Question for our Christian visitors

Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Question for our Christian visitors

Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:This is my answer.I

Quote:
This is my answer.

I would rephrase "the Bible is the word of God" to 'the Bible contains the word of God'.  The word of God came to us through the prophets, who when in the spirit, were given the word.  As those prophets spoke the word of God to the people, the words and events were recorded.

 

How do you know that?

isa820 wrote:

Acts 26:4 - 26:5   My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

Saul was a pharisee and had a great life.  He had respect from all his people.  He received money from his people. Everything was going great for this guy.  He actually persecuted Christians having them arrested and testifying against them at their executions.  One day he was on his way to Damascus.  He saw a light shining all around him as bright as the sun, and heard, as he described, Jesus speaking to him.  

After this meeting he left his good life and followed Christ.  He was now hated by his old friends, and eventually persecuted himself.  He was stoned on one occasion, beaten up a couple of times, thrown into prison, and had his life threatened a few times.

How do you know these things occurred?

Quote:
This goes completely against all logic.  If he had not seen/heard from Christ, why would he give up everything and be willing to face death unafraid fulfilling the commission of Christ.  (by the way, this is still happening today all over the world.)

Why? Because people do stupid things. Because people are often wrong. There's nothing unique about Christianity in this respect. People in many religions have also died for their beliefs. People that used to be against other religions have also been converted to those religions.

Quote:
Matthew, Mark, the apostile John, Peter and others wrote their books because they witnessed the miracles of Christ, and wanted to let other people know that Christ not only actually lived, but that he came from God and performed miricles, died and rose from the dead.  Almost all of the apostiles were put to death for preaching the word of God, but it did not matter to them.  They also gave up everything to follow Christ, and gave up their lives for preaching his gosple.

How do you know this?

Quote:
A question for you:  How much would you give up for the spaghetti monster?  Imagine you went to Iran teaching that the spaghetti monster created the world and that all must worship it.  Imagine that you were arrested, and brought before a councel that commanded you to renounce this monster as a false God or lose your head.  Would you renounce him?  I would.  I know he is not true and is not worth losing my life over.

Lol, well, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a mock religion, so nobody actually believes in it (I hope). I wouldn't give up anything for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Quote:
The apostiles knew Christ, and witnessed his miracles and teachings, and witnessed his being raised from the dead.  Remember, after Christ died, all those who followed him were in hiding.  They were scared that they would suffer the same fate as Christ because they followed him.  After he rose and appeared to them, they were fearless!

I'm not questioning the meaning of these stories. I'm asking how you know these events, particularly the supernatural events, actually happened.

Quote:
Conclusion to me, Christ really lived, died and lived again.  He DID come from the Father.  If the apostiles were lying, they would never give their lives for the lie.  I cannot believe that.

Of course not, I wouldn't believe that either. They wouldn't be lying. They would be absolutely convinced that their beliefs are correct, but they would be wrong, just like suicide bombers, Buddhist monks that set themselves on fire, Japanese kamikazes, etc. I can believe that because I know it happens.

Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that someone is the son of God is about as extraordinary as you can get, but based on the small amount of knowledge I have on this topic, the evidence for Jesus's divinity ranges from absurdly flimsy to non-existent.

Quote:
(If I tell you MY story you would really think I was a nutcase, and you will probably get a good laugh out of it at my expense.)
 

That's probably the only evidence from you I would respect.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


isa820
Posts: 30
Joined: 2009-05-01
User is offlineOffline
Yes, I see the problem.  I

REPLY TO CRAZYMONKEY

Yes, I see the problem.  

I am wondering what exactly the extra-biblical evidence should support.  If I need to show extra-biblical evidence that the Bible is the word of God, I'm not sure I can do it.  I could provide prophesy within the Bible that has been fulfilled, but you would probably argue that the event actually took place before the prophesy was written.  I will provide them, if they would work.  Let me know.  

If my story does not count as proof either, than I cannot do it.  

Some things cannot be observed.  Back in the day, an obstetrician named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss observed differences in death rates between patients treated by doctors and midwives.  The difference between them was that the doctors also performed autopsies and the midwives did not.  He imagined that something unseen was causing the spread of the disease which was killing the patients.  He called these "unseen things" morbid particles. He began insisting that the doctors wash their hands between doing autopsies and examinations.  He was riddiculed by his peers and eventually fired because his "morbid particles" did not fit into sceince.  They were not observable.

Black holes are believed to exist although nobody has ever seen one.  Scientists believe that they exist because they observe changes in surrounding objects.  For some reason, something completely un-observable can fall into the guidelines of science.  To them, influences on surrounding objects is deemed evidence of the existance of something unseen.

Why is it that changes in lives...(drastic changes)...cannot be used as evidence for God?  Some of these changes, like Saul to Paul, are incredible!  They defy human logic!  

But...If I can't use my story or prophesy, I don't know how to answer.  Please state exactly what the extra-biblical evidence must support.  

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
isa820 wrote:Some things

isa820 wrote:
Some things cannot be observed.  Back in the day, an obstetrician named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss observed differences in death rates between patients treated by doctors and midwives.  The difference between them was that the doctors also performed autopsies and the midwives did not.  He imagined that something unseen was causing the spread of the disease which was killing the patients.  He called these "unseen things" morbid particles. He began insisting that the doctors wash their hands between doing autopsies and examinations.  He was riddiculed by his peers and eventually fired because his "morbid particles" did not fit into sceince.  They were not observable.
Woah, woah, woah there.  He did make an observation: an "indirect observation". He saw a causal link and called it (admittedly rather arbitrarily) "morbid particles". Later discoveries corroborated that causal link and clarified the mechanism. That's how science works. Saying "it didn't fit into science" is silly, what i think you mean is "it didn't fit with what was known at the time". Scientists are human, too, and do make the mistake of scoffing at what disagrees with what they think they know. The evidence always wins in the end.

Here's a question you need to answer for yourself: If something can not be observed at all, how do you know it exists?

isa820 wrote:
Black holes are believed to exist although nobody has ever seen one.  Scientists believe that they exist because they observe changes in surrounding objects.  For some reason, something completely un-observable can fall into the guidelines of science.  To them, influences on surrounding objects is deemed evidence of the existance of something unseen.
Again, indirect observation, corroborated by other evidence (x-ray emissions, for instance).

isa820 wrote:
Why is it that changes in lives...(drastic changes)...cannot be used as evidence for God?  Some of these changes, like Saul to Paul, are incredible!  They defy human logic! 
They defy logic in what way? Do we really need to posit god to explain the changes, or does psychology and neurophysiology explain the changes? If a simpler explanation works as well, why add god?

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
isa820 wrote:Yes, I see the

isa820 wrote:

Yes, I see the problem.  

I am wondering what exactly the extra-biblical evidence should support.  If I need to show extra-biblical evidence that the Bible is the word of God, I'm not sure I can do it.

Precisely. This is where we're coming from. We see what you just said, and what others say, using their books, etc, and we say "Wait a minute. This is exactly the same."

