCA would be all over His ass.

He did warn us that swine were unclean.

Yeah, 2,000 years before refrigeration, and proper animal husbandry.

[imac/cheese]

And people have been eating pork and working around pigs for thousands of years without getting sick. If anything, the swine flu proves the theory of evolution, the swine flu virus has evolved to be able to infect humans as well.

It was said in jest. I love some good crispy bacon.

[chrmjenkins]

Is that not also true of other ancient religions and mythology? We cannot know exactly how the other ancient religions started.

That's part of the point. And that's why we acknowledge our faith.


I have no evidence that such parent even exists.

*Comment about all the evidence that there is with a reference to the Bible saying people will refuse to believe it.*

*Rebuttal that said evidence is worthless, and accusation that it is arrogant for one to point to the Bible saying that people will doubt God.*

There, I avoided that exchange for us. I believe He is evident. You don't. Fair enough.

[djellison]

Just because the odds say there will eventually be something that destroys the earth doesn't mean that god would allow that to happen.

These are not odds. The destruction of the Earth is certain. The sun isn't special. It's one of hundreds of millions of Stars in this Galaxy. We can see stars about to explode, ones that have already exploded, ones that trace out an entire history of what the sun was, what it is, and what will become of it.

The sun will destroy this planet. Fact. I'm sorry to say there's nothing any God can do about it. In the mean-time, asteroid impacts, with statistics so close to certainty as to be considered certain, WILL occur, and they WILL kill people. Research shows that most of the early North American humans were wiped out by an asteroid impact about 13,000 years ago.

If God made this world or this universe, then he did so knowing that - essentially, leaving man-kind as a transient cosmological blip on the radar.

I'm not saying all this....THUS there is no God. I'm not trying to make a case to 'prove' the non-existence of God. Such a thing would be futile, indeed, the onus is on those with faith to demonstrate the existence of their God - something which has never, ever happened.

What I'm trying to establish is, how do people who believe in a God maintain that belief, if they apply logic to the framework that belief is built on. Because, from the outside looking in, one iota of critical thinking and the whole premise collapses.

No one has answered the question of geography. Why is it that, on the whole, people in the west believe in one god, and people in the east in another. Doesn't that infer that 'God' is a function of Man.

No one has answered the question of cruelty. Why is it that, if God is all seing and all powerfull, he would let hundreds of thousands of people, god loving people included, die in natural disasters.

No one has answered the question of communication. Why is it that 2 billion people, roughly, 'get' this God, yet 4 billion don't. Hell must be overflowing with a 2:1 sell out gate taking.

No one has answered the question of chronology. Christianity began, what, let's call it 2000 years ago for round numbers. What was God doing in the 198,000 years, roughly, that preceded that time when humans walked the Earth? What was he doing in the 5 billion year history of Earth, or the 13 billion year history of the universe. Why has this Christian God essentially existed for the blink of an Eye, yet is described as being responsible for all of time.

And now we have the question of pigs. God made pigs, he made them really really tasty, yet he says we shouldn't eat them. That's just cruel. Any God that has issues with my sunday morning Bacon, can, to coin a phrase, go to hell. :cool:

[Eanair]

*Comment about all the evidence that there is with a reference to the Bible saying people will refuse to believe it.*

*Retort that said evidence is worthless, and accusation that it is arrogant for one to point to the Bible saying that people will doubt God.*

There, I avoided that exchange for us. I believe He is evident. You don't. Fair enough.

I appreciate that you automatically assume to know my reactions on the matter, and that I would accuse anyone of anything.

[djellison]

I believe He is evident. .

On what basis, and how, given the things I describe above. The bible isn't evidence - sorry - it's just words, written by men. The bible is no more evidence for a God than The Lord of the Rings is evidence for Hobbits.

Why do you - in the Western World, think you are right. Isn't it just a little strange that the Eastern World has a different story?

Don't all the issues, or at least some of them, just slightly, make you wonder? I, pun intended, find it hard to believe that you have such faith in something for which there are just so many fundamental contraindications.

[chrmjenkins]

The sun will destroy this planet. Fact. I'm sorry to say there's nothing any God can do about it. In the mean-time, asteroid impacts, with statistics so close to certainty as to be considered certain, WILL occur, and they WILL kill people. Research shows that most of the early North American humans were wiped out by an asteroid impact about 13,000 years ago.


So, it's statistically inevitable for massive asteroid impacts, but not so big that they destroy the earth before the sun can? Are you just being argumentative for the sake of it?

I appreciate that you automatically assume to know my reactions on the matter, and that I would accuse anyone of anything.

Sorry, another joke. Please feel free to give a response and I'll take it seriously without preconceptions. :D

On what basis, and how, given the things I describe above. The bible isn't evidence - sorry - it's just words, written by men. The bible is no more evidence for a God than The Lord of the Rings is evidence for Hobbits.

Why do you - in the Western World, think you are right. Isn't it just a little strange that the Eastern World has a different story?

Don't all the issues, or at least some of them, just slightly, make you wonder? I, pun intended, find it hard to believe that you have such faith in something for which there are just so many fundamental contraindications.

And this is why I made that joke. Why is it impossible for me to take the Bible as evidence? I'm allowed to have my own beliefs, aren't I? And of course, I often wonder. That's why you have to be proactive about reading the Bible critically and praying for understanding.

[imac/cheese]

These are not odds. The destruction of the Earth is certain. The sun isn't special. It's one of hundreds of millions of Stars in this Galaxy. We can see stars about to explode, ones that have already exploded, ones that trace out an entire history of what the sun was, what it is, and what will become of it.

The sun will destroy this planet. Fact. I'm sorry to say there's nothing any God can do about it. In the mean-time, asteroid impacts, with statistics so close to certainty as to be considered certain, WILL occur, and they WILL kill people. Research shows that most of the early North American humans were wiped out by an asteroid impact about 13,000 years ago.

The fact that it is statistically certain that the earth will be destroyed in the next few million years, does not infringe on my belief in god what-so-ever. The fact that you believe there is nothing God can do about it shows a misunderstanding of the belief in god. If god created everything, we can do whatever he wants to do about it. I believe that God exists outside of time so He already knows what will happen with the earth. I also believe that He already knows the time of the second coming of Christ and He knows when He will destroy this earth and make a new one.

If God made this world or this universe, then he did so knowing that - essentially, leaving man-kind as a transient cosmological blip on the radar.

