Why would God make us?

Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Why would God make us?

This was one of the questions that had led me to atheism, though it was one of many. If God is an all powerful perfect being then such a being would have a need for nothing. The question I had simply was why create humanity? Why produce us when we are apparently far inferior to God in mental ability, morals, etc. (see the book of Job). If for some reason God desired companionship why not produce beings that were more in line with its own capacity, as smart and clever as it since in most cases the idea of companionship would seem to imply wanting a kind of relationship. For that matter, why would such a being want or require worship from us? I mean have no desire to be worshipped by other human beings but if we go to the exact comparison, I have no desire or even interest in being worshipped by ants. I'd be interested in any commentary on this.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4284
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:This was one of

Joker wrote:

This was one of the questions that had led me to atheism, though it was one of many. If God is an all powerful perfect being then such a being would have a need for nothing. The question I had simply was why create humanity? Why produce us when we are apparently far inferior to God in mental ability, morals, etc. (see the book of Job). If for some reason God desired companionship why not produce beings that were more in line with its own capacity, as smart and clever as it since in most cases the idea of companionship would seem to imply wanting a kind of relationship. For that matter, why would such a being want or require worship from us? I mean have no desire to be worshipped by other human beings but if we go to the exact comparison, I have no desire or even interest in being worshipped by ants. I'd be interested in any commentary on this.

 

Maybe he looks at us as dogs. You know smart enough to train a little. I am more partial to dogs that don't worship me but the ones that do worship you are a lot easier to train. Or maybe he WAS trying to create his equal but failed. Or he is just a sadistic bastard that gets off torturing ants. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Maybe he

Beyond Saving wrote:

Maybe he looks at us as dogs. You know smart enough to train a little. I am more partial to dogs that don't worship me but the ones that do worship you are a lot easier to train. Or maybe he WAS trying to create his equal but failed. Or he is just a sadistic bastard that gets off torturing ants. 

 

Hard to add anything to this comment.  I think you covered most of the possibilities.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I think this is not a

I think this is not a critique against theism in general, but it is a critique against the omni-max God that is popular now.

 

And you are right, an omniscient, all powerful deity would have no reason to create anything because it would already know all possible outcomes of any 'choices' it made.  Hell, one of the problems with an omni-max deity in the first place is that the deity can't really 'do' anything, since you can't make a decision if you exist outside of linear time, being everywhere and everywhen at once.  Theologians wrangle over crap like this all the time in an attempt to justify their preconceptions.

The whole concept of the onmi-max deity is a giant contradiction.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:This was one of

Joker wrote:

This was one of the questions that had led me to atheism, though it was one of many. If God is an all powerful perfect being then such a being would have a need for nothing. The question I had simply was why create humanity? Why produce us when we are apparently far inferior to God in mental ability, morals, etc. (see the book of Job). If for some reason God desired companionship why not produce beings that were more in line with its own capacity, as smart and clever as it since in most cases the idea of companionship would seem to imply wanting a kind of relationship. For that matter, why would such a being want or require worship from us? I mean have no desire to be worshipped by other human beings but if we go to the exact comparison, I have no desire or even interest in being worshipped by ants. I'd be interested in any commentary on this.

If the Christian god is real perhaps the answer lies in Revelation 4:8-11. God is surrounded by what sounds like theme park automatrons that continously barrage him with praise. After billions of years of this boring drivel the god was in the mood for some humor and entertainment.  He was stir crazy from hearing infinite praise from the 4 beasts and watching the 24 elders toss their crowns before him so why not create some defective creatures and watch them flounder about. Even if he already knew about the countless idiotic things we do it had to be a lot more fun to watch than to continue to have his ass kissed 24/7 for infinity by the automatrons by his thorne.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4284
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Then why do all the

 Then why do all the Christians keep telling us to kiss his ass in order to get into heaven? If you are right pauljohn maybe us atheists will be the only ones to get into heaven for not kissing his ass. Now that would be a great joke. Sounds like something I would do if I were a god.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
This question will never

This question will never make sense to you. If you deny the existence of something, then the logic of that being will never make sense. However, I will give my attempt to explain. In my explanation there are a few things I say that are referenced by scripture. I understand you may not ever look them up, but since I am not trying to convince you of anything, I offer them simply so that should you choose you can get more insight to the Christian position on this issue and where I am coming from.

 

In its simplest form the answer is, because he wanted to (Revelation 4:11; Col. 1:16). He did not create us because he needed us, because God needs nothing. He wasn't looking for a friend, a dog, or anything like that. God would still be the exact same without us (Malachi 3:6 emphasize unchanging). And much to the regret of many humans, he did not create us to be "peers" or "equals" since logically he could not do so.

 

Assuming you can pretend for a moment that you understand or believe in the sovereignty of God, you would also be amazed as us Christians are than he would condescend to call us his friends...and not servants as many would like to believe (John 15:14-15). Simply, God created us for his pleasure and so that we, as his creation,would know him and take pleasure in that. It is intended to be a mutually beneficial relationship. We make him happy (though he does not need us) and he makes us happy in knowing him.

 

This is the easy explanation. Are there questions still in this? Absolutely. If God is completely sufficient in the Trinity, why would he create since complete sufficiency implies no need or desire for creation? There are many question. The absolute truth in this question is answerable at the core. How can we as finite beings try to get into the mind of an infinite being?

 

Everything I said up to this point, has been the Biblical explanation. My hypothesis is this: Since the Bible tells us that God is love, love requires expression upon some one. Not to say God HAD to create us, but how can one love without an object of said love? That is the best explanation I have found I say my hypothesis, but I can not claim ownership of it. It is just what I subscribe to.

 

But I say again, there are still unanswered questions because we as finite being can not figure out the psychology of an infinite being.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nice blast of the assertion blunderbus.

Crossover wrote:

This question will never make sense to you. If you deny the existence of something, then the logic of that being will never make sense. However, I will give my attempt to explain. In my explanation there are a few things I say that are referenced by scripture. I understand you may not ever look them up, but since I am not trying to convince you of anything, I offer them simply so that should you choose you can get more insight to the Christian position on this issue and where I am coming from.

In its simplest form the answer is, because he wanted to (Revelation 4:11; Col. 1:16). He did not create us because he needed us, because God needs nothing. He wasn't looking for a friend, a dog, or anything like that. God would still be the exact same without us (Malachi 3:6 emphasize unchanging). And much to the regret of many humans, he did not create us to be "peers" or "equals" since logically he could not do so.

Assuming you can pretend for a moment that you understand or believe in the sovereignty of God, you would also be amazed as us Christians are than he would condescend to call us his friends...and not servants as many would like to believe (John 15:14-15). Simply, God created us for his pleasure and so that we, as his creation,would know him and take pleasure in that. It is intended to be a mutually beneficial relationship. We make him happy (though he does not need us) and he makes us happy in knowing him.