If there *were* a true religion, if there *were* a multi-omni god (assuming the 'all good' portion, and also assuming a punishment/reward system like that described in the Bible) there wouldn't be any problem. We wouldn't be thinking about "Does god exist?" or "Which god?" We'd be thinking "How should we worship god?"

And god, being all-powerful and all-knowing, *could* do so if he chose. That he hasn't yet, says that he is either malign or indifferent. Again, assuming multi-omni status.

In other words: I agree. There's absolutely no way to prove it. And it's not because we're not open-minded, or that our hearts are hardened against god, or that we hate god, or whatever.... it's just that the evidence is insufficient. And in a world with an all-powerful and all-knowing god, that's an argument-smooshing paradox. 'Smooshing' is a technical term.

Quote:
Some things cannot be observed..... (tells story about microorganisms)

See, but here's the thing: This hypothesis, or maybe even weird obsession, was borne out by *empirical evidence.* There were scores of hunches and hypotheses that folks thought were absolutely true, but that haven't been borne out by empirical evidence. For instance, the Epicurean idea that all of physical reality is either matter or void. Or the idea of the humours. Or phrenology. Or the doctrine of signatures. And so on.

Speculation about spiritual matters has no recourse to empirical evidence; in fact, it flat-out denies the usefulness of such things in philosophical speculation. Meaning: It destroys itself as a meaningful ontology before it even begins.

Quote:
Black holes are believed to exist although nobody has ever seen one.  Scientists believe that they exist because they observe changes in surrounding objects.  For some reason, something completely un-observable can fall into the guidelines of science.  To them, influences on surrounding objects is deemed evidence of the existance of something unseen.

So what indirect evidence do you have for supernatural existence? Or agency? Or beings? What is the evidence?

Quote:
Why is it that changes in lives...(drastic changes)...cannot be used as evidence for God?  Some of these changes, like Saul to Paul, are incredible!  They defy human logic!

Because, as I said before, they are prone to error- at the very least. We human beings make patterns; it's how we created the abstractions of past and future, how we're able to think about causation and correlation, and so forth. This trend can also, however, cause us to see patterns where there are none. Add to that the fact that we are constantly filtering raw data through our brains, using cognitive filters that we developed due to social, physical, mental, etc, pressures- often to the point that various people literally do not see the same world that others do- and it's easy to explain why personal experience, even (or maybe especially) radical and extraordinary experiences, are not good evidence.

Quote:
But...If I can't use my story or prophesy, I don't know how to answer.  Please state exactly what the extra-biblical evidence must support.

It must not resort to special pleading. That is my only requirement. If I, or anyone else, can find a story that is similar or the same, using similar or the same claims and similar or the same proofs, it does not count.

Good luck. Seriously, good luck.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
isa820 wrote:Black holes are

isa820 wrote:

Black holes are believed to exist although nobody has ever seen one.  Scientists believe that they exist because they observe changes in surrounding objects.  For some reason, something completely un-observable can fall into the guidelines of science.  To them, influences on surrounding objects is deemed evidence of the existance of something unseen.

Science can explore any subject that can be rationally and objectively explored.

The simple fact that light disappears around a certain place in space, even if you have no scientific training, should demonstrate that something is present which causes the light to disappear.

Quote:
Why is it that changes in lives...(drastic changes)...cannot be used as evidence for God?

All kinds of things can change a person's life, from a car accident to playing a musical instrument to believing that the rapture will occur within their lifetime. The fact that their life changed only shows that something changed their life. It is not evidence for a God. 

If the experiences of Christians are evidence for Yahweh, then the experiences of Muslims are evidence for Allah, and so on,

Quote:
Some of these changes, like Saul to Paul, are incredible!  They defy human logic!

What does that mean? Why does it defy logic? Does Joseph Smith translating scriptures from an ancient language he didn't understand defy logic? Does the Golden Monkey traveling to the west and becoming a good spirit defy logic? 

You don't think these kinds of things happen with other religions?

Quote:
But...If I can't use my story

If you hadn't had your personal experience, would you still be an atheist?

Quote:
or prophesy, I don't know how to answer.

Are these prophecies not terribly ambiguous? Can it be verified that they weren't self-fulfilling prophesies? Can it be verified that the predicted events actually occurred?

Quote:
Please state exactly what the extra-biblical evidence must support.

Any objective evidence. Show me any reason to believe that any God exists or that any supernatural event in the Bible actually occurred. You could probably convince me that your God is true just by showing that the Bible is free of contradictions and atrocities. Here are some good ones to start with in addition to the ones I posted above. My problem with each of them should be obvious.

     Say to the Israelites: "A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be cermonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over.
     If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding." Leviticus 12:2-5

     Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 1 Corinthians 13:4-5
     Beloved, let us LOVE one another: for love is of God; and every one who loves is born of God, and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is LOVE. 1 John 4:7-8
     Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Exodus 20:5-6
    
     If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

     For all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. Zephaniah 3:8

     "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Numbers 31:15-18
    
     "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

     "The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it." Mark 11:12-14

     "The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. Their hair was like women's hair, and their teeth were like lion's teeth. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. They had tails and stings like scorpions and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months. They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyn." Revelations 9:7-11

And, pretty much all the questions in this thread as well.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/66

Edit: Also, it'd be nice if you could show how Genesis 1 and 2 don't contradict physics, biology, etc. or why Genesis holds more weight than science. If you don't take Genesis literally, I'd like to know what Jesus died for. On top of that, I want to know why Jesus had to die at all.

Really, I have a lot of questions. Very little in Christianity makes any sense to me.

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
isa820 wrote:Nordmann, What

isa820 wrote:

Nordmann, What is your worldview?

 

It depends on what you mean. If you're using the phrase in its proper sense then I would never be so arrogant as to pretend that I have perfected an ontology, an explanation, a futurology, a value scale, a praxeology, an epistemology and an etiology all of which would harmonically and constantly define the world. I have developed several of these features of a worldview more than others, have ethical objections to developing some of them conclusively, preferring enquiry to the adoption of false certainty (the preserve of the religious mind and sports commentators), and have a profound understanding of the simple fact that I am one person, not the entire human race - a fact for which I am eternally grateful, given the race in question, but which forces me to conclude the prosaic fact that individuals' points of view preclude "worldviews" from having any real application except as faulty debating points. What's yours?

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


isa820
Posts: 30
Joined: 2009-05-01
User is offlineOffline
Hi everybody

Had a hard week.  I watched a movie with family, and am going to bed early.  Replies will come tomarrow.  Happy Mothers Day to any mothers reading.    


isa820
Posts: 30
Joined: 2009-05-01
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

Quote:
This is my answer.

I would rephrase "the Bible is the word of God" to 'the Bible contains the word of God'.  The word of God came to us through the prophets, who when in the spirit, were given the word.  As those prophets spoke the word of God to the people, the words and events were recorded.

 

How do you know that?   

I am explaining the difference between your question "how do I know that the Bible IS the word of God', and what I see, that 'the Bible contains the word of God'.  For example, 

Deu 24:1   When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house.  

Was this God's law, or the law of Moses?  

Mat 19:7 - 19:8   They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Moses allowed divorce, because of the hardness of the peoples hearts.  