This assumes that mankind will actually be destroyed at some point. If there is a god powerful enough to create the universe, why does he have to be restrained by the statistics that say we will be destroyed?

[skunk]

If there is a god powerful enough to create the universe, why does he have to be restrained by the statistics that say we will be destroyed?If he has to cheat the laws of physics which he himself invented it shows a pretty poor planning process.

[djellison]

That's why you have to be proactive about reading the Bible critically

That's the problem. I have read it, critically. It's contradictory nonsense. I can only imagine believing it to be true if I abandoned logic and critical thinking.

And forgive me if I'm explaining the cosmology badly - I'm not trying to be argumentative there. I'll try again.

Bottom line - the Earth is screwed, and anything living on it to.

In about 5Gyrs, the Sun will expand, fry the Earth, possibly even swallow it, and then collapse in on itself. That's game over for the entire Earth and anything on it - fact.

In the mean time, the Solar System is still under construction. Two recent events highlight this - the impact of Comet SL-9 into Jupiter, and the Tunguska impact early in the last century. Had the SL-9 impact occurred here, rather than Jupiter - it would have been a KT-boundary like event - mass extinction, possible the destruction of all life on Earth. Events of this sizes will occur in the Earths future. Look at the Moon. Every crater is an impact. Down to tiny tiny ones the size of a penny on the surface, to hundreds of km across. The Earth has suffered the same way, but an active atmosphere and hydrosphere does a good job of 'rubbing out' the craters that resulted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event explains some of the numbers well - in brief :
"Asteroids with a 1 km diameter impact the Earth every 500,000 years on average.[1] Large collisions with five kilometer objects happen approximately once every ten million years. The last known impact of an object of 10 km or more in diameter was the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event 65 million years ago"

The larger the object, the bigger the damage. A 10km object would probably mean the end of Humanity. A 1km object would probably mean the end of civilization as we know it for a significant period of time over an entire continent. A 100m object would be like a small local nuclear war.

These things are happening all the time. You may have seen in the news a few months ago - a small asteroid was actually tracked a few hours before impact - and pieces of it in Northern Africa have since been recovered.

Of course, there's always the joke that the dinosaurs only died out because they didn't have a space program :)

[chrmjenkins]

If he has to cheat the laws of physics which he himself invented it shows a pretty poor planning process.

1) Statistics != physics
2) What prevents those physics from being the cause, of His will?

[djellison]

He already knows what will happen with the earth.

He saw the Tsunami coming and didn't TELL anyone? Infact, one can infer that you believe he made it happen.

Wow.

Do you believe he made it happen?
or
Do you believe he knew about it but did nothing?
or
Do you beleive it was entirely outside of his knowledge and control?

[skunk]

1) Statistics != physics
2) What prevents those physics from being the cause, of His will?I'm sorry but I have no idea what your point is. The laws of physics predict that the sun will eventually destroy the planet earth.

[chrmjenkins]

I'm sorry but I have no idea what your point is. The laws of physics predict that the sun will eventually destroy the planet earth.

I thought you were using that in reference to asteroids since you used the word statistics. Still, the point is that He wouldn't have to defy His own laws to have His will achieved for the earth.

[brad.c]

It was said in jest. I love some good crispy bacon.
I already said you had me at Mac and Cheese. Now I think I love you.
:D

[skunk]

Still, the point is that He wouldn't have to defy His own laws to have His will achieved for the earth.You've lost me. I have zero (0) idea what you are talking about.

[Eanair]

Sorry, another joke. Please feel free to give a response and I'll take it seriously without preconceptions. :D

Ahhh, thank you for clarifying. :)

I thought it was a jab of sort. (stupid internet with its emotionless text)

Yes, I think it boils down to that we have different ideas as to what constitutes evidence.

EDIT:

I already said you had me at Mac and Cheese. Now I think I love you.
:D

Mac and cheese AND bacon mixed in?

Now THAT is something divine.

(and most likely a heart attack on a plate)

[chrmjenkins]

You've lost me. I have zero (0) idea what you are talking about.

imac/cheese made a reference to God not being bound by statistics. You made a comment that God would have to defy physics in order to prevent a disaster. I said statistics does not equal physics because statistics only deals with probability. Even if it is 99.9%, a 0.1% chance is there that it won't happen. This is different than physics, which is a hard science based on rules. Part of the confusion was that I assumed you meant asteroid since you said statistics, when you meant the Sun. Still, there is a gray area when you say He must be bound by statistics, because arguably almost anything is statistically possible.

[skunk]

I never mentioned statistics. :confused:

[djellison]

I think he was trying to take the statistics of asteroid impact (which are certain, unfortunately) and play them suggesting that God could slot Earth through some non-existent lucky asteroid avoiding trajectory. Sadly for Humans - Earth can and does get hit . Humans have been killed by asteroids in the past, they will in the future. Ditto Earthquakes, Tsunami, Volcano, Flood, etc etc.

And, ultimately, the Earth will be fried anyway, so all human endeavour is essentially futile.

(the point being, if there is a God who controls / sees / knows everything - why put kind, god loving humans, on the earth only to wipe them off it again prematurely with things such as natural disasters)

But we have bacon. Which is good.

[colinmack]

Why is it impossible for me to take the Bible as evidence?

That seems to be a fundamental problem with this argument - everything one side says is an irrefutable fact simply because they said so. Everything the other side says is absolute rubbish because they said so. Their evidence is iron-clad, yours is inadmissible.

Standard debate tactic - refuse to address a question unless it can be redirected/constrained to your own terms... it's like "go ahead and convince me, but I'll reject your answer unless you only use the letters E, X, and Q in your response".

That's the problem - some are trying to make this nothing more than a discussion centered around empirical physical proof. That's not a language that can be easily used to describe faith and belief. So as a result it makes it difficult to explain the point of view *using that language* - add to that the position that any language other than logic and physical proof is inadmissible, makes this pretty much a dead-end.

Prove you love your wife. Show me the proof. If you can't irrefutably prove it, then you don't love her.

I don't think anyone is going to convince an athiest here that God exists, using nothing other than physical empirical proof. Likewise, no athiest will convince someone here who believes in God that He doesn't exist, just because we can't see Him or get him on speed-dial.

You believe it's a load of crap? OK.

But many people feel connected to God, and to them it's just as real as being able to touch something in front of them. You can't tell them they don't feel it, even if they (or you) can't explain why.