This is the easy explanation. Are there questions still in this? Absolutely. If God is completely sufficient in the Trinity, why would he create since complete sufficiency implies no need or desire for creation? There are many question. The absolute truth in this question is answerable at the core. How can we as finite beings try to get into the mind of an infinite being?

Everything I said up to this point, has been the Biblical explanation. My hypothesis is this: Since the Bible tells us that God is love, love requires expression upon some one. Not to say God HAD to create us, but how can one love without an object of said love? That is the best explanation I have found I say my hypothesis, but I can not claim ownership of it. It is just what I subscribe to.

But I say again, there are still unanswered questions because we as finite being can not figure out the psychology of an infinite being.

 

When I read a post like this, entirely biased by the desire to live forever, I can't help seeing a vehicle cobbled together by outrageous audacity. Quoting the human-writ bible to explain the mind of infinite god while admitting we cannot know the mind of god? Hellooooo. And there's more. Justifying the inherited peculiarity of the trinity, god as the personification of human love, him needing us in order to be love? What does this even mean? Love is a human thing and this stuff is just pin the tail on the donkey.

To think I grew up with bible study every morning of my young life. The whole thing is vast, laughable fabrication. Before you respond crossover, just bear in mind I would never worship your eternal tormentor.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4284
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote:In its

Crossover wrote:

In its simplest form the answer is, because he wanted to (Revelation 4:11; Col. 1:16). He did not create us because he needed us, because God needs nothing. He wasn't looking for a friend, a dog, or anything like that. God would still be the exact same without us (Malachi 3:6 emphasize unchanging). And much to the regret of many humans, he did not create us to be "peers" or "equals" since logically he could not do so.

I don't see how any of the scripture you suggest throws out the dog theory, it just restates that god created us and that he doesn't change. When I had a dog I didn't change (well I got a few scars). And why couldn't he create us to be his peers or equals? I thought he could do anything he wanted. (Mathew 19:26, Revelation 19:6) So while you might argue that he didn't make us his peers I don't think you can say that he couldn't have if he wanted to. And since when did logic get in the way of the bible? 

 

Crossover wrote:

Assuming you can pretend for a moment that you understand or believe in the sovereignty of God, you would also be amazed as us Christians are than he would condescend to call us his friends...and not servants as many would like to believe (John 15:14-15). Simply, God created us for his pleasure and so that we, as his creation,would know him and take pleasure in that. It is intended to be a mutually beneficial relationship. We make him happy (though he does not need us) and he makes us happy in knowing him.

Sounds like the dog theory to me. Except, I treat dogs much better than god treats people. So god is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent version of Michael Vick.

 

Crossover wrote:

Everything I said up to this point, has been the Biblical explanation. My hypothesis is this: Since the Bible tells us that God is love, love requires expression upon some one. Not to say God HAD to create us, but how can one love without an object of said love? That is the best explanation I have found I say my hypothesis, but I can not claim ownership of it. It is just what I subscribe to.

 

But I say again, there are still unanswered questions because we as finite being can not figure out the psychology of an infinite being.

And again it sounds like the dog theory. Why do people buy dogs? To have something to love. So you postulate god created us to have something to love much like I might buy a puppy. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I don't

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't see how any of the scripture you suggest throws out the dog theory, it just restates that god created us and that he doesn't change. When I had a dog I didn't change (well I got a few scars). And why couldn't he create us to be his peers or equals? I thought he could do anything he wanted. (Mathew 19:26, Revelation 19:6) So while you might argue that he didn't make us his peers I don't think you can say that he couldn't have if he wanted to. And since when did logic get in the way of the bible? 

 

I quote Augustine: For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.

 

How can the sole omnipotent being, create other sole omnipotent beings? When one thing is the ONE all powerful being, you can not create equally all powerful beings, because if everyone is all powerful then truelly no one is all poweful. So doing so would contradict himself. God can not contradict himself.

 

As far as teh "dogs" theory, it is adressed in John where I posted when he cals us friends.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sounds like the dog theory to me. Except, I treat dogs much better than god treats people. So god is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent version of Michael Vick.

 

Would it make you feel better if I just said sure, we are dogs? I mean the life of a dog isn't that bad. Assuming the owner isn't Michael Vick at least. Plus I'm sure God can pass just a little better than Vick.

 

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

When I read a post like this, entirely biased by the desire to live forever, I can't help seeing a vehicle cobbled together by outrageous audacity. Quoting the human-writ bible to explain the mind of infinite god while admitting we cannot know the mind of god? Hellooooo. And there's more. Justifying the inherited peculiarity of the trinity, god as the personification of human love, him needing us in order to be love? What does this even mean? Love is a human thing and this stuff is just pin the tail on the donkey.

To think I grew up with bible study every morning of my young life. The whole thing is vast, laughable fabrication. Before you respond crossover, just bear in mind I would never worship your eternal tormentor.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I'm trying to explain what I believe to who originally asked the question. I hate that you will never worship God, but I take no personal responsibility in your decision. The only thing I am asked to do by god is say what we believe. I am not asked to hound you into believing what I believe.

 

I suggest you reread my post because you misunderstand me. I quoted the Bible only to attempt to give an explanation. I said, we can not know for sure. BUT I did my best to explain based on the Bible. What else did you want me to use that was more relevant to the question? Curious George?

 

I also am not implying God needs us to be love, I am saying love needs an object. It's a simple hypothesis. I don't know the answer for sure why god created us. I just gave an attempt to answer it.

 

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4284
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: As far as

Crossover wrote:

 As far as teh "dogs" theory, it is adressed in John where I posted when he cals us friends.

Would it make you feel better if I just said sure, we are dogs? I mean the life of a dog isn't that bad. Assuming the owner isn't Michael Vick at least. Plus I'm sure God can pass just a little better than Vick.

Dogs can be friends. Just makes sense to me. If I were god, I would want several dogs. Now as far as better than Vick.... well lets get back to the question I have asked every theist for the last week and have not received one response. 

If I concede for the sake of discussion that the god of the bible does exist, why would I want to spend eternity in heaven with him? Most Christians agree that to get to heaven you have to be a believer before you die. Hence, my lovely grandmother is burning in hell even though she was one of the sweetest, kindest ladies in the world.

Now, I am not always the greatest person. I commit several sins and don't feel remorse for many of them. Yet I am told that if I accept Jesus as my savior I can go to heaven and all sins will be forgiven. So I could theoretically make it to heaven and depending on the Christian the evilest people in the world could also make it there. Now why would I want to spend eternity with a being that is omnipotent and will forgive every sin except for not believing? It strikes me as remarkably vain and insecure. And on top of all that, he is punishing all of humanity for what two people did at our beginning which strikes me as rather petty and vengeful. Two more qualities I would not expect from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. So why would I WANT to be with a vain, petty, vengeful being for eternity? Especially one that sent Grandma to hell. Besides, sometimes I don't keep my mouth shut when I should I would probably make him mad at me sooner or later.