Jhn 8:5 - 8:7   Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?  This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not].  So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Did Jesus go against the Law of God or the law of Moses?  

butterbattle wrote:

isa820 wrote:

Acts 26:4 - 26:5   My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

Saul was a pharisee and had a great life.  He had respect from all his people.  He received money from his people. Everything was going great for this guy.  He actually persecuted Christians having them arrested and testifying against them at their executions.  One day he was on his way to Damascus.  He saw a light shining all around him as bright as the sun, and heard, as he described, Jesus speaking to him.  

After this meeting he left his good life and followed Christ.  He was now hated by his old friends, and eventually persecuted himself.  He was stoned on one occasion, beaten up a couple of times, thrown into prison, and had his life threatened a few times.

How do you know these things occurred?   

These events are spoke of by Paul himself, and recorded by Phd. Luke.  I cannot find any reason to believe they would lie about these events.  At the very least, we could accept the fact that he believed these events took place then question wether or not he was sane.  

butterbattle wrote:
 

Quote:
This goes completely against all logic.  If he had not seen/heard from Christ, why would he give up everything and be willing to face death unafraid fulfilling the commission of Christ.  (by the way, this is still happening today all over the world.)

Why? Because people do stupid things. Because people are often wrong. There's nothing unique about Christianity in this respect. People in many religions have also died for their beliefs. People that used to be against other religions have also been converted to those religions.   

 

The difference is that Christianity was not a religion at this time.  These people knew Jesus.  They ate with him, walked with him and listened to him for years.  They had ample time to judge wether or not he was a flake. People today believe their religion is real because they are taught that by parents and society, and the teaching begins young and is quite hard to break.  The followers of Christ knew that following him led to death.  They chose death because of the events they had witnessed led them to believe that he must have come from God. 

butterbattle wrote:

Quote:
Matthew, Mark, the apostile John, Peter and others wrote their books because they witnessed the miracles of Christ, and wanted to let other people know that Christ not only actually lived, but that he came from God and performed miricles, died and rose from the dead.  Almost all of the apostiles were put to death for preaching the word of God, but it did not matter to them.  They also gave up everything to follow Christ, and gave up their lives for preaching his gosple.

How do you know this?  

  

Because they give these reasons in their books.  I did not make them up.

butterbattle wrote:

Quote:
The apostiles knew Christ, and witnessed his miracles and teachings, and witnessed his being raised from the dead.  Remember, after Christ died, all those who followed him were in hiding.  They were scared that they would suffer the same fate as Christ because they followed him.  After he rose and appeared to them, they were fearless!

I'm not questioning the meaning of these stories. I'm asking how you know these events, particularly the supernatural events, actually happened.  

 

My evidence, because I was not there physically, is to look at the effects these events had on their surroundings. If one were to appear in front of me, today, claiming to be from God, I doubt I would believe them.  If, however, they had the ability to perform supernatural events, I might follow to see If their words match what I understand to be the will of God.  I would never put my flesh in jepordy without proof (that satisfies myself) that there claims must be true.  It is unnatural not to love self, or life.  (I know that many these days kill themselves due to depression, and in days past due to honor, but never did they follow something they know to be false, just because they wanted to die.)

butterbattle wrote:
 

Quote:
Conclusion to me, Christ really lived, died and lived again.  He DID come from the Father.  If the apostiles were lying, they would never give their lives for the lie.  I cannot believe that.

Of course not, I wouldn't believe that either. They wouldn't be lying. They would be absolutely convinced that their beliefs are correct, but they would be wrong, just like suicide bombers, Buddhist monks that set themselves on fire, Japanese kamikazes, etc. I can believe that because I know it happens.  

 

Again, to go against what one believes, and give up their lives for a cause that has not been taught to them from infancy, or for a man which they knew personally and had an opportunity to determine the truthfulness of his teachings and the power of his words, to me this is different.

butterbattle wrote:

Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that someone is the son of God is about as extraordinary as you can get, but based on the small amount of knowledge I have on this topic, the evidence for Jesus's divinity ranges from absurdly flimsy to non-existent.  

 

Yes.  Baby steps.  Seeing God in the universe is the first step.  Once a person can see God's workings, or come to the acknowledge intelligence behind the things we can see, then, and only then, can that person can discover God's will.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
isa820 wrote:I am explaining

isa820 wrote:

I am explaining the difference between your question "how do I know that the Bible IS the word of God', and what I see, that 'the Bible contains the word of God'.  For example, 

Deu 24:1   When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house.  

Was this God's law, or the law of Moses?  

Mat 19:7 - 19:8   They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Moses allowed divorce, because of the hardness of the peoples hearts.  

Jhn 8:5 - 8:7   Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?  This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not].  So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Did Jesus go against the Law of God or the law of Moses?

Which laws are the laws of God and which laws are the laws of Moses? How do you tell the difference?

Quote:
The difference is that Christianity was not a religion at this time.

Every religion has a beginning. This still isn't unique, at all.

Quote:
These people knew Jesus.  They ate with him, walked with him and listened to him for years.  They had ample time to judge wether or not he was a flake.

How do you know that?

Quote:
Because they give these reasons in their books.  I did not make them up.

Do you have any evidence other than human testimony inside a compilation of religious scriptures?

Quote:
My evidence,

What evidence?

Quote:
because I was not there physically, is to look at the effects these events had on their surroundings.

What effects?

Quote:
If, however, they had the ability to perform supernatural events, I might follow to see If their words match what I understand to be the will of God.  I would never put my flesh in jepordy without proof (that satisfies myself) that there claims must be true.  It is unnatural not to love self, or life.  (I know that many these days kill themselves due to depression, and in days past due to honor, but never did they follow something they know to be false, just because they wanted to die.)

Again, people in other religions also die for their beliefs. Why do you subscribe to this religion instead of another one?

Quote:
Again, to go against what one believes, and give up their lives for a cause that has not been taught to them from infancy, or for a man which they knew personally and had an opportunity to determine the truthfulness of his teachings and the power of his words,

How do you know that?

Quote:
to me this is different.

Uh, no, it's not different. People in other religions die for their beliefs. Other scriptures describe how people followed prophets and were converted to their respective faiths.

Quote:
Yes.  Baby steps.  Seeing God in the universe is the first step. Once a person can see God's workings, or come to the acknowledge intelligence behind the things we can see, then, and only then, can that person can discover God's will.

Ah, I see. I have to become a theist before I can become a Christian.

- How do I see God in the universe?

- How does this support Christianity more than any other monotheistic religion?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


isa820
Posts: 30
Joined: 2009-05-01
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie wrote:isa820

crazymonkie wrote:

isa820 wrote:

Yes, I see the problem.  

I am wondering what exactly the extra-biblical evidence should support.  If I need to show extra-biblical evidence that the Bible is the word of God, I'm not sure I can do it.

Precisely. This is where we're coming from. We see what you just said, and what others say, using their books, etc, and we say "Wait a minute. This is exactly the same."