So as a seperate exercise, try and prove God didn't create the universe... given that the laws of physics (and time itself) break down just before the Big Bang, you'll have a hard time proving a better answer, unless of course you know of any other all-powerful forces that are immune to the constraints of time and space. As God is the most broadly recognized omnipotent force going (by something like 3/4 of the world's population, assuming we're talking about God and not Christ), that stands as the majority hypothesis unless you can disprove it.

...you can't argue logic, there's no logical mechanism or causality that would explain something appearing out of nothing, in fact it violates the laws of physics

...you can't argue based on empirical proof, nobody is capable of proving or disproving it - nobody was there, at best there are tiny echos that imply what happened *after* the universe was created, but don't say *how* it was created

[floyde]

Sure it does, you're suggesting a free world where it's impossible to sin. There's only one way to do that. Make it impossible to sin.


Hmm I'm no longer sure what you mean. But what's wrong with that? Make it impossible for people to sin and give them freedom for everything else. That's much better than having free will and going to Hell because you had the bad luck of being born a Sentinelese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese) and thus you never even heard about God.


If you believe in God and his plan, irrespective of this world, an eternity in His presence is the ultimate expression of love.


Even if that were true, there's no way you could possibly know it.


You guys love the Santa argument, eh? The problem is origins. We can clearly point to the santa image as a fictional creation. You cannot point to the origin of the Judeo-Christian God as definitively fictional. You can't create all the theories you want about it was created as a primitive system of control, but there's no way to exactly how the religion started.


Perhaps not, but I can point out a certain ridiculously absurd holy text as definitively fictional.

Im going to ask this question again, though it has never been answered to me by any theist:

The Vedas, the Qur'an, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Tipitaka, etc. are all very similar to The Bible. They're all basically man-made books, which include various supernatural claims, completely unsupported by evidence, which are (or were) believed to be true by thousands of people. They attempt to explain the origin and purpose of mankind, and a lot of these texts predate The Bible (so please don't give the "they were trying to imitate the Bible" argument).

Now you know these are all fake, I'm sure you wont argue with me here. Proving that they're fake is not an easy task though. It probably requires a lot of expertise and research on various fields. Most of these were written so long ago that perhaps it is no longer possible to find evidence to support the claim that they were made-up stories. Yet we know that they're fake because they are absurd fantasies. We know it because reality contradicts them.

All of this shows us that, throughout history, mankind has been prone to invent (although "rectally produce" is perhaps a better term for this) fictional stories that claim to explain the nature of reality. The particular reasons for this are no longer known. Perhaps some were used as a means to control a population, perhaps the authors were abusing dangerous substances, or they simply were delusional or superstitious. The fact remains that humans make ***** up and other humans believe that *****.

Now my questions are these: What's the difference between The Bible and these other holy texts? In a world where humans make up stories to fill the gaps in their knowledge, what makes the Bible exempt from being a fabrication?


And that does not jive with the Christian imperative. We are told to share our faith so that others may have God's gift of salvation. How is that selfish?


It's not, I was just pointing out that being spiritual is not a virtue in itself.


How can a child help but love a parent who obviously wishes them well in life?


The Christian God doesn't fit this description. He seems more concerned about His ego than about the well-being of His creation.


What more do you want than the Bible?


Have you actually read the Bible? With its myriad contradictions? Its mathematical errors? Its primitive knowledge about the world? Its abhorrent morality? Its confusing ambiguity? Its mediocre literary qualities? Its hatred, bigotry and xenophobia? Its contempt for women and homosexuals? Its evil and unjust sky dictator? Its overall monumental tribute to imperfection and human fallibility?

Are you serious man? :(

Every page, every single phrase or word in that book has a signature: by homo sapiens. It reeks of humanity.


Would you prefer belief in God was not faith based?


Oh by all means yes! Something not faith based please!

There's absolutely nothing good, virtuous or even beneficial about faith. I cannot comprehend why people hold it with such high regard. It is a horrendous trait that leads people to accept falsehoods with no hope of ever changing their minds.


You believe it's a load of crap? OK.

But many people feel connected to God, and to them it's just as real as being able to touch something in front of them. You can't tell them they don't feel it, even if they (or you) can't explain why.

So as a seperate exercise, try and prove God didn't create the universe... given that the laws of physics (and time itself) break down just after the Big Bang, you'll have a hard time proving a better answer, unless of course you know of any other all-powerful forces that aren't immune to the constraints of time and space. As God is the most broadly recognized omnipotent force going (by something like 3/4 of the world's population, assuming we're talking about God and not Christ), that stands as the majority hypothesis unless you can disprove it.


What you just did there is called appeal to popularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) and it's a logical fallacy. And BTW, invented answers are not useful, no matter how many people accept them.


...you can't argue logic, there's no logical mechanism or causality that would explain something appearing out of nothing, in fact it violates the laws of physics

I know, only God can come out of nothing, right? If it's God coming out of nothing then it makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

[NoSmokingBandit]

Could you paraphrase for those of us with time constraints? This looks kind of like a rant to me.

I read a few points and the OP really doesnt understand the difference between the OT and NT. Paraphrasing it would just be a waste of time.

[dsnort]

Just out of curiosity, why do you care?

I don't think I've ever seen people spend so much effort to convince others of what they don't believe in.

Smacks of desperation.

[Eanair]

I don't think anyone is going to convince an athiest here that God exists, using nothing other than physical empirical proof. Likewise, no athiest will convince someone here who believes in God that He doesn't exist, just because we can't see Him or get him on speed-dial.

You keep referring to God as a He. What if God is a She? Or a They?

So as a seperate exercise, try and prove God didn't create the universe... given that the laws of physics (and time itself) break down just before the Big Bang, you'll have a hard time proving a better answer, unless of course you know of any other all-powerful forces that are immune to the constraints of time and space. As God is the most broadly recognized omnipotent force going (by something like 3/4 of the world's population, assuming we're talking about God and not Christ), that stands as the majority hypothesis unless you can disprove it.

Prove that God didn't create the universe? You cannot prove a negative. If so, please prove that unicorns don't exist, or that dragons don't exist.

And by prove, I mean provide evidence.

Additionally, just because the majority of the world hold a view, that doesn't make it correct. Once, the majority of the world thought the Earth was flat, and obviously we now know that such an assertion is false.

...you can't argue logic, there's no logical mechanism or causality that would explain something appearing out of nothing, in fact it violates the laws of physics

Where did God come from, if something cannot appear out of nothing as it would violate the laws of physics?

EDIT: Fixed a quote bracket.