Personally, I would rather burn for the chance to see Grandma again. This is a very serious question I would like answered. Not like the Vick wisecrack, gotta admit that was funny, I don't care who you are.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Appreciate your position, Crossover.

Crossover wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

When I read a post like this, entirely biased by the desire to live forever, I can't help seeing a vehicle cobbled together by outrageous audacity. Quoting the human-writ bible to explain the mind of infinite god while admitting we cannot know the mind of god? Hellooooo. And there's more. Justifying the inherited peculiarity of the trinity, god as the personification of human love, him needing us in order to be love? What does this even mean? Love is a human thing and this stuff is just pin the tail on the donkey.

To think I grew up with bible study every morning of my young life. The whole thing is vast, laughable fabrication. Before you respond crossover, just bear in mind I would never worship your eternal tormentor.

 

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I'm trying to explain what I believe to who originally asked the question. I hate that you will never worship God, but I take no personal responsibility in your decision. The only thing I am asked to do by god is say what we believe. I am not asked to hound you into believing what I believe.

I suggest you reread my post because you misunderstand me. I quoted the Bible only to attempt to give an explanation. I said, we can not know for sure. BUT I did my best to explain based on the Bible. What else did you want me to use that was more relevant to the question? Curious George?

I also am not implying God needs us to be love, I am saying love needs an object. It's a simple hypothesis. I don't know the answer for sure why god created us. I just gave an attempt to answer it.

 

And I don't misunderstand you. It simply doesn't make a lot of sense to say we cannot know and in the same breath contend that the bible humans wrote can be mined for information humans cannot possibly know.

I know you're only attempting to explain. I'm just reflecting my confusion over 'facts' that are unsupported by any evidence.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Dogs can

Beyond Saving wrote:

Dogs can be friends. Just makes sense to me. If I were god, I would want several dogs. Now as far as better than Vick.... well lets get back to the question I have asked every theist for the last week and have not received one response. 

If I concede for the sake of discussion that the god of the bible does exist, why would I want to spend eternity in heaven with him? Most Christians agree that to get to heaven you have to be a believer before you die. Hence, my lovely grandmother is burning in hell even though she was one of the sweetest, kindest ladies in the world. Now, I am not always the greatest person. I commit several sins and don't feel remorse for many of them. Yet I am told that if I accept Jesus as my savior I can go to heaven and all sins will be forgiven. So I could theoretically make it to heaven and depending on the Christian the evilest people in the world could also make it there. Now why would I want to spend eternity with a being that is omnipotent and will forgive every sin except for not believing? It strikes me as remarkably vain and insecure. And on top of all that, he is punishing all of humanity for what two people did at our beginning which strikes me as rather petty and vengeful. Two more qualities I would not expect from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. So why would I WANT to be with a vain, petty, vengeful being for eternity? Especially one that sent Grandma to hell. (Besides, sometimes I don't keep my mouth shut when I should I would probably make him mad at me sooner or later.) Personally, I would rather burn for the chance to see Grandma again. This is a very serious question I would like answered. (Not like the Vick wisecrack, gotta admit that was funny, I don't care who you are.)

Everything I say will be operating under the assumption that you do believe in God and the Bible. I understand that you do not, but I say that so that no one starts arguing with what I say here based on the language I use.

Not believing isn't a sin. Nowhere in the Bible will you see it listed as a sin (as far as I know I should say. I tend to forget but I sure haven't seen it anywhere). you're not being punished for not believing, you're being punished for what you did. It's much like the American legal system. You're in court with someone else for the exact same thing (speeding, say 14 mph over). The judge says "take driving school  by next week and I'll drop this from your record." You do an he doesn't. Now you're free to walk and he has jail time for speeding. Now, this is a flawed metaphore and obviouslly on a smaller scale, but I hope it gives you an idea of why people TRUELY go to hell. It is not because of their lack of belief, but for the actual sins...just like your buddy has jail for speeding and not for not going to driving school. That being said, why would you want to go to heaven to be with all those people? Because in heaven everyone is perfect, and they are not sinners. So you're with people who may have been trash on earth, but are no longer trash and no longer have the ability to do anything bad.

 

Next, God isn't punishing people for the mistakes of two, we punish ourselves. You as an individual sin so you are liable for that sin. It is punishment in that we don't have the garden of eden and all, but really isn't our world kinda cooler than that now? I mean we have internet and all, they didn't. That's half sarcasm, half for real.

 

Why would you want to go to heaven with him? Because you believe being with God is better than being with grandma basically. I'm sure your grandma is sweet and all, as is mine...but neither of ours has even created worlds, walked on water, or helped the Saints win a Super Bowl! Given the choice, I would choose being with God over my Grandfather (who I loved more than anyone in the world) simply because God is loving, rewarding, and all poerful. If for no other reason it'd be cooler to see the master do his thing!

 

Since you do not believe, its harder to comprehend why you would want it. But assuming you did believe it'd be pretty easy to understand.

 

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Not believing is a sin

 

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment of sin, because they believe not on me"

 

Jesus, John 16:8 and 9

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Crossover, I think you

Crossover, I think you brought up a few interesting arguments but they only create more questions. For example, if God sought love, or at least wished to create beings to interact with (if out of whim, a sense of lonliness, what have you) Why not create a being equal to his/her/its power and understanding? Such an entity could have total equality, a love among equals with no sense of power imbalance. To put it another way, a divine being that wants love and also has the power to theoretically destroy all of creation and humanity in an instant seems to be getting 'love' in the same way that a batterer would. Because fear keeps you bound to such an entity and the bible has plenty of cases where God decides to smite and destroy for fairly minor transgressions, or the book of Job where he just goes nuts on this poor guy to test his faith. Not to mention that in Jobs case when the guy (rightly) points out that he's done nothing wrong and wonders why bad things happen to good people God shows up as a whirlwind and then starts screaming and rebuking poor Job. I mean seriously, if this is divine love I think I can do without it. But let's say for the sake of argument that this being feared that creating an equal would only lead to chaos, say the equal became sadistic or evil and chose to create a world of horror and pain. In this case creating a true equal might be dangerous, fair enough, so something akin to God-Lite perhaps, a being of identical comprehension and understanding but not as powerful so as to avoid the potential havoc. Why not do that, or if that was somehow improbable apparently God had Angels (which I don't ever remember being mentioned during the days of creation so apparently they're kind of either just there or God might have been a bit more circumspect about the process) and they could have been companions/friends/what have you.  We again seem a bit superfluous in the whole grand scheme of things.


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment of sin, because they believe not on me"

 

Jesus, John 16:8 and 9

 

 

 

 

He will convict the world because of sin. Not because of not believing. He will punish them because of their sin, and he will punish them and not others because they did not believe. The verse isn't saying He will punish their not believing because it is a sin. It says he will punish their sin because hey did not believe.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
So calling god a liar is not a sin??