If there *were* a true religion, if there *were* a multi-omni god (assuming the 'all good' portion, and also assuming a punishment/reward system like that described in the Bible) there wouldn't be any problem. We wouldn't be thinking about "Does god exist?" or "Which god?" We'd be thinking "How should we worship god?"

And god, being all-powerful and all-knowing, *could* do so if he chose. That he hasn't yet, says that he is either malign or indifferent. Again, assuming multi-omni status.

In other words: I agree. There's absolutely no way to prove it. And it's not because we're not open-minded, or that our hearts are hardened against god, or that we hate god, or whatever.... it's just that the evidence is insufficient. And in a world with an all-powerful and all-knowing god, that's an argument-smooshing paradox. 'Smooshing' is a technical term.   

 

If I understand you right, because God is all powerful and all knowing, he could make himself known or make the truth known, then all would worship him and none would be lost, and because he does not, he either does not exist, or exists and is not worthy of worship anyway.  Is this the paradox? 

Gen 6:7   And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

God said that he wished he would not have made man, because man commits evil.  Would he have said this if he already knew we would turn out this way?  or how about:

Jer 36:1 - 36:3   And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, [that] this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.  It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin. 

The belief that God knows everything that we will ever do is not biblical.  Freewill is our ability to choose our actions.  God clearly does not know wether the house of Judah will repent of their ways, but tells Jeremiah to speak to them anyway.  

Anyway, God does make himself manifest to those who come to him.  Those who seek him will find him.  Exactly why this is so, I do not know.  

crazymonkie wrote:

So what indirect evidence do you have for supernatural existence? Or agency? Or beings? What is the evidence?  

 

How about the existance of instruction.  If, in the beginning there was just matter and energy, and space (void) between, or wether matter became energy or vice-versa, (or however you may personally believe it took place), where did instruction come from?  Instruction exists behind everything.  What tells, (or how does it know) DNA to unwind itsself into two pieces, and combine with half of another DNA strand to give instruction on the formation of one new being?  

Where did math come from?  Math is behind everything in the universe.  Humans discovered it, and use it as a tool. Without math, life would not exist and forces would cease to exist.  Forces of the universe obey mathmatical equasions.  So, beginning with matter and energy, how did math come into existance, and what gave instruction? 


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
isa820 wrote:Was this God's

isa820 wrote:

Was this God's law, or the law of Moses?

That's a semantic non-seqitur. It's the same thing: God gave the Law of Moses to the Hebrews. It was thus God's laws. And the Law of Moses, because Moses was the one who had to reveal it. In other words: don't side-step.

Quote:
Moses allowed divorce, because of the hardness of the peoples hearts.

Verse, plz? 

Quote:
Did Jesus go against the Law of God or the law of Moses?

See my first response. Your attempts at semantic parsing will fall flat, because they are predicated on the idea that there is a difference. It's based on the Christian theory that Jesus did away with certain parts of the Law and not others. Which is only found in Christian philosophy anyway- meaning you're pretty much using a word to define itself, philosophically speaking.

And it comes back to my question, which you haven't answered, and to which I'll add more detail right now:

Christian theology posits that Jesus did away with the Law. But then qualifies the statement by going on to quote certain parts of the Law and to use it as a basis for human legal systems. Now: The issue is this: Many of the portions of the Law that theologians were really keen on (such as the verses butterbattle quoted at length about slavery) were exalted as true, immutable, perfect and from God, and used to perpetrate (sanctify, even) behavior that we now see as horrific and cruel.

These were very smart theologians, some of them the heart of many denominations both ancient and modern, and they truly *knew* what parts of the Law God wanted them to keep and which parts God wanted them to ignore.

So again: How do you know which parts of the Law can be ignored, and which parts are immutable?

And please do realize, if it's God's Law (as it is in fact- for you and for the religious Jews), then it is ALL immutable.

Unless you want to join the Muslims in claiming that the Hebrew scriptures were corrupted- but then you'd have to show evidence of how, when, which parts, etc.

Quote:
The difference is that Christianity was not a religion at this time.

Ppppphhhhhhhhhhhahahaha..... Seriously?!? Fucking cult then. That's a moronic semantic quibble, no matter how you slice it.

Butterbattle's point was "People die for things they believe are true all the time." (Paraphrasing.) You focused on the fact that it wasn't a religion?!?! What the hell, dude?

People, even at that time, also fully believed in Dionysus, and in the Logos of the Stoics, and were martyred for those beliefs as well. Christians, however, made martyrdom a huge focus of their cult- and that set them apart from other belief systems of the time; not that they were willing to die for something they believed in. Again- you conflate this "They believed in Jesus, but they may have been wrong" with "They believed in Jesus, but they were obviously being defrauded by someone else." The two are quite different.

And I don't want to get into the non-biblical references to Jesus, but besides Josephus, they only mention Christians- and the parts in Josephus which refer to *that* Jesus have been known as interpolations for decades. No, I will not accept some bullshit apologist Web site link that proves I'm 'wrong.' Regardless- it's been about 1600 years, and Christians are STILL using the SAME FOUR 'PROOFS.' Considering the massive strides that have been made in historical research into the Bible in the past 150 years alone, that's actually pretty pathetic.

Quote:
My evidence, because I was not there physically...

Don't pull that 'Were you there when they crucified my lord' stuff.

Quote:
...is to look at the effects these events had on their surroundings. If one were to appear in front of me, today, claiming to be from God, I doubt I would believe them.  If, however, they had the ability to perform supernatural events, I might follow to see If their words match what I understand to be the will of God.

Right, but if you had someone who was dead for decades (such as in the case of Jesus- at BEST, Mark was written in 70, Matthew around 90, Luke closer to 100 and John around 110) who someone else said could do these things.... well.

And also: It's interesting you mention 'effects these events had on their surroundings' because, you know those natural events that happened because of Jesus death (darkness, earthquake, Temple's draperies ripped from bottom to top)? Yeah: didn't get recorded. Which is really embarrassing, if you think about it, considering how many other minor natural events got recorded by people in early Imperial times. And you can't say 'But they wouldn't have been recorded because Christianity wasn't known yet' because these would be AREA-WIDE events that would happen INDEPENDENT of the rise of any apocalpytic mystery cult with a resurrected ruler (lots of those, BTW.) They just... never happened, really.

Quote:
I would never put my flesh in jepordy without proof (that satisfies myself) that there claims must be true.

Nor did the early Christians. They believed it was true. Thanks for proving my point.

[quote[It is unnatural not to love self, or life.  (I know that many these days kill themselves due to depression, and in days past due to honor, but never did they follow something they know to be false, just because they wanted to die.)

Well, duh. But with this same thinking, proof for proof, Islam is right. The Quran is full of contradictions- so too are the Gospels and Epistles. But all of you monotheists believe, and all of you are willing to die and are SURE your 'true religion' is it. For real this time. Last one. Seriously. No, I'm not joking. Truly.

Quote:
Again, to go against what one believes, and give up their lives for a cause that has not been taught to them from infancy, or for a man which they knew personally and had an opportunity to determine the truthfulness of his teachings and the power of his words, to me this is different.