[floyde]

Just out of curiosity, why do you care?

I don't think I've ever seen people spend so much effort to convince others of what they don't believe in.

Smacks of desperation.

Is this for me or the OP?

[Eanair]

Just out of curiosity, why do you care?

I don't think I've ever seen people spend so much effort to convince others of what they don't believe in.

Smacks of desperation.

I personally don't care what others believe or don't believe. If you believe something that is spiritually fulfilling for you (be that God, no god, Anubis, Diana, Thor, Allah, Shiva, etc) and brings you joy and happiness to believe, then good for you. If not, good for you too.

But the debates/discussions/conversations are interesting to engage in and do tend to exercise the mental muscles. For some people, it even helps to strengthen their belief or non-belief by defending their beliefs or non-beliefs.

The only time I do tend to care is when the extreme religious believers try to force their religion on others (ex. creationism in schools, banning gay marriage).

[chrmjenkins]

I never mentioned statistics. :confused:

My fault skunk. imac mentioned statistics and then you replied with the word physics. That's why I initially said statistics != physics and then proceeded to brain fart.

Hmm I'm no longer sure what you mean. But what's wrong with that? Make it impossible for people to sin and give them freedom for everything else. That's much better than having free will and going to Hell because you had the bad luck of being born a Sentinelese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese) and thus you never even heard about God.

Many Christians believe that God reveals Himself to everyone, through one way or another.


Im going to ask this question again, though it has never been answered to me by any theist:

The Vedas, the Qur'an, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Tipitaka, etc. are all very similar to The Bible. They're all basically man-made books, which include various supernatural claims, completely unsupported by evidence, which are (or were) believed to be true by thousands of people. They attempt to explain the origin and purpose of mankind, and a lot of these texts predate The Bible (so please don't give the "they were trying to imitate the Bible" argument).

Now you know these are all fake, I'm sure you wont argue with me here. Proving that they're fake is not an easy task though. It probably requires a lot of expertise and research on various fields. Most of these were written so long ago that perhaps it is no longer possible to find evidence to support the claim that they were made-up stories. Yet we know that they're fake because they are absurd fantasies. We know it because reality contradicts them.

All of this shows us that, throughout history, mankind has been prone to invent (although "rectally produce" is perhaps a better term for this) fictional stories that claim to explain the nature of reality. The particular reasons for this are no longer known. Perhaps some were used as a means to control a population, perhaps the authors were abusing dangerous substances, or they simply were delusional or superstitious. The fact remains that humans make ***** up and other humans believe that *****.

Now my questions are these: What's the difference between The Bible and these other holy texts? In a world where humans make up stories to fill the gaps in their knowledge, what makes the Bible exempt from being a fabrication?

While I can't speak for all of them, it's possible some of those could be true. As you said, we don't always know the circumstances for their creation. If I'm willing to have faith in the Christian God, that faith includes the knowledge I could be wrong.


The Christian God doesn't fit this description. He seems more concerned about His ego than about the well-being of His creation.

So that's why He sent his Son to pay the debt for all of our sins?


Oh by all means yes! Something not faith based please!

This brings up its own problems. Lack of free will, complacency, etc.


There's absolutely nothing good, virtuous or even beneficial about faith. I cannot comprehend why people hold it with such high regard. It is a horrendous trait that leads people to accept falsehoods with no hope of ever changing their minds.

Sure there is, trust in relationships is a form of faith. People enter marriages knowing there's a fifty percent chance it will fail. People risk their lives to save others because they believe others would do the same for them.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

So that's why He sent his Son to pay the debt for all of our sins?
Dude, God kills people all the time. What's one more of his children to him?

[bobber205]

I start reading a post with doubt as soon as I see a "He" or "His" that isn't at the beginning of a sentence.

Does God really care that much if you don't capitalize his name?


I'm not sure if God exists. I believe that something like God probably does exist but I admit there's no proof. Humans haven't gotten near knowing everything yet. ;) I have at times felt his presence in my life.

Of course that could have been just a evolutionary reaction in my brain or something as well.

Religion, not spirituality which is different, exists to quell the uneducated masses, to control them, and to give them comfort that something exists beyond this sometimes cruel world, which could or could not be true.

[chrmjenkins]

Dude, God kills people all the time. What's one more of his children to him?

As imac/cheese said before, the events of this life are meager in comparison to eternity.

[Iscariot]

I'm still looking for the article I read. Hopefully I can post it tonight after I get home. If I cant' find it, I'll make a post saying so.

Any luck?

[Cromulent]

As imac/cheese said before, the events of this life are meager in comparison to eternity.

Why bother with this life at all then? That sounds like the most defeatist attitude I have ever heard in my life. I'm surprised Christianity hasn't been killed off because of mass suicide with that depressing view. No wonder more and more people are renouncing their faith.

[Shotglass]

Just out of curiosity, why do you care?

I don't think I've ever seen people spend so much effort to convince others of what they don't believe in.

Smacks of desperation.Religion will kill the human race. We have the power to destroy millions of people in one swoop and yet we still can't get over which imaginary friend is the good one. I think it's very plausible that our species will be extinct before we get past Mars. And all just because some of us can't cope with the fact that we're here by accident and that life pretty much has no meaning.
That's why I care about something I don't believe in.

[djellison]

Re: Tsunami (or other natural disasters)... still looking for a Christian view on this regarding God...


Do you believe he made it happen?
or
Do you believe he knew about it but did nothing?
or
Do you beleive it was entirely outside of his knowledge and control?

[imac/cheese]

If he has to cheat the laws of physics which he himself invented it shows a pretty poor planning process.

He doesn't have to cheat anything, but he is not constrained by the laws of physics either. The Bible is full of examples where the laws of physics are not followed. A bush that burns but is not consumed. A man that dies that is brought back to life. Sick people who are healed. A man that walked on water. Turning water to wine. Feeding thousands with a few fish. The resurrection of Jesus. The ascension of Jesus. Why would an all powerful god create a set of laws that constrain him? The laws of physics are a human explanation of what we observe not a set of laws that can't be broken and that confine god.

...Bottom line - the Earth is screwed, and anything living on it to.

In about 5Gyrs, the Sun will expand, fry the Earth, possibly even swallow it, and then collapse in on itself. That's game over for the entire Earth and anything on it - fact...

Once again, you are basing your argument on the fact that god does not exist. If god exists, the earth is no longer screwed. God's plan for earth could easily come to fruition long before we would be destroyed by a asteroid or our sun. Or God could simply protect earth.