Crossover wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment of sin, because they believe not on me"

 

Jesus, John 16:8 and 9

 

 

 

 

He will convict the world because of sin. Not because of not believing. He will punish them because of their sin, and he will punish them and not others because they did not believe. The verse isn't saying He will punish their not believing because it is a sin. It says he will punish their sin because hey did not believe.

 

 

"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son."

Jesus, John 5: 1

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:Crossover, I

Joker wrote:

Crossover, I think you brought up a few interesting arguments but they only create more questions. For example, if God sought love, or at least wished to create beings to interact with (if out of whim, a sense of lonliness, what have you) Why not create a being equal to his/her/its power and understanding? Such an entity could have total equality, a love among equals with no sense of power imbalance. To put it another way, a divine being that wants love and also has the power to theoretically destroy all of creation and humanity in an instant seems to be getting 'love' in the same way that a batterer would. Because fear keeps you bound to such an entity and the bible has plenty of cases where God decides to smite and destroy for fairly minor transgressions, or the book of Job where he just goes nuts on this poor guy to test his faith. Not to mention that in Jobs case when the guy (rightly) points out that he's done nothing wrong and wonders why bad things happen to good people God shows up as a whirlwind and then starts screaming and rebuking poor Job. I mean seriously, if this is divine love I think I can do without it. But let's say for the sake of argument that this being feared that creating an equal would only lead to chaos, say the equal became sadistic or evil and chose to create a world of horror and pain. In this case creating a true equal might be dangerous, fair enough, so something akin to God-Lite perhaps, a being of identical comprehension and understanding but not as powerful so as to avoid the potential havoc. Why not do that, or if that was somehow improbable apparently God had Angels (which I don't ever remember being mentioned during the days of creation so apparently they're kind of either just there or God might have been a bit more circumspect about the process) and they could have been companions/friends/what have you.  We again seem a bit superfluous in the whole grand scheme of things.

 

He couldn't create one equal to him. Same thing I said earlier to I can't remember who. The one and only God can not create another one and only basically. If all beings are omnipotent, then truely none are. What if they came into conflict with each other? Who would win? You did adress that and I will adress what you said about it later. As far as teh fear comment goes, I can't truely anwer for that since I don't believe because of fear. Nor do I believe that fear is a basis for faith in anything. It's fire insurance. He rebukes Job for not being faithful. I dont know if you have kids or not, but if not I'm sure you remember what Im about to say when you were a kid. For sake of discussion you have a son. He falls and cuts his leg. You have to spray that stuff on it and he starts screaming that it hurts and getting upset at you. You know better than he does that in the end it'll help. Youg et frustrated. That's what happened with Job.

 

As far as you question on why God wouldn't have created a slighty less powerful "clone" basically. Arguably he did. We weren't of equal comprehension but we do have comprehension beyond all other creations. We were meant to be in perfect communion with him but that's when Adam and Eve messed that up. The angel point, confuses me as well really.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Crossover wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment of sin, because they believe not on me"

 

Jesus, John 16:8 and 9

 

 

 

 

He will convict the world because of sin. Not because of not believing. He will punish them because of their sin, and he will punish them and not others because they did not believe. The verse isn't saying He will punish their not believing because it is a sin. It says he will punish their sin because hey did not believe.

 

 

"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son."

Jesus, John 5: 1

 

 

 

After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

 

John 5:1

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: He

Crossover wrote:

 He couldn't create one equal to him. Same thing I said earlier to I can't remember who. The one and only God can not create another one and only basically. If all beings are omnipotent, then truely none are. What if they came into conflict with each other? Who would win? You did adress that and I will adress what you said about it later. As far as teh fear comment goes, I can't truely anwer for that since I don't believe because of fear. Nor do I believe that fear is a basis for faith in anything. It's fire insurance. He rebukes Job for not being faithful. I dont know if you have kids or not, but if not I'm sure you remember what Im about to say when you were a kid. For sake of discussion you have a son. He falls and cuts his leg. You have to spray that stuff on it and he starts screaming that it hurts and getting upset at you. You know better than he does that in the end it'll help. Youg et frustrated. That's what happened with Job.

 

As far as you question on why God wouldn't have created a slighty less powerful "clone" basically. Arguably he did. We weren't of equal comprehension but we do have comprehension beyond all other creations. We were meant to be in perfect communion with him but that's when Adam and Eve messed that up. The angel point, confuses me as well really.

 

I don't remember ever reading that he couldn't make another like himself but if nothing else we seem able to agree that it might be due to concerns of conflict assuming such a being could exist. It seems though that fear is a big part of the faith, that if you don't accept Jesus you burn forever, that seems like a pretty big scare tactic. It seems like the big reason to love God is to avoid eternal suffering, hence why it seems more like an abusive partner or parent than a benevolent being. I understand your point too, I was nearly blinded when I was around 6 and it took my parents having to ignore my pleadings to stop the treatment to wash my eyes out to make sure I'd be able to see. The problem with Job is it wasn't a little thing, Job had his whole family destroyed, his animals killed, home destroyed, servants killed, land blighted, wealth gone. Material loss is annoying but the loss of that much life just to prove a point seems a bit much, especially given that Job didn't do anything wrong. When Job functionally asked why this was happening to him God got pissed at him, in that situation, I'm sorry but God is being a vindictive bully. Pushing someone into the mud then kicking them in the gut when they ask what they did to deserve it.

I don't know that fully, I mean there are also of fairly intelligent animals, chimps, dolphins, etc. I know they aren't exactly our level fully in terms of cognition but they are fairly smart too. On the latter point, it seems an odd thing that as apparently smart and skilled as God is the ability for direct communication was so easily sabotaged, just saying.

I will also say quickly that I am glad that you are willing to admit your own confusion or lack of knowledge on something and that you are, so far at least, quite interesting to debate with.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4284
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote:Not

Crossover wrote:

Not believing isn't a sin. Nowhere in the Bible will you see it listed as a sin (as far as I know I should say. I tend to forget but I sure haven't seen it anywhere). you're not being punished for not believing, you're being punished for what you did. It's much like the American legal system. You're in court with someone else for the exact same thing (speeding, say 14 mph over). The judge says "take driving school  by next week and I'll drop this from your record." You do an he doesn't. Now you're free to walk and he has jail time for speeding. Now, this is a flawed metaphore and obviouslly on a smaller scale, but I hope it gives you an idea of why people TRUELY go to hell. It is not because of their lack of belief, but for the actual sins...just like your buddy has jail for speeding and not for not going to driving school. That being said, why would you want to go to heaven to be with all those people? Because in heaven everyone is perfect, and they are not sinners. So you're with people who may have been trash on earth, but are no longer trash and no longer have the ability to do anything bad.

What I meant is that to get into heaven you must believe in Jesus. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." So if you don't believe in Jesus- no heaven for you.