People can convert, and have converted before Christianity came along. For instance, people converted to Stoicism.... which also was a persecuted religion, from time to time. And others converted to various types of Gnosticism, most of which were so badly persecuted- by both pagans and Christians- that it was essentially dead by the mid-3rd century (though it did straggle on until roughly the 6th century in more remote regions).

So, what you're doing here is special pleading. Christianity isn't special enough in this regard, however, to be shown as true. And even if it was, it would just show that it was something slightly different- not that it was fact, only that people believed it was. Got a god-belief, think you've got it for real this time? Get in line.

Quote:
Yes.  Baby steps.  Seeing God in the universe is the first step.

No, that's called 'begging the question.' It is a logical fallacy, and is therefore incorrect. Try again.

Quote:
Once a person can see God's workings, or come to the acknowledge intelligence behind the things we can see, then, and only then, can that person can discover God's will.

Even granting you this for argument's sake, you're still wrong. How do I know? Because many, many, many, many MANY people have taken this exact same argument and built radically different theologies from it. For instance, Augustine and John Calvin. They started with the assumption that god was there... and then proceeded to come to extraordinarily different ideas of salvation, the place of scripture in Christianity, heaven and hell, free will, and so on.

The folly of this approach is amply demonstrated merely by the tens of thousands of Christian sects (not even individual beliefs) who each did what you just described, and ended up close to Augustine, or close to Calvin, or close to Luther, or close to Erasmus, or whatever. Try again.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


isa820
Posts: 30
Joined: 2009-05-01
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:isa820

JillSwift wrote:

isa820 wrote:
Some things cannot be observed.  Back in the day, an obstetrician named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss observed differences in death rates between patients treated by doctors and midwives.  The difference between them was that the doctors also performed autopsies and the midwives did not.  He imagined that something unseen was causing the spread of the disease which was killing the patients.  He called these "unseen things" morbid particles. He began insisting that the doctors wash their hands between doing autopsies and examinations.  He was riddiculed by his peers and eventually fired because his "morbid particles" did not fit into sceince.  They were not observable.
Woah, woah, woah there.  He did make an observation: an "indirect observation". He saw a causal link and called it (admittedly rather arbitrarily) "morbid particles". Later discoveries corroborated that causal link and clarified the mechanism. That's how science works. Saying "it didn't fit into science" is silly, what i think you mean is "it didn't fit with what was known at the time". Scientists are human, too, and do make the mistake of scoffing at what disagrees with what they think they know. The evidence always wins in the end.

Here's a question you need to answer for yourself: If something can not be observed at all, how do you know it exists?

isa820 wrote:
Black holes are believed to exist although nobody has ever seen one.  Scientists believe that they exist because they observe changes in surrounding objects.  For some reason, something completely un-observable can fall into the guidelines of science.  To them, influences on surrounding objects is deemed evidence of the existance of something unseen.
Again, indirect observation, corroborated by other evidence (x-ray emissions, for instance).

isa820 wrote:
Why is it that changes in lives...(drastic changes)...cannot be used as evidence for God?  Some of these changes, like Saul to Paul, are incredible!  They defy human logic! 
They defy logic in what way? Do we really need to posit god to explain the changes, or does psychology and neurophysiology explain the changes? If a simpler explanation works as well, why add god?

 

But, the point I was making, is that humans do not know eveyrthing.  Before we were able to see microscopic things, athe entire microscopic world was unknown to us.  Some scoffers mocked others that claimed the existance of "things unseen".  Now that we can see them, they exist.  (they actually existed the entire time, right?)  The same attitude held by those who mocked  Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss because they could not observe these 'morbid particles' is held by some in here.  If you cannot prove the existance of God, he doesn't exist.    

With our (human) potential to discover and create, who knows what we will be able to see tomarrow.  Maybe God exists in what we don't yet know.  Rather than say "there is no God" because he cannot be proven scientifically, perhaps one could say I don't know if God exists because I cannot observe him with my eyes, or hear him with my ears.  


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
isa820 wrote:If I understand

isa820 wrote:

If I understand you right, because God is all powerful and all knowing, he could make himself known or make the truth known, then all would worship him and none would be lost, and because he does not, he either does not exist, or exists and is not worthy of worship anyway.  Is this the paradox?

Uh, yah. Again: If you don't believe in a multi-omni god, this is not a problem. If you do, it's a paradox.

Why? Because if god knows all, he knows perfectly who will suffer hell and why, and in fact will feel the pain perfectly as well. If he doesn't do anything about it, he's malicious or indifferent. And it can't be the latter, because he takes a personal interest in things people do in private that don't hurt anyone but, perhaps, themselves (masturbation, homosexual acts, maybe some other things)

Quote:
God said that he wished he would not have made man, because man commits evil.  Would he have said this if he already knew we would turn out this way?

No- and this points to a non-omniscient god. But this isn't about me, is it? I'm trying to figure out where you stand on this issue so I'm not working with constantly moving goal posts. I don't give a shit myself, but I need to establish at least some definitions.

Quote:
The belief that God knows everything that we will ever do is not biblical.

Well, alright then. But is God omniscient? If yes, then that doesn't make any sense at all.

Quote:
Anyway, God does make himself manifest to those who come to him.  Those who seek him will find him.  Exactly why this is so, I do not know.

It's because you're engaging in question-begging and think you've got it. It's got you feelin' pretty good- you know you've got some answers, some really solid answers, and can appeal to authorities based upon what they say is true about the book you think is holy. It's just your human brain making patterns- seeing things where there may not be any.

Quote:
How about the existance of instruction.  If, in the beginning there was just matter and energy, and space (void) between, or wether matter became energy or vice-versa, (or however you may personally believe it took place), where did instruction come from?

God of the gaps fallacy. Just because we don't *know* where it comes from, doesn't mean "Therefore, god." I'm sure someone can point you to at least some scientific hypotheses here- I'm sure there's some evolutionary reason for it, and it *is* based in physical reality, with no god needed.

Quote:
Instruction exists behind everything.  What tells, (or how does it know) DNA to unwind itsself into two pieces, and combine with half of another DNA strand to give instruction on the formation of one new being?

GOD!!!!

...Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Abiogenesis theory is in it's very early stages right now. Ask Bobspence if you really want to know. If you want to uncover my personal ignorance on the subject, I'll just outright tell you: I have no clue at all. 

Quote:
Where did math come from?  Math is behind everything in the universe.  Humans discovered it, and use it as a tool. Without math, life would not exist and forces would cease to exist.  Forces of the universe obey mathmatical equasions.  So, beginning with matter and energy, how did math come into existance, and what gave instruction?

God of the gaps again. Natural did a post on this same subject- I think it's somewhere in one of Paisley's threads- about how non-material things, like mathematical laws (which is what you're talking about here) are still grounded in the physical world- that there's no real 'other realm' from which they come.