He saw the Tsunami coming and didn't TELL anyone? Infact, one can infer that you believe he made it happen.

Wow.

Do you believe he made it happen?
or
Do you believe he knew about it but did nothing?
or
Do you beleive it was entirely outside of his knowledge and control?

d. None of the above.

I believe that god knew about it and sent his son to die for all of our sins 2000 years before the tsunami.

I think he was trying to take the statistics of asteroid impact (which are certain, unfortunately) and play them suggesting that God could slot Earth through some non-existent lucky asteroid avoiding trajectory. Sadly for Humans - Earth can and does get hit. Humans have been killed by asteroids in the past, they will in the future. Ditto Earthquakes, Tsunami, Volcano, Flood, etc etc.

And, ultimately, the Earth will be fried anyway, so all human endeavour is essentially futile.

(the point being, if there is a God who controls / sees / knows everything - why put kind, god loving humans, on the earth only to wipe them off it again prematurely with things such as natural disasters)

So far, since the beginning of human existence, the earth has been on a "lucky asteroid avoiding trajectory". Yes we have been hit with small asteroids, but nothing that has wiped out humanity. How can you be certain that such a tragectory does not exist? Natural disasters existing does not disprove the existence of god.

[yg17]

d. None of the above.

I believe that god knew about it and sent his son to die for all of our sins 2000 years before the tsunami.

So it's OK that god killed 300,000 people with the Tsunami because jesus died 2,000 years ago? :rolleyes:

Wow, I bet some people wished that defense held up in court..."But your honor, I raped and killed her because god made it OK by sending his son to die for our sins 2000 years ago!"

[Cromulent]

So it's OK that god killed 300,000 people with the Tsunami because jesus died 2,000 years ago? :rolleyes:

Wow, I bet some people wished that defense held up in court..."But your honor, I raped and killed her because god made it OK by sending his son to die for our sins 2000 years ago!"

If God did it, it must be okay!

Now I just need to decide where to unleash my locusts of death mwahaha.

[chrmjenkins]

Any luck?

Sorry, I looked. I think the problem is is that it wasn't the focus of the article, and was mentioned as an addendum. It was linked through digg, so I can't find the original article because "big bang" only turns up articles with that in the title. Rather than expect you to take me on my word, pretend I hadn't said it since I can't find the source :D

Why bother with this life at all then? That sounds like the most defeatist attitude I have ever heard in my life. I'm surprised Christianity hasn't been killed off because of mass suicide with that depressing view. No wonder more and more people are renouncing their faith.

If there is no God, why bother with life at all? There's no one who actually cares what you do. You can rape and murder and still end up as worms in the ground just like everyone else.

A defeatist attitude works both ways, eh?

So it's OK that god killed 300,000 people with the Tsunami because jesus died 2,000 years ago? :rolleyes:

Wow, I bet some people wished that defense held up in court..."But your honor, I raped and killed her because god made it OK by sending his son to die for our sins 2000 years ago!"

Unfortunately, thousands of people die every day. It's unavoidable in this life. We have to go some way, and some are more painful than others. That's a part of life on this earth. All death is worthy of our compassion, not just those caused by natural disasters.

[imac/cheese]

Here is an interesting article discussing why God lets horrible things happen. (http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5271.0.106.0) The portions about 6,000 years of humanity are not the point so lets not focus on that. It just does a good job of discussing how man (Adam and Eve) made a choice and chose to live in the world of the devil.

[Cromulent]

You can rape and murder and still end up as worms in the ground just like everyone else.

I love it when Christians make this argument.

What they (Christians) are basically implying is that the only thing that stops them from raping and murdering people is their fear of God and Hell. Priceless.

Funny how the vast majority of Atheists are actually capable of living their lives without raping or killing anyone.

[chrmjenkins]

I love it when Christians make this argument.

What they (Christians) are basically implying is that the only thing that stops them from raping and murdering people is their fear of God and Hell. Priceless.

Funny how the vast majority of Atheists are actually capable of living their lives without raping or killing anyone.

Funny how the vast majority of Christians are actually capable of living their lives without committing suicide.

The point of my argument was that you can make anything look bleak and give reasons for resorting to horrors. The fact that neither what you say or I say happens emphasizes the fact the these extremes are not the norm. I was making the point to illustrate the absurdity of your claim.

[Cromulent]

Here is an interesting article discussing why God lets horrible things happen. (http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5271.0.106.0) The portions about 6,000 years of humanity are not the point so lets not focus on that. It just does a good job of discussing how man (Adam and Eve) made a choice and chose to live in the world of the devil.

Articles like that always just bring me back to the same question.

Why didn't God just destroy Adam and Eve and start again rather than spending the next however many years you believe trying to fix an unfixable problem. It doesn't make any sense, just like so much more in the Bible.

[yg17]

If there is no God, why bother with life at all? There's no one who actually cares what you do. You can rape and murder and still end up as worms in the ground just like everyone else.

A defeatist attitude works both ways, eh?

If I rape and murder, I'll be spending the rest of my life in jail and would not be able to live a free life. Sure, I would end up as worms in the ground just like everything else, but it's what you do in life that matters. And if you're spending life behind bars, it's not a very fun or productive life. I don't base my actions on whether god would be pleased or not, I base my actions on how other people would feel, and raping and murdering would piss off plenty of people, and the thought of being put away for life is a good enough reason for me to not do it.


Unfortunately, thousands of people die every day. It's unavoidable in this life. We have to go some way, and some are more painful than others. That's a part of life on this earth. All death is worthy of our compassion, not just those caused by natural disasters.

Yeah, that sounds like a loving god to me :rolleyes: "You're healthy, young, have a family that loves you, have a good job, are very intelligent and may have the potential to change the world. But, I'm gonna kill you with a tsunami. Goodbye!"

And that right there is why I don't believe a god exists. Because if a god existed and he did that, it would mean god is an a$$hole, and I don't want to believe in an a$$hole.

[chrmjenkins]

If I rape and murder, I'll be spending the rest of my life in jail and would not be able to live a free life. Sure, I would end up as worms in the ground just like everything else, but it's what you do in life that matters. And if you're spending life behind bars, it's not a very fun or productive life. I don't base my actions on whether god would be pleased or not, I base my actions on how other people would feel, and raping and murdering would piss off plenty of people, and the thought of being put away for life is a good enough reason for me to not do it.