 

Crossover wrote:

Why would you want to go to heaven with him? Because you believe being with God is better than being with grandma basically. I'm sure your grandma is sweet and all, as is mine...but neither of ours has even created worlds, walked on water, or helped the Saints win a Super Bowl! Given the choice, I would choose being with God over my Grandfather (who I loved more than anyone in the world) simply because God is loving, rewarding, and all poerful. If for no other reason it'd be cooler to see the master do his thing!

That is like saying "Sorry Grandma but Uncle Frank is rich and has more cool stuff so I'm going to go live with him and never see you again." What??? I wouldn't trade my Grandma to be a billionaire or even king of the world. Even if your god exists, I don't want any part of being stuck with him for eternity I wouldn't sell out Grandma that cheap. Hell here I come, Grandma make me some pumpkin pie.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote: I don't

Joker wrote:

 

I don't remember ever reading that he couldn't make another like himself but if nothing else we seem able to agree that it might be due to concerns of conflict assuming such a being could exist. It seems though that fear is a big part of the faith, that if you don't accept Jesus you burn forever, that seems like a pretty big scare tactic. It seems like the big reason to love God is to avoid eternal suffering, hence why it seems more like an abusive partner or parent than a benevolent being. I understand your point too, I was nearly blinded when I was around 6 and it took my parents having to ignore my pleadings to stop the treatment to wash my eyes out to make sure I'd be able to see. The problem with Job is it wasn't a little thing, Job had his whole family destroyed, his animals killed, home destroyed, servants killed, land blighted, wealth gone. Material loss is annoying but the loss of that much life just to prove a point seems a bit much, especially given that Job didn't do anything wrong. When Job functionally asked why this was happening to him God got pissed at him, in that situation, I'm sorry but God is being a vindictive bully. Pushing someone into the mud then kicking them in the gut when they ask what they did to deserve it.

I don't know that fully, I mean there are also of fairly intelligent animals, chimps, dolphins, etc. I know they aren't exactly our level fully in terms of cognition but they are fairly smart too. On the latter point, it seems an odd thing that as apparently smart and skilled as God is the ability for direct communication was so easily sabotaged, just saying.

I will also say quickly that I am glad that you are willing to admit your own confusion or lack of knowledge on something and that you are, so far at least, quite interesting to debate with.

It doesn't say it in the Bible it just couldn't logically happen. (let the atheist jokes begin! "walking on water was logical?" "the whole thing couldn't logically happen!"...so on and so forth).

 

However, I don't believe in the scare tactic. Yes, there's the whole if you don't accept him you go to hell and all, but scare tactics don't inspire true faith in anything. They inspire more fear. If you're selling fear of hell, you're selling fire insurance, not God.As far as Job, I understand it wasn't little but I'm sure you got then end of the book too though right? How he got everything back and then some? It was his plan, and god got pissed that Job wasn't trusting him like should be.

 

Direct communication is pretty tough. Who is to say why God stopped? I have no clue. It stopped after Jesus so I am assuming that once Jesus came God decided he didn't need to anymore since he came to earth.

 

Well, yes I will try my best to admit when I don't know what I'm talking about. I'd like that from other people, but its better than making something up. People here are very intelligent, and if I make up some crap instead of saying I don't know I'll get ripped. Trust me. But I'll do my best to answer any questions anyone asks about theism or Christianity. And I enjoy answering your questions because you're civil and not arrogant.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:What I

Beyond Saving wrote:

What I meant is that to get into heaven you must believe in Jesus. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." So if you don't believe in Jesus- no heaven for you.

Well exactly. Once again, the legal system. you don't go to driving school you don't get it erased from your record. I use that because at 20 I've been to driving school 5 times, so there may be a better example but I use that because it's what I'm familiar with.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is like saying "Sorry Grandma but Uncle Frank is rich and has more cool stuff so I'm going to go live with him and never see you again." What??? I wouldn't trade my Grandma to be a billionaire or even king of the world. Even if your god exists, I don't want any part of being stuck with him for eternity I wouldn't sell out Grandma that cheap. Hell here I come, Grandma make me some pumpkin pie.

More like saying "Sorry Grandma but Uncle Frank is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and my all loving creator. If you want to come you can, otherwise we won't see each other again." She has her choice and you have yours. I understand since you don't believe in God, Grandma is the easy choice. Once again, I'm not here to pressure you, threaten you, convince you of anything. That will probably never happen. I'm just answering the questions.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4284
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote:More like

Crossover wrote:

More like saying "Sorry Grandma but Uncle Frank is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and my all loving creator. If you want to come you can, otherwise we won't see each other again." She has her choice and you have yours. I understand since you don't believe in God, Grandma is the easy choice. Once again, I'm not here to pressure you, threaten you, convince you of anything. That will probably never happen. I'm just answering the questions.

Actually I can prove that Grandma had a part in creating me. And her choice is over because she died an atheist so is already in hell. I just can't wrap my head around how anyone could worship a being whose line is believe in me or else and choose that being over close family. And what kind of being would force someone to make that choice? It is so foreign to me I feel like one of Harry Mudd's androids about to explode. 

And I really appreciate you answering my question. Most theists just ignore it or skirt around the issue.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Soz, Crossover,

Crossover wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Crossover wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment of sin, because they believe not on me"

 

Jesus, John 16:8 and 9

 

He will convict the world because of sin. Not because of not believing. He will punish them because of their sin, and he will punish them and not others because they did not believe. The verse isn't saying He will punish their not believing because it is a sin. It says he will punish their sin because hey did not believe.

 

 

"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son."

Jesus, John 5: 1

 

 

 

After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

 

John 5:1

 

I got tangled up with commentary or mixed up the verses. Try this on for size:

 

 

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

 

Jesus, John 3:18

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Actually

Beyond Saving wrote:

Actually I can prove that Grandma had a part in creating me. And her choice is over because she died an atheist so is already in hell. I just can't wrap my head around how anyone could worship a being whose line is believe in me or else and choose that being over close family. And what kind of being would force someone to make that choice? It is so foreign to me I feel like one of Harry Mudd's androids about to explode. 

And I really appreciate you answering my question. Most theists just ignore it or skirt around the issue.

 

Hahaha. I guess she may have had a part in creating you...just maybe. (Just to be sure, that's sarcasm). It's not so much "choose me or family" as it is "choose me and tell your family to choose me". But I don't think you're really going to be able to wrap your head around it since it's a part of an entire belief system that you do not agree with. But I'm happy to answer any question I can.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I got

Atheistextremist wrote:


I got tangled up with commentary or mixed up the verses. Try this on for size:

 

 

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

 

Jesus, John 3:18

 

 

Commentary? Biblical commentary by any chance? If so I'd like to know who.

 

But I'll spare you the implications of this verse in Calvinism v.s. Arminianism and cut to the relevant part. This verse is implying that because you do not believe you have been judged, not that you are being judged based on your non belief. I'm hoping I can explain this right with my lack of good subordinate conjunctions. Your sin is being judged because you do not believe...basically. Not that you're non belief is judged, but taht your sin is judged based on your non belief. Make sense?