Also, you sound a lot like the 18th century philosophers who were pretty well demolished by Kant. Which isn't surprising if, as I suspect, you get some of the base of your arguments from people like William Lane Craig- who set up a strawman version of physicalist philosophy (essentially a form of eliminative materialism) and proceed to destroy it. Good for them, I say! We whole-heartedly welcome their belated entrance into the 19th century. Give 'em a few more centuries and they may get up to a non-twisted quantum theory.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
isa820 wrote:But, the point

isa820 wrote:

But, the point I was making, is that humans do not know eveyrthing.  Before we were able to see microscopic things, athe entire microscopic world was unknown to us.  Some scoffers mocked others that claimed the existance of "things unseen".  Now that we can see them, they exist.  (they actually existed the entire time, right?)  The same attitude held by those who mocked  Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss because they could not observe these 'morbid particles' is held by some in here.  If you cannot prove the existance of God, he doesn't exist.    

With our (human) potential to discover and create, who knows what we will be able to see tomarrow.  Maybe God exists in what we don't yet know.  Rather than say "there is no God" because he cannot be proven scientifically, perhaps one could say I don't know if God exists because I cannot observe him with my eyes, or hear him with my ears.  

The point I was making is: Before we knew about the microscopic we had evidence of it in the form of clear indirect observations of the effect of the microscopic.

There is no similar evidence for "god" or anything else "supernatural"/"metaphysical".

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


isa820
Posts: 30
Joined: 2009-05-01
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie wrote:isa820

crazymonkie wrote:

isa820 wrote:

Was this God's law, or the law of Moses?

That's a semantic non-seqitur. It's the same thing: God gave the Law of Moses to the Hebrews. It was thus God's laws. And the Law of Moses, because Moses was the one who had to reveal it. In other words: don't side-step.          

Quote:
Moses allowed divorce, because of the hardness of the peoples hearts.

Verse, plz?   

 

I'm not trying to side step anything.  Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce.  

Mat 19:7 - 19:8   They say unto him (Jesus), Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Jhn 8:5   Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 

Mat 8:4   And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Mark 10:3 - 10:5   And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?  And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away.  And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

Luke 2:22   And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present [him] to the Lord;

Luke 5:14   And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

The point behind this is that the law of Moses is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, that was taken out of the way when Jesus died.  

 

crazymonkie wrote:

Quote:
Did Jesus go against the Law of God or the law of Moses?

See my first response. Your attempts at semantic parsing will fall flat, because they are predicated on the idea that there is a difference. It's based on the Christian theory that Jesus did away with certain parts of the Law and not others. Which is only found in Christian philosophy anyway- meaning you're pretty much using a word to define itself, philosophically speaking.

And it comes back to my question, which you haven't answered, and to which I'll add more detail right now:

Christian theology posits that Jesus did away with the Law. But then qualifies the statement by going on to quote certain parts of the Law and to use it as a basis for human legal systems. Now: The issue is this: Many of the portions of the Law that theologians were really keen on (such as the verses butterbattle quoted at length about slavery) were exalted as true, immutable, perfect and from God, and used to perpetrate (sanctify, even) behavior that we now see as horrific and cruel.

These were very smart theologians, some of them the heart of many denominations both ancient and modern, and they truly *knew* what parts of the Law God wanted them to keep and which parts God wanted them to ignore.

So again: How do you know which parts of the Law can be ignored, and which parts are immutable?

And please do realize, if it's God's Law (as it is in fact- for you and for the religious Jews), then it is ALL immutable.

Unless you want to join the Muslims in claiming that the Hebrew scriptures were corrupted- but then you'd have to show evidence of how, when, which parts, etc.  

 

Human intelligence does not factor in determining God's will.  Our ways are not his ways and our thoughts are not his thoughts.  Jesus said all law and prophets hang on two laws.  Love God and Love each other.  Moses received God's will, and made laws to reinforce God's will.  That law only existed because of transgressions.  Here is an apparent contradiction that helps show my thoughts.  

Rom 4:15   Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression. 

If there are no transgressions where there is no law, then why was the law added because of transgressions:

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 

The law of Moses was added because People would not keep God's laws.  The law of Moses was to stay in effect, (so that people would obey God's laws until Jesus came.

crazymonkie wrote:

Quote:
The difference is that Christianity was not a religion at this time.

Ppppphhhhhhhhhhhahahaha..... Seriously?!? Fucking cult then. That's a moronic semantic quibble, no matter how you slice it.  

 

OK, so I will not use this as evidence anymore.  I kinda get the feeling that perhaps, there is a chance,  that you and others will not accept this as evidence.

crazymonkie wrote:

Quote:
My evidence, because I was not there physically...

Don't pull that 'Were you there when they crucified my lord' stuff.  

 

Don't know exactly what stuff your referring to, but my point is that I did not witness any of this stuff happen.  My reason for believing then, has to rely on indirect evidences.

crazymonkie wrote:

Quote:
...is to look at the effects these events had on their surroundings. If one were to appear in front of me, today, claiming to be from God, I doubt I would believe them.  If, however, they had the ability to perform supernatural events, I might follow to see If their words match what I understand to be the will of God.

Right, but if you had someone who was dead for decades (such as in the case of Jesus- at BEST, Mark was written in 70, Matthew around 90, Luke closer to 100 and John around 110) who someone else said could do these things.... well.  

 

People like to claim that Mark was written in 70 because Jesus referred to the destruction of the Jewish Temple, since he could not possibly have known of the destruction before hand, it must have been written in 70 or after.  Coming with the slant that supernatural does not exist, of course the date would be placed at 70.  At the beginning of Lukes book, he gives us the reasonhis book was written.

Luke 1:1 - 1:4   Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Luke says that the authors of the other gospels were eye witnesses, and because he also had perfect understanding from the beginning, he would write so that they would know these events took place with certainty.

crazymonkie wrote:

And also: It's interesting you mention 'effects these events had on their surroundings' because, you know those natural events that happened because of Jesus death (darkness, earthquake, Temple's draperies ripped from bottom to top)? Yeah: didn't get recorded. Which is really embarrassing, if you think about it, considering how many other minor natural events got recorded by people in early Imperial times. And you can't say 'But they wouldn't have been recorded because Christianity wasn't known yet' because these would be AREA-WIDE events that would happen INDEPENDENT of the rise of any apocalpytic mystery cult with a resurrected ruler (lots of those, BTW.) They just... never happened, really.  

 

The Jewish War by Josephus states:

"In the days of our pious fathers this curtain was intact, but in our own generation it was a sorry sight for it had been suddenly rent from top to bottom at the time when by bribery they had secured the execution of the benefactor of men - the one who by his actions proved that he was no mere man. Many other awe inspiring "signs" happened at the same moment. It is also stated that after his execution and entombment he disappeared entirely. Some people actually assert that he had risen; others retort that his friends stole him away. I for one cannot decide where the troth lies. A dead man cannot rise by his own power; but he might rise if aided by the prayers of another righteous man. Again, if an angel or other heavenly being, or God Himself, takes human form to fulfill his purpose, and after living among men dies and is buried, he can rise again at will. Moreover it is stated that he could not have been stolen away, as guards were posted round his tomb, 30 Romans and 1,000 Jews." 