The point was to illustrate the absurdity of his claim. It's no more believable to say that an atheist has no morality without God than it is to say a Christian only has morality because of God.


Yeah, that sounds like a loving god to me :rolleyes: "You're healthy, young, have a family that loves you, have a good job, are very intelligent and may have the potential to change the world. But, I'm gonna kill you with a tsunami. Goodbye!"


How do wealth, occupation and intelligence have anything to do with who lives and dies?

[Cromulent]

It's no more believable to say that an atheist has no morality without God than it is to say a Christian only has morality because of God.

That is a very common argument Christians make about why Atheism is evil.

[imac/cheese]

Articles like that always just bring me back to the same question.

Why didn't God just destroy Adam and Eve and start again rather than spending the next however many years you believe trying to fix an unfixable problem. It doesn't make any sense, just like so much more in the Bible.

He told them what they should do; they disobeyed him and chose the way of satan. So your solution at that point is destroy them and start over? That is your idea of a loving god? In the bible, god lets them live the way they chose to live.

The problem, however, in not unfixable. God sent Jesus to fix the problem. He came to die so we could all see the error of our ways and turn from sin and rebellion. He died so that our sins could die with him and then we would be able to live life free from sin by following him. The complete problem will not be fixed until Jesus comes again and at that time, every knee will bow.

[yg17]

The point was to illustrate the absurdity of his claim. It's no more believable to say that an atheist has no morality without God than it is to say a Christian only has morality because of God.



How do wealth, occupation and intelligence have anything to do with who lives and dies?

If god is going to pick and choose who dies, why should a terrible person like a serial killer live longer than someone who is living a good, successful life? If that's really his doing, then like I said, he's an *******.

[chrmjenkins]

If god is going to pick and choose who dies, why should a terrible person like a serial killer live longer than someone who is living a good, successful life? If that's really his doing, then like I said, he's an *******.

Everyone dies. That was the point. He does not pick and choose. All perish in this life.

That is a very common argument Christians make about why Atheism is evil.

But I didn't make it. This should be about the arguments we are actually making, right?

[Cromulent]

He told them what they should do; they disobeyed him and chose the way of satan. So your solution at that point is destroy them and start over? That is your idea of a loving god? In the bible, god lets them live the way they chose to live.

The God depicted in the Old Testament (which is after all what we are talking about) can be called a lot of things, but loving is not one of them.

In fact destroying Adam and Eve would fit right in with the rest of his teachings and deeds in the Old Testament.

The problem, however, in not unfixable. God sent Jesus to fix the problem. He came to die so we could all see the error of our ways and turn from sin and rebellion. He died so that our sins could die with him and then we would be able to live life free from sin by following him. The complete problem will not be fixed until Jesus comes again and at that time, every knee will bow.

So Jesus died on the cross for our sins. I can understand the concept if not agree with it.

Why did God wait so long before acting? The idea that one mans death in a time when communication abilities were almost nonexistent was meant to show the entirety of humanity that they should follow God is an absolute farce. What was God doing to show the Chinese about his greatness? Why is there nothing in the Bible about South America? Why did God only show himself to people in the Middle East? Was it, perhaps, because the people who wrote it did not know about those places, and if they did not does that not cast a shadow over the idea that it was God's word? As obviously one must assume that God knew China existed. Perhaps he just didn't think it necessary to reveal himself to anyone there?

[yg17]

Everyone dies. That was the point. He does not pick and choose. All perish in this life.

If he didn't pick and choose, we'd all die at the same time. If crap like the tsunami is god's will, how does he decide who will die and who will survive? Does he put everyone's name on a dart board and whoever he hits with a dart dies? Does he pick names out of a hat? Does he have an iPhone app where everytime he shakes his phone, it comes up with the name of his next victim?

[imac/cheese]

...Why did God wait so long before acting? The idea that one mans death in a time when communication abilities were almost nonexistent was meant to show the entirety of humanity that they should follow God is an absolute farce. What was God doing to show the Chinese about his greatness? Why is there nothing in the Bible about South America? Why did God only show himself to people in the Middle East? Was it, perhaps, because the people who wrote it did not know about those places, and if they did not does that not cast a shadow over the idea that it was God's word? As obviously one must assume that God knew China existed. Perhaps he just didn't think it necessary to reveal himself to anyone there?

The timing was actually quite good. The romans created a peace across the entire region which allowed travel from place to place. The romans also used their engineering abilities to create well built roads making travel a lot easier than it had ever been. Most of the people spoke a common language, greek, which allowed for a quick, vast spread of the gospel. If god had acted sooner, the conditions would not have been very good for reqaching the entire world. If god waited until we invented better communications such as telegraph, phone, internet, he would have missed out on 1800 years or more of the gospel being taken into all the world.

Jesus specifically told his disciples to take the gospel to everyone, which included the chinese and south americans. From what we know the word got around quite quickly. Bartholomew preached the gospel in India. Andrew preached in Georgia and Bulgaria. Matthew wrote down the scriptures in Hebrew. Peter preached all over the region and ended up in Rome. Philip preached in Turkey. Thomas preached in India. Paul preached in Turkey, Greece, the Middle East, Rome, and some people believe he made it to Spain but others doubt that. Eventually the word got to all countries in the world and there are still people taking it into every corner.

[Eanair]

Sorry, I looked. I think the problem is is that it wasn't the focus of the article, and was mentioned as an addendum. It was linked through digg, so I can't find the original article because "big bang" only turns up articles with that in the title. Rather than expect you to take me on my word, pretend I hadn't said it since I can't find the source :D

I looked for an article regarding scientists beginning to doubt the Big Bang theory and I didn't find anything either. Out of curiosity, what else do you remember about it? Was this a large group of scientists, or an organization? Or a few here and there? Were they saying they had a better theory and were researching that instead? Did they think the Big Bang theory needed to be reviewed and changed/updated, or completely dismissed altogether?

If there is no God, why bother with life at all? There's no one who actually cares what you do. You can rape and murder and still end up as worms in the ground just like everyone else.

I care what I do.

People around me and society cares what I do.

Sure I can rape and murder all I want (if I was so inclined), but I'll have to suffer the consequences society deems fit (jail, death penalty, etc). I don't know about others, but I rather not spend my life in a jail cell.

If there's no higher power, then there may not be any ultimate spiritual consequences, but there ARE consequences that we've put in place for our duration alive, and those do apply and should be deterrents against such actions.