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: Hahaha. I

Crossover wrote:

 

Hahaha. I guess she may have had a part in creating you...just maybe. (Just to be sure, that's sarcasm). It's not so much "choose me or family" as it is "choose me and tell your family to choose me". But I don't think you're really going to be able to wrap your head around it since it's a part of an entire belief system that you do not agree with. But I'm happy to answer any question I can.

 

I went through the family thing with my sister.  She is Jehovah Witness and apparently one of their goals is to have everyone in their family in the church.  Which meant I got harassed every time I spoke with her for awhile.  What finally got her off my back was to tell her I thought most christians were arrogant.  And prideful in their faith.  "I'm going to heaven and you are going to hell."  "I know better what is good for you than you know for yourself." 

I happen to believe this.  I have studied the bible, thank you.  I used to go to church, thanks.  I decided for myself that religion was not appropriate for me or helpful in my life.  And then some earnest 18 year old Mormon or 40ish church lady or 50ish sweaty preacher on the street attempts to tell me that they know what is best for me - a perfect stranger.  Arrogance.  And it shut up my sister which was a nice side effect.  We can actually have a conversation now without my slamming the phone down.

 

My grandma used to say that great-grandfather would be running the ice water stand in hell, grandfather (her husband) would be trucking the ice down.  Uncle (her son) would be zinging them for all the cash he could get.  And she would be keeping the books.  I would rather be with my grandma, too.

You know, it seems to me you have phrased it as a choice between the "music of the spheres" and down home loving family.  I'd would be so uncomfortable in your vision of heaven.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Ummmm

Crossover wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

I got tangled up with commentary or mixed up the verses. Try this on for size:

 

 

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

 

Jesus, John 3:18

 

 

Commentary? Biblical commentary by any chance? If so I'd like to know who.

 

But I'll spare you the implications of this verse in Calvinism v.s. Arminianism and cut to the relevant part. This verse is implying that because you do not believe you have been judged, not that you are being judged based on your non belief. I'm hoping I can explain this right with my lack of good subordinate conjunctions. Your sin is being judged because you do not believe...basically. Not that you're non belief is judged, but taht your sin is judged based on your non belief. Make sense?

 

No, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It sounds like a reversal of phrases with no change in meaning. There's a Spurgeon sermon here on the topic to play with.

 

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0003.htm

 

I just asked my Theology degree missionary mum if unbelief in god was a sin and she said yes. But to be honest I'm not sure why it matters now.

The 2 things, disbelief and sin go together anyway. You can't not believe, not be forgiven and be without sin in the eyes of god so it's a moot point.

I couldn't find the original paste I found but it was bible commentary - I'll keep looking. It seemed a balanced, christian commentary to me.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Crossover

cj wrote:

Crossover wrote:

 

Hahaha. I guess she may have had a part in creating you...just maybe. (Just to be sure, that's sarcasm). It's not so much "choose me or family" as it is "choose me and tell your family to choose me". But I don't think you're really going to be able to wrap your head around it since it's a part of an entire belief system that you do not agree with. But I'm happy to answer any question I can.

 

I went through the family thing with my sister.  She is Jehovah Witness and apparently one of their goals is to have everyone in their family in the church.  Which meant I got harassed every time I spoke with her for awhile.  What finally got her off my back was to tell her I thought most christians were arrogant.  And prideful in their faith.  "I'm going to heaven and you are going to hell."  "I know better what is good for you than you know for yourself." 

I happen to believe this.  I have studied the bible, thank you.  I used to go to church, thanks.  I decided for myself that religion was not appropriate for me or helpful in my life.  And then some earnest 18 year old Mormon or 40ish church lady or 50ish sweaty preacher on the street attempts to tell me that they know what is best for me - a perfect stranger.  Arrogance.  And it shut up my sister which was a nice side effect.  We can actually have a conversation now without my slamming the phone down.

 

My grandma used to say that great-grandfather would be running the ice water stand in hell, grandfather (her husband) would be trucking the ice down.  Uncle (her son) would be zinging them for all the cash he could get.  And she would be keeping the books.  I would rather be with my grandma, too.

You know, it seems to me you have phrased it as a choice between the "music of the spheres" and down home loving family.  I'd would be so uncomfortable in your vision of heaven.

 

Don't take me as trying to say treat he should convert and try to convert all of his family but hounding them. I said earlier, I don't and won't hound anyone. And if I ever implied in any post that none of you, or you imp articular, do not understand or never were theists I'm sorry. I try not to assume that I know where anyone is coming from unless I know for sure. My general point was that it doesn't HAVE to be a choice between grandma and God. Not that if you choose God you should harass grandma.Pardon me if I wasn't clear.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Crossover wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

I got tangled up with commentary or mixed up the verses. Try this on for size:

 

 

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

 

Jesus, John 3:18

 

 

Commentary? Biblical commentary by any chance? If so I'd like to know who.

 

But I'll spare you the implications of this verse in Calvinism v.s. Arminianism and cut to the relevant part. This verse is implying that because you do not believe you have been judged, not that you are being judged based on your non belief. I'm hoping I can explain this right with my lack of good subordinate conjunctions. Your sin is being judged because you do not believe...basically. Not that you're non belief is judged, but taht your sin is judged based on your non belief. Make sense?

 

No, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It sounds like a reversal of phrases with no change in meaning. There's a Spurgeon sermon here on the topic to play with.

 

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0003.htm

 

I just asked my Theology degree missionary mum if unbelief in god was a sin and she said yes. But to be honest I'm not sure why it matters now.

The 2 things, disbelief and sin go together anyway. You can't not believe, not be forgiven and be without sin in the eyes of god so it's a moot point.

I couldn't find the original paste I found but it was bible commentary - I'll keep looking. It seemed a balanced, christian commentary to me.

 

 

 

 

Ahhh, Spurgeon. I do like Spurgeon, but I do descend from him. I'm a difficult type of Christian. As far as I have been able to find there is really only one theologian who I agree with 90% of the time and that's Charles Ryrie. I'm a Calvinist, Dispinsationalist, Free Grace believer.

 

I point back to my reference about driving school. If you speed and don' go to driving school like the judge tells you to, then you face the punishment of speeding, not the punishment of not going to driving school. The one unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Nonbelief, if it were a sin, would be unforgivable by definition but Jesus specifically says that there is only one. Nonbelief can not be forgiven by simple logic. If you are forgiven by your belief then, you can not be forgiven on not believing. However, Jesus doesn't say it's an unforgivable sin. So it can not be a sin, based on the Bible.

 

I'm willing to change my belief, but I don't see any scripture to sway me. Mostly because any scripture you find is about interpretation. I go by literal interpretation.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmm there is interpretation there.

Crossover wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Crossover wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

I got tangled up with commentary or mixed up the verses. Try this on for size:

 

 

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

 

Jesus, John 3:18

 

 

Commentary? Biblical commentary by any chance? If so I'd like to know who.