 

 


isa820
Posts: 30
Joined: 2009-05-01
User is offlineOffline
 Anyway, I cannot prove the

 Anyway, I cannot prove the existance of God to anybody.  I first came to this site because of the you-tube videos of people commiting "the unforgivable sin".  I just wanted to point out that denying the existance of the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit is not the unforgivable sin.  If people want to actually commit the unforgivable sin, and prove that they have overcome all the fears implanted in them by religion,read the remainder of this post to find out how.

Heb 6:4   For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

Heb 10:26 - 10:29   For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.  He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

To prove one has overcome the fear implanted into them by religion by commiting the unforgivable sin, one must first obtain the Spirit, then continue to sin wilfully therby insulting the spirit of Grace.  

Acts 2:38 tells us how to receive the Spirit:

Acts 2:38   Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I dare anybody to do this.

 


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
isa820 wrote:I'm not trying

isa820 wrote:

I'm not trying to side step anything.  Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce.

So again: Using a word to define itself. Jesus should have said that God allowed divorce- because it's God's Law, not just Moses' Law. It's really, really strange that Jesus, being a Jew during that time, should have been against certain parts of the Law to begin with. It is doubly strange that his case seems to be borderline anti-Semitic. 

Quote:
The point behind this is that the law of Moses is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, that was taken out of the way when Jesus died.

So sayeth the dispensationalists, anyway. Personally? I think it's very odd that God would change his mind. Now, maybe I could believe it if you said "Jesus shows us that the Law only applies to Jews, and that the Gentiles have far fewer strictures to be on God's side," but no. You took the dispensational approach, one that simply does not mesh with Jewish thought in the past or present.

It's not that Christians, particularly dispensationalists, are working with an 'evolved' form of Judaism, as this approach would seem to imply. It's that they're blatantly ignoring what are supposedly their roots in preference of a Platonic mystery cult, and don't seem to notice what they're doing. It's so weird.

Quote:

Quote:
So again: How do you know which parts of the Law can be ignored, and which parts are immutable?

Unless you want to join the Muslims in claiming that the Hebrew scriptures were corrupted- but then you'd have to show evidence of how, when, which parts, etc.  

 

Human intelligence does not factor in determining God's will.  Our ways are not his ways and our thoughts are not his thoughts.  Jesus said all law and prophets hang on two laws.  Love God and Love each other.  Moses received God's will, and made laws to reinforce God's will.  That law only existed because of transgressions.  Here is an apparent contradiction that helps show my thoughts.

 

No, no, no. You're doing it wrong. See- that approach not only shuts off all future discussion or inquiry; it also demolishes your position as well. Let me explain. 

If one says "Nobody can know the will/mind of God" and then say "I have the true religion, the true morality, the true book that tells me, at least a bit, about the mind of God".... know what? If I have to explain this, I'm not sure if it's possible that you'll get what I mean. I really, truly hope you get what I mean here. Because really, it's just that approach that exacerbated the headlong plunge into the Dark Ages. Not like it wouldn't have happened anyway, but the Church's position on 'pagan' learning (as in: Latin grammar that wasn't pitifullly tortured, science- such as it was back then, and so on) and the supremacy of intuitive thinking; this anti-intellectualism that you're enshrining here- made things far, far worse.

Quote:
The law of Moses was added because People would not keep God's laws.  The law of Moses was to stay in effect, (so that people would obey God's laws until Jesus came.

So now God gives infinite mulligans?

Think carefully on your answer before you post.

Then read it, re-type it, and put it in the post.

I await the reply.

Quote:
OK, so I will not use this as evidence anymore.  I kinda get the feeling that perhaps, there is a chance,  that you and others will not accept this as evidence.

What evidence? Your feeling that your mystery cult is different? That your Neoplatonism is totally new? That your demigod is utterly unlike other demigods before? I should say so.

Quote:

Don't know exactly what stuff your referring to, but my point is that I did not witness any of this stuff happen.  My reason for believing then, has to rely on indirect evidences.

Sorry... I kind of jumped the gun. If you've been around lots of Biblical literalist Baptists, you'd know what I was talking about.

Shit, it's been ten years, and that stuff still gets under my skin.

Quote:

Luke says that the authors of the other gospels were eye witnesses, and because he also had perfect understanding from the beginning, he would write so that they would know these events took place with certainty.

Yes, and the Holy Quran says Muhammad got vision after vision from Gabriel. And the Pali Canon says Siddhartha Gutama became the Enlightened One and preached the best way to stopping rebirth for over 30 years. Etc. Each holy text has the same weight of evidence that you do that A) Luke wrote the Gospel, and B)That the Gospels were first-hand accounts.

Quote:

The Jewish War by Josephus states:

"In the days of our pious fathers this curtain was intact, but in our own generation it was a sorry sight for it had been suddenly rent from top to bottom at the time when by bribery they had secured the execution of the benefactor of men - the one who by his actions proved that he was no mere man. Many other awe inspiring "signs" happened at the same moment. It is also stated that after his execution and entombment he disappeared entirely. Some people actually assert that he had risen; others retort that his friends stole him away. I for one cannot decide where the troth lies. A dead man cannot rise by his own power; but he might rise if aided by the prayers of another righteous man. Again, if an angel or other heavenly being, or God Himself, takes human form to fulfill his purpose, and after living among men dies and is buried, he can rise again at will. Moreover it is stated that he could not have been stolen away, as guards were posted round his tomb, 30 Romans and 1,000 Jews."

Book, chapter and verse, now.

I've never seen this quote, ever. I've seen the 'James, brother of Jesus,' I've seen the hotly contested 'Testimonium,' but never this. Without an actual reference, I can only assume you're making it up or misquoting it. 

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
isa820 wrote:I dare anybody

isa820 wrote:

I dare anybody to do this.

 

I do it every day, buddy.

I was a Christian, for almost eight years. Lots of other people on this site were Christian as well.

You don't need to dare us- lots of us have been here for years.

Also: You're  right- nobody can prove the existence of god. First because there's not been a single coherent ontology that's stood the test of time. Besides the negative ontology in most monotheistic faiths, anyway- and that, due to our furthering of knowledge about the universe is gradually becoming obsolete.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


isa820
Posts: 30
Joined: 2009-05-01
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie wrote:Also, you

crazymonkie wrote:

Also, you sound a lot like the 18th century philosophers who were pretty well demolished by Kant. Which isn't surprising if, as I suspect, you get some of the base of your arguments from people like William Lane Craig- who set up a strawman version of physicalist philosophy (essentially a form of eliminative materialism) and proceed to destroy it. Good for them, I say! We whole-heartedly welcome their belated entrance into the 19th century. Give 'em a few more centuries and they may get up to a non-twisted quantum theory.  

 

LOL...I have never heard of William Craig, or most of these terms thrown at me constantly.  I seem to be commiting a lot of these falacies tho.  I believe them to be rules of arguement, or something.  You are talking to a guy who never graduated college, (or highschool) for that matter, so in the future, forgive me if I commit any more of them.  


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
isa820 wrote:LOL...I have

isa820 wrote:
LOL...I have never heard of William Craig, or most of these terms thrown at me constantly.  I seem to be commiting a lot of these falacies tho.  I believe them to be rules of arguement, or something.  You are talking to a guy who never graduated college, (or highschool) for that matter, so in the future, forgive me if I commit any more of them.  