[chrmjenkins]

I looked for an article regarding scientists beginning to doubt the Big Bang theory and I didn't find anything either. Out of curiosity, what else do you remember about it? Was this a large group of scientists, or an organization? Or a few here and there? Were they saying they had a better theory and were researching that instead? Did they think the Big Bang theory needed to be reviewed and changed/updated, or completely dismissed altogether?

It mentioned the fact that a rising number of problems in models was making them second guess the theory. It gave no mention of numbers or how they propose to solve it. This is not uncharacteristic for the theory though. It has had several challenges to it since the 70's (for example, the horizon problem) and has changed to accommodate many of them.



I care what I do.

People around me and society cares what I do.

Sure I can rape and murder all I want (if I was so inclined), but I'll have to suffer the consequences society deems fit (jail, death penalty, etc). I don't know about others, but I rather not spend my life in a jail cell.

If there's no higher power, then there may not be any ultimate spiritual consequences, but there ARE consequences that we've put in place for our duration alive, and those do apply and should be deterrents against such actions.

I know you (and most others) do, which is why I wasn't making the point seriously. It was intended to be an absurd complement to an equally absurd statement that all Christians should commit suicide. I've stated this three times.

[Eanair]

Here is an interesting article discussing why God lets horrible things happen. (http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5271.0.106.0) The portions about 6,000 years of humanity are not the point so lets not focus on that. It just does a good job of discussing how man (Adam and Eve) made a choice and chose to live in the world of the devil.

"If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?"

Why is there a "world of the devil" in the first place?

EDIT: Why is there a devil in the first place to apparently cause such suffering? If God created absolutely everything, as many Christians tell me, did God create the devil?

[Eanair]

I know you (and most others) do, which is why I wasn't making the point seriously. It was intended to be an absurd complement to an equally absurd statement that all Christians should commit suicide. I've stated this three times.

My apologies. I hadn't gotten to Page 20 yet.

[floyde]

Here is an interesting article discussing why God lets horrible things happen. (http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5271.0.106.0) The portions about 6,000 years of humanity are not the point so lets not focus on that. It just does a good job of discussing how man (Adam and Eve) made a choice and chose to live in the world of the devil.

Really quick here, I shouldn't be posting when I'm so busy :o.


I am not responsible for what my ancestors did. - God is unjust
Eating from a tree from which you're not supposed to eat is not an evil deed. It is a sign of naivety or innocence. Adam and Eve can't be held responsible for this if God didn't bother to equip them with better common sense. - God is an evil prankster
An eternity of torment and countless suffering upon descendants is not an adequate punishment for eating from a tree. - God is an unjust sadist
The fact that there is a devil speaks volumes about God's competence. And doesn't it also mean that God created evil?


Fortunately, there's a better explanation. Yahweh doesn't exist, and the peasants who wrote the Bible were inept at piecing together even the simplest elements of a plot line.

[chrmjenkins]

Really quick here, I shouldn't be posting when I'm so busy :o.


I am not responsible for what my ancestors did. - God is unjust
Eating from a tree from which you're not supposed to eat is not an evil deed. It is a sign of naivety or innocence. Adam and Eve can't be held responsible for this if God didn't bother to equip them with better common sense. - God is an evil prankster
An eternity of torment and countless suffering upon descendants is not an adequate punishment for eating from a tree. - God is an unjust sadist
The fact that there is a devil speaks volumes about God's competence. And doesn't it also mean that God created evil?


Fortunately, there's a better explanation. Yahweh doesn't exist, and the peasants who wrote the Bible were inept at piecing together even the simplest elements of a plot line.


Common law and morals disputes this. We are responsible for our parent's debts when they pass on, and we're often held morally responsible for their care when they cannot provide it, regardless of what put them in their state of need.
He told them not to. It was disobedience on their part. And it wasn't just eating from a tree. It was a symbolic aspiration for godly knowledge.
And as such, it is not rendered. If you chose not to believe in God, you are rejecting Him. What is He doing other than honoring your choice by not giving you a place at His side in heaven?
The devil doesn't say anything about God that the fall of man doesn't say.

[brad.c]

The fact that there is a devil speaks volumes about God's competence. And doesn't it also mean that God created evil?


I beg to differ on this point as a negative statement on god. If I was an all-powerful being looking for recruits, the first thing I'd create would be a scapegoat.

[floyde]

Common law and morals disputes this. We are responsible for our parent's debts when they pass on, and we're often held morally responsible for their care when they cannot provide it, regardless of what put them in their state of need.


Perhaps we learned our lawmaking from the Bible. But this is not the same thing. If your parents murder somebody, will you go to jail too? Does it make you evil?


He told them not to. It was disobedience on their part. And it wasn't just eating from a tree. It was a symbolic aspiration for godly knowledge.


They didn't know better. When you tell your child to avoid your medicine cabinet and the child snoops in there anyway, would you say that the child is evil?

Also, wasn't it the tree "of knowledge of good and evil"? How could they have been doing something wrong, if they didn't know about right and wrong? This is simply ridiculous, I'm sorry.


And as such, it is not rendered. If you chose not to believe in God, you are rejecting Him. What is He doing other than honoring your choice by not giving you a place at His side in heaven?


I'm not rejecting him, just like you are not rejecting Ganesh or Quetzalcoatl. I can't accept something for which I have every reason to believe is fake. You're still dodging the fact that such disproportionate punishment is that of an evil tyrant, not what you would expect from an all-loving benevolent being.


The devil doesn't say anything about God that the fall of man doesn't say.


The devil is either God's deliberate creation (i.e. God created evil) or God's most embarrassing mistake. It makes Him either evil or incompetent, perhaps both.

[colinmack]

My apologies. I hadn't gotten to Page 20 yet.

This gave me a chuckle...

[Eanair]

He told them not to. It was disobedience on their part. And it wasn't just eating from a tree. It was a symbolic aspiration for godly knowledge.

How dare humans aspire for knowledge. Obviously they deserve to be punished.

And as such, it is not rendered. If you chose not to believe in God, you are rejecting Him. What is He doing other than honoring your choice by not giving you a place at His side in heaven?

By not believing in God, I'm rejecting him/her/it/they? If so, then I also reject dragons and unicorns.

So instead of saying, "You don't believe in me, okay, no Heaven for you - here, just lose consciousness and cease to exist" it's rather "You don't believe in me, okay, no Heaven for you - here, go to this place where you'll choke and burn and scream and be in pain for all eternity."

Sounds like such a loving guy.