 

But I'll spare you the implications of this verse in Calvinism v.s. Arminianism and cut to the relevant part. This verse is implying that because you do not believe you have been judged, not that you are being judged based on your non belief. I'm hoping I can explain this right with my lack of good subordinate conjunctions. Your sin is being judged because you do not believe...basically. Not that you're non belief is judged, but taht your sin is judged based on your non belief. Make sense?

 

No, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It sounds like a reversal of phrases with no change in meaning. There's a Spurgeon sermon here on the topic to play with.

 

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0003.htm

 

I just asked my Theology degree missionary mum if unbelief in god was a sin and she said yes. But to be honest I'm not sure why it matters now.

The 2 things, disbelief and sin go together anyway. You can't not believe, not be forgiven and be without sin in the eyes of god so it's a moot point.

I couldn't find the original paste I found but it was bible commentary - I'll keep looking. It seemed a balanced, christian commentary to me.

  

 

Ahhh, Spurgeon. I do like Spurgeon, but I do descend from him. I'm a difficult type of Christian. As far as I have been able to find there is really only one theologian who I agree with 90% of the time and that's Charles Ryrie. I'm a Calvinist, Dispinsationalist, Free Grace believer.

I point back to my reference about driving school. If you speed and don' go to driving school like the judge tells you to, then you face the punishment of speeding, not the punishment of not going to driving school. The one unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Nonbelief, if it were a sin, would be unforgivable by definition but Jesus specifically says that there is only one. Nonbelief can not be forgiven by simple logic. If you are forgiven by your belief then, you can not be forgiven on not believing. However, Jesus doesn't say it's an unforgivable sin. So it can not be a sin, based on the Bible.

I'm willing to change my belief, but I don't see any scripture to sway me. Mostly because any scripture you find is about interpretation. I go by literal interpretation.

 

Ma reckons the sin against the holey spriggit is denying he exists, rather than suggesting is a titanic arsehole. It's a subjective point.

But I do agree with your commitment to literal interpretation. I find the most reliable source material for sneaking out on this sort of limb is the fossil record.

Think of it as organisms slammed between the pages of time and to a great extent, not open to subjective interpretation.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Ma

Atheistextremist wrote:

Ma reckons the sin against the holey spriggit is denying he exists, rather than suggesting is a titanic arsehole. It's a subjective point.

But I do agree with your commitment to literal interpretation. I find the most reliable source material for sneaking out on this sort of limb is the fossil record.

Think of it as organisms slammed between the pages of time and to a great extent, not open to subjective interpretation.

 

 

 

 

Hahaha. Dare I ask where you got your theological learning from? You're much more educated than most Christians about theology. Granted it's not a high bar to reach to pass the theological understanding of most Christians, however you seem to have surpassed that bar quite a bit.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Backslidden son of

 

preacher father, missionary mother, lay preacher brother and preacher brother in law, great grandnephew of founder of pentecostal church of NZ, alleged ancestor of puritan bishop of jedburgh - and I will have my revenge, in this world or the next...

 

For the record, our best bible scholars are gadfly and John Paul. There are some other folks here who have bible - Sinphaneous? Mellestad. Nigel manages to cover everything. There are others.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

preacher father, missionary mother, lay preacher brother and preacher brother in law, great grandnephew of founder of pentecostal church of NZ, alleged ancestor of puritan bishop of jedburgh - and I will have my revenge, in this world or the next...

 

For the record, our best bible scholars are gadfly and John Paul. There are some other folks here who have bible - Sinphaneous? Mellestad. Nigel manages to cover everything. There are others.  

I always have respect for some one who enters a discussion informed about the other persons side. Failure to understand opposing beliefs is failure to truly believe in your own. Much respect.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't rate me

 

on the authority of these antecedents, Crossover. I'm a journalist by profession and like all journos I'm a kingfisher not a scholar. I'll dip into this discussion and next minute be off thinking about stardust or viral genetics for 5 minutes. Of all this stuff, geology and the fossil record appeal to me most because having studied them, I feel I understand. More importantly, unlike a lot of the jargon-laden crap we argue over, fossils were real beings and have been thumbed into the dirt by the undeniable laws of gravity, oldest creature first. I can never see fossils without thinking of living creatures frozen in time, in their way more profound and beautiful than hubble's ancient star shine.  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: on

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

on the authority of these antecedents, Crossover. I'm a journalist by profession and like all journos I'm a kingfisher not a scholar. I'll dip into this discussion and next minute be off thinking about stardust or viral genetics for 5 minutes. Of all this stuff, geology and the fossil record appeal to me most because having studied them, I feel I understand. More importantly, unlike a lot of the jargon-laden crap we argue over, fossils were real beings and have been thumbed into the dirt by the undeniable laws of gravity, oldest creature first. I can never see fossils without thinking of living creatures frozen in time, in their way more profound and beautiful than hubble's ancient star shine.  

 

 

 

Having never really given any thought to actual fossils I can still relate to what you're saying on a smaller level. Being in the South I pass by old abandoned barns and depression era houses all the time. I can't help but wonder who lived there, what they did, and what life was like for them.But obviously the guy who left the ancient pick ax that gets frozen in the mountains, and the women who left the clay pot in the sand have much more impact on our lives today. It's fascinating how someone thousands or millions of years ago who may have had no social impact on their society, can have such a profound impact on ours and our knowledge. And being that the Bible has been a published document for so long I give little thought to the way it came together. I take into account who Paul was writ ting to and the time period when trying to find the intention of the writer and all, but I think little of where the stories in the book of Genesis and things like that came from. If you have any brief descriptions of any knowledge of such things Id be glad to hear it. Or perhaps that's best saved for another discussion.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Crossover

Crossover wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

on the authority of these antecedents, Crossover. I'm a journalist by profession and like all journos I'm a kingfisher not a scholar. I'll dip into this discussion and next minute be off thinking about stardust or viral genetics for 5 minutes. Of all this stuff, geology and the fossil record appeal to me most because having studied them, I feel I understand. More importantly, unlike a lot of the jargon-laden crap we argue over, fossils were real beings and have been thumbed into the dirt by the undeniable laws of gravity, oldest creature first. I can never see fossils without thinking of living creatures frozen in time, in their way more profound and beautiful than hubble's ancient star shine.  

 

 

 

Having never really given any thought to actual fossils I can still relate to what you're saying on a smaller level. Being in the South I pass by old abandoned barns and depression era houses all the time. I can't help but wonder who lived there, what they did, and what life was like for them.But obviously the guy who left the ancient pick ax that gets frozen in the mountains, and the women who left the clay pot in the sand have much more impact on our lives today. It's fascinating how someone thousands or millions of years ago who may have had no social impact on their society, can have such a profound impact on ours and our knowledge. And being that the Bible has been a published document for so long I give little thought to the way it came together. I take into account who Paul was writ ting to and the time period when trying to find the intention of the writer and all, but I think little of where the stories in the book of Genesis and things like that came from. If you have any brief descriptions of any knowledge of such things Id be glad to hear it. Or perhaps that's best saved for another discussion.

 

It isn't brief, but:  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17279

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Crossover

mellestad wrote:

Crossover wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

on the authority of these antecedents, Crossover. I'm a journalist by profession and like all journos I'm a kingfisher not a scholar. I'll dip into this discussion and next minute be off thinking about stardust or viral genetics for 5 minutes. Of all this stuff, geology and the fossil record appeal to me most because having studied them, I feel I understand. More importantly, unlike a lot of the jargon-laden crap we argue over, fossils were real beings and have been thumbed into the dirt by the undeniable laws of gravity, oldest creature first. I can never see fossils without thinking of living creatures frozen in time, in their way more profound and beautiful than hubble's ancient star shine.  

 

 

 

Having never really given any thought to actual fossils I can still relate to what you're saying on a smaller level. Being in the South I pass by old abandoned barns and depression era houses all the time. I can't help but wonder who lived there, what they did, and what life was like for them.But obviously the guy who left the ancient pick ax that gets frozen in the mountains, and the women who left the clay pot in the sand have much more impact on our lives today. It's fascinating how someone thousands or millions of years ago who may have had no social impact on their society, can have such a profound impact on ours and our knowledge. And being that the Bible has been a published document for so long I give little thought to the way it came together. I take into account who Paul was writ ting to and the time period when trying to find the intention of the writer and all, but I think little of where the stories in the book of Genesis and things like that came from. If you have any brief descriptions of any knowledge of such things Id be glad to hear it. Or perhaps that's best saved for another discussion.

 

It isn't brief, but:  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17279

 

Thank you. I bookmarked it and I'll get to it as soon as Ive got the chance.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


1 Timothy 1 13 17
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-08-12
User is offlineOffline
love

god is a god of love, for this reason he made us.  The angels only know to love and serve, but man knows to hate, to lust, and to live for him self.  Thats why its so speacial when we come back to god, we are the lost son and the lord rejoices when we return, because we can chose wether to love him or not.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
1 Timothy 1 13 17 wrote:god

1 Timothy 1 13 17 wrote:

god is a god of love, for this reason he made us.  The angels only know to love and serve, but man knows to hate, to lust, and to live for him self.  Thats why its so speacial when we come back to god, we are the lost son and the lord rejoices when we return, because we can chose wether to love him or not.

 

Excuse me, but this sounds like orgasm is near.

First, who the f... you are to know better than god knows that "god is a god of love", are you hallucinating?  If God exists, He will definitely have a MUCH better understanding of himself than you can ever imagine.  Do not pretend you know Him well enough to tell what He is and what He thinks!  You cannot comprehend what atheists think in general, how can you KNOW what God thinks???!?!

 

Second, if God exists, then all this must be one big experiment. Call it experiment of love, f...g miracles, aliens attacking, whatever.  Timothy, if you love God then you should admit that you love experimenting on living organisms, you would just love to kill an atheist and see how your God will reward you for this.   All you have to do to get closer to your God of love is that you have to KILL all the people who don't believe in Him.  Otherwise, you are not a "True Christian", mfr.

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:1

100percentAtheist wrote:

1 Timothy 1 13 17 wrote:

god is a god of love, for this reason he made us.  The angels only know to love and serve, but man knows to hate, to lust, and to live for him self.  Thats why its so speacial when we come back to god, we are the lost son and the lord rejoices when we return, because we can chose wether to love him or not.

 

Excuse me, but this sounds like orgasm is near.

First, who the f... you are to know better than god knows that "god is a god of love", are you hallucinating?  If God exists, He will definitely have a MUCH better understanding of himself than you can ever imagine.  Do not pretend you know Him well enough to tell what He is and what He thinks!  You cannot comprehend what atheists think in general, how can you KNOW what God thinks???!?!

 

 

He knows what god/s/dess thinks because s/he/it/they text him several times a day. 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4284
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:100percentAtheist

cj wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

1 Timothy 1 13 17 wrote:

god is a god of love, for this reason he made us.  The angels only know to love and serve, but man knows to hate, to lust, and to live for him self.  Thats why its so speacial when we come back to god, we are the lost son and the lord rejoices when we return, because we can chose wether to love him or not.

 

Excuse me, but this sounds like orgasm is near.

First, who the f... you are to know better than god knows that "god is a god of love", are you hallucinating?  If God exists, He will definitely have a MUCH better understanding of himself than you can ever imagine.  Do not pretend you know Him well enough to tell what He is and what He thinks!  You cannot comprehend what atheists think in general, how can you KNOW what God thinks???!?!

 

 

He knows what god/s/dess thinks because s/he/it/they text him several times a day. 

Oh, is god on twitter now? I better go sign up.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Oh, is

Beyond Saving wrote:

Oh, is god on twitter now? I better go sign up.

He's been there for a while : http://twitter.com/god


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:The whole

mellestad wrote:
The whole concept of the onmi-max deity is a giant contradiction.

You put it in much more polite words than I can bring myself to utter or type. I can only call it the crappiest invention of human imagination.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Oh, is god on twitter

Quote:
Oh, is god on twitter now? I better go sign up.

DAMN! I'm going to request my account be removed. He already stalks me at work, on the street, on my TV and says he can see everything I do, including watching me pee and masturbate. Is there anywhere I can go where God isn't following me singing a Police song? "Every move you make I'll be watching you".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4284
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Oh, is

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Oh, is god on twitter now? I better go sign up.

DAMN! I'm going to request my account be removed. He already stalks me at work, on the street, on my TV and says he can see everything I do, including watching me pee and masturbate. Is there anywhere I can go where God isn't following me singing a Police song? "Every move you make I'll be watching you".

You should get a restraining order. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:mellestad

Brian37 wrote:

mellestad wrote:
The whole concept of the onmi-max deity is a giant contradiction.

You put it in much more polite words than I can bring myself to utter or type. I can only call it the crappiest invention of human imagination.

You should see the posts I edit or delete.  I self moderate to an extreme amount.

 

I'll start off with a post calling someone a stupid cunt and then edit it until I wind up with the actual post saying, "I'm not sure if I agree with that, could you elaborate?"

 

It been getting worse the longer I'm here.  I had to take a two month break because it was getting to the point where all I wanted to do was make fun of people.  Which is fun, but not constructive.  Well...not that any of this is constructive, is it?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: Well...not

mellestad wrote:
Well...not that any of this is constructive, is it?

Is too. And so is the making fun part.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:mellestad

Anonymouse wrote:

mellestad wrote:
Well...not that any of this is constructive, is it?

Is too. And so is the making fun part.

I guess.  I think you get more done by writing like Bob Spence though.

But it does depend on whom you're speaking with.  For example, I'm having fun talking to Crossover in a polite way.  I'm polite to Timothy because he's so pathetic it makes me feel like a bully to insult him.

I just call Paisley names though, although I didn't for the first hundred posts Smiling

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.