[chrmjenkins]

Perhaps we learned our lawmaking from the Bible. But this is not the same thing. If your parents murder somebody, will you go to jail too? Does it make you evil?

Oh no, you'll have several posters on here vehemently assert that we cannot and do not derive our laws from mere morals. They are ethics, and must be founded in reason.


They didn't know better. When you tell your child to avoid your medicine cabinet and the child snoops in there anyway, would you say that the child is evil?

Also, wasn't it the tree "of knowledge of good and evil"? How could they have been doing something wrong, if they didn't know about right and wrong? This is simply ridiculous, I'm sorry.

They weren't inhibited by a child's lack of mental faculties. They were told not to, which they could perfectly comprehend, yet they did anyway.


I'm not rejecting him, just like you are not rejecting Ganesh or Quetzalcoatl. I can't accept something for which I have every reason to believe is fake. You're still dodging the fact that such disproportionate punishment is that of an evil tyrant, not what you would expect from an all-loving benevolent being.

Of course I reject them. I reject anything I don't believe in. You could deny that your biological parents were your parents, but why? It's the same with God. If you choose not to believe in Him as your creator, you are choosing not to be with Him.


The devil is either God's deliberate creation (i.e. God created evil) or God's most embarrassing mistake. It makes Him either evil or incompetent, perhaps both.

It's the same case as it is with man. God created beings with free will. The devil and man chose to disobey God.

How dare humans aspire for knowledge. Obviously they deserve to be punished.

God calls us to take dominion over the earth. That includes the acquisition of knowledge. This wasn't about knowledge, it was about obedience.

By not believing in God, I'm rejecting him/her/it/they? If so, then I also reject dragons and unicorns.

What else would you call it?


So instead of saying, "You don't believe in me, okay, no Heaven for you - here, just lose consciousness and cease to exist" it's rather "You don't believe in me, okay, no Heaven for you - here, go to this place where you'll choke and burn and scream and be in pain for all eternity."

Sounds like such a loving guy.

Not quite. Rejecting God is refusing to believe He exists and refusing the holiness that is God. If someone is to reject that, God honors the choice by giving them the freedom from Him that they desire. You don't need to conjure up the visions of the stereotypical hell to see this would be a bad thing.

Besides, people happily point to the disputed texts and the schisms within the belief as evidence it is not true, yet when an alternate interpretation comes out that paints a more positive picture of the afterlife (there is a chance for redemption, hell isn't permanent, hell doesn't even exist etc.), people reject those notions because the hard line position gives them more to object to. I tend to avoid a focused position on this point because it heavily obscures the actual point of witnessing: to know God through Jesus Christ (as Jesus says He is the way to the Father). If I use the concept of hell in my approach, I'm driving to them acceptance based on fear alone. That's not how I operate, nor is it why I feel happy to know God.

[Eanair]

It's the same case as it is with man. God created beings with free will. The devil and man chose to disobey God.

If the devil willingly chose to disobey God and bring evil to the world and create suffering (imac/cheese does say that this is the devil's world) then:

God allows it (God is malevolent) or
God cannot control it (God it not powerful)

[chrmjenkins]

If the devil willingly chose to disobey God and bring evil to the world and create suffering (imac/cheese does say that this is the devil's world) then:

God allows it (God is malevolent) or
God cannot control it (God it not powerful)

Again, that would involve God removing free will. Parents don't take this hard line either. They allow children to make mistakes so that they can learn from them.

[skunk]

Here is an interesting article discussing why God lets horrible things happen. (http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5271.0.106.0) The portions about 6,000 years of humanity are not the point so lets not focus on that. It just does a good job of discussing how man (Adam and Eve) made a choice and chose to live in the world of the devil.The passage you quoted is shameful. Not only does it conveniently gloss over the questions I have asked twice in this thread, namely "Who created Satan and the Archangels, and what were they, and why is this not mentioned in Genesis?", but the rationalisation that millions of innocent people, young and old, must die horrible deaths just because this alleged god has not decided to end their suffering is an entirely bankrupt position. Whichever way you look at it, this "god" of yours is both cruel and capricious. Why would anyone want to spend an eternity by the side of such a monster?

[Eanair]

God calls us to take dominion over the earth. That includes the acquisition of knowledge. This wasn't about knowledge, it was about obedience.

You mentioned disobedience, but you also highlighted this:

It was a symbolic aspiration for godly knowledge

Now it's not about the aspiration of godly knowledge?

If you wanted your "children" to be obedient and submissive to you, why create free will in the first place?

Not quite. Rejecting God is refusing to believe He exists and refusing the holiness that is God. If someone is to reject that, God honors the choice by giving them the freedom from Him that they desire. You don't need to conjure up the visions of the stereotypical hell to see this would be a bad thing.

Based on the God described in the Bible, I would want to be as far away from him as possible. From my viewpoint, I see that circumstance as a wonderful outcome.

[Cromulent]

Again, that would involve God removing free will. Parents don't take this hard line either. They allow children to make mistakes so that they can learn from them.

Parents are not all powerful though. Children always have and always will go behind their parents back.

[chrmjenkins]

You mentioned disobedience, but you also highlighted this:



Now it's not about the aspiration of godly knowledge?

If you wanted your "children" to be obedient and submissive to you, why create free will in the first place?

In this case, it was something they were better off not knowing. It's the same as when a parent chooses to protect their children from some knowledge because it would do more harm than good. That doesn't mean they don't want their children to have control over their own lives.

Parents are not all powerful though. Children always have and always will go behind their parents back.

Which can be avoided if they imprison them and do not allow the situations to come up. That's the point. Absolute control is not a concept anyone seems to be fond of.

[Eanair]

Again, that would involve God removing free will. Parents don't take this hard line either. They allow children to make mistakes so that they can learn from them.

So, a parent should allow her/his child to go out and walk on thin ice during winter so the child falls in, gets hypothermia, and learns from the mistake?

How much suffering justifies learning?

What about diseases? Did God allow smallpox to ravage the planet? If God snapped his fingers and made smallpox disappear, what free will was he interfering with then?

[skunk]

In this case, it was something they were better off not knowing. It's the same as when a parent chooses to protect their children from some knowledge because it would do more harm than good. That doesn't mean they don't want their children to have control over their own lives.
And the Elohim (gods) said, "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."Is this some gods jealously protecting their authority, or is it a loving parent protecting their children?

[colinmack]

If so, then I also reject dragons and unicorns.

What - there are no unicorns?

That's it, I quit.