Ah, it's all right.

This? This ain't real anyway. It's just some little time-passing bs, ya know? We're not exactly in a life-or-death struggle for humanity's conscience- we're on the Internet, talking to strangers, and pretty much concocting stuff on the fly. Or cobbling things together from what we've read/heard before.

WLC is a well-educated idiot who rehashes the same old arguments against 'the atheist viewpoint', basically a strawman eliminative materialism, and tries (unsuccessfully) to make people who see the parallels between Jesus and previous mythical figures seem like idiots.

Here's a video link to him getting his ass handed to him, badly: http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/693

He's the more famous one, so he gets the page mention. The other guy is Shelley Kagan, who I've just learned about, and who is pretty damn cool.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
isa820 wrote: Anyway, I

isa820 wrote:

 Anyway, I cannot prove the existance of God to anybody.

Why not?

Quote:
To prove one has overcome the fear implanted into them by religion by commiting the unforgivable sin, one must first obtain the Spirit, then continue to sin wilfully therby insulting the spirit of Grace.

How do you know if someone has the Spirit? If there isn't a reliable way of determining whether someone has the Holy Spirit, can't you just pull a True Scotsman and claim that whoever blasphemes the holy spirit obviously never had the spirit to begin with? That way, all non-theists will always be up for grabs.

Do you see what's going on here crazymonkie? Whatever the unforgivable sin is, they have to define it in such a way that makes it almost impossible to commit. Otherwise, all atheists would commit it heartbeat, and Christians wouldn't have any valid reason to annoy us anymore.

edit: http://www.rationalresponders.com/argument_and_debate_forms_and_techniques_part_1

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Yup, I see what's going on

Yup, I see what's going on here. The ol' goalposts occasionally shift out into the street. The question of what blasphemy is really blasphemy is one of those incredibly slippery things that theists use in arguments because they can move it around a little bit whenever they need to do so.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


isa820
Posts: 30
Joined: 2009-05-01
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:isa820

butterbattle wrote:

isa820 wrote:

 Anyway, I cannot prove the existance of God to anybody.

Why not?   

 

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:  

I suppose it is because if one comes with the belief that there is no God, they will find natural explinations for anything used to prove a God.  This is part of human nature, I guess.  After Moses and Aaron turned the rivers to blood, Pharaoh saught a natural explination for this mystery. 

Exd 7:22   And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said. 

It is not unlike those who believe in God, who will flat out deny that some things happen because of nature.  They see a miracle in everything.

butterbattle wrote:

Quote:
To prove one has overcome the fear implanted into them by religion by commiting the unforgivable sin, one must first obtain the Spirit, then continue to sin wilfully therby insulting the spirit of Grace.

How do you know if someone has the Spirit? If there isn't a reliable way of determining whether someone has the Holy Spirit, can't you just pull a True Scotsman and claim that whoever blasphemes the holy spirit obviously never had the spirit to begin with? That way, all non-theists will always be up for grabs.

Do you see what's going on here crazymonkie? Whatever the unforgivable sin is, they have to define it in such a way that makes it almost impossible to commit. Otherwise, all atheists would commit it heartbeat, and Christians wouldn't have any valid reason to annoy us anymore.  

 

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

The part missing today is that people leave out the repenting part.  In order to receive the Spirit of God, one must repent, which means to turn away from sin, and turn towards God.  The Spirit of Iniquity is acting inside the chuch itsself, convincing people that the commandments were nailed to the cross, or that people cannot keep them, so Jesus kept the commandments for them.  Because they believe that it is not necessary to keep God's commandments anyway, when tempted, they give in.  

I have even heard a "christian" say that "christians cannot sin, they can only make bad choices".  They believe all that is necessary is to say a prayer, and you are instantly forgiven of every sin you will ever commit, and instantly receive the Spirit.  SO, after they say this prayer, they must have the Spirit, but cannot do the things the Bible says will follow them that receive the Spirit.  This causes the belief that the gifts of the Spirit are a thing of the past.

I am sure that the people who get under your skin are the ones preaching at you, but do not walk like Christ.  They get under my skin too.  I have never been on a site like this before.  I normally spend my time talking to christians explaining the Mystery of Iniquity.  I bet that you have known a "christian" who preached, but you looked at them and thought "I'm a better person than they are, why do I need God".  

Anyway, to answer your question:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.   Key word is REPENT!

So how will one know when they have the Spirit????

Mark 16:17 – 16:18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 

Mat 10:19 – 10:20 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Acts 10:17 – 10:20 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

1 Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

Jud 1:17 – 1:19 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. (this is referring to those who call themselves christians, who refuse to die to their flesh, and is not directed at atheists)

Jesus had the Spirit of God.

Jhn 3:34 – 3:35 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him]. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

Do not confuse those referred to above with the 'send us your money, and you will be healed' people or the 'plant a seed of faith' people.  

So, according to the Bible, you receive the Spirit by picking up your cross and following Jesus.  Dying to your flesh, and being Baptized in Jesus' name.  Once you have the Spirit, those works WILL follow. 

Again, if you truly wish to commit the unforgivable sin, repent, get baptized in the name of Christ, and you will receive the Spirit...Then, turn away from God, and continue to sin wilfully, and there will remain 'no more sacrifice for you'.  I Double Dog Dare you!


isa820
Posts: 30
Joined: 2009-05-01
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie wrote:Yup, I see

crazymonkie wrote:

Yup, I see what's going on here. The ol' goalposts occasionally shift out into the street. The question of what blasphemy is really blasphemy is one of those incredibly slippery things that theists use in arguments because they can move it around a little bit whenever they need to do so.

 

The goalposts are not moving, "you'll find them quite stationary" Weird Al

My earlier comment that human intelligence has nothing to do with determining God's will does not shut down conversation.  My words came in response to this portion of the quote:

"These were very smart theologians, some of them the heart of many denominations both ancient and modern, and they truly *knew* what parts of the Law God wanted them to keep and which parts God wanted them to ignore.

Sorry I did not explain myself better.  I led you into thinking what you thought.  My point was/is that people can be smart, and not understand God's word.  I believe that you guys/girls are very smart, but you don't seem to understand the Bible.  There was a time in my life when I read the Bible, trying to figure it out without prayer and fasting, and it did not make much sense to me either.  The change came when I put my heart into it.  Prayer and fasting when reading God's word will change everything.  It did for me.  One prayer God always answers is a prayer for understanding, for wisdom.  If you ask for wisdom to understand his word, he will give it abundantly, because he doesn't want any to perish, but wants all to have eternal life.  Also, fasting does an incredible thing, it humbles the flesh.  Just like Maslows Pyramid of Human Needs, if you take away the most basic need of your flesh (food), its focus will be on meeting that need.  

Anyway, I was not meaning to say that God's will cannot be known, because it can, with prayer, fasting and reading his word.


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Isa, I'm ignoring your

Isa, I'm ignoring your 'proofs' based upon Bible verses, and I'm doing this for a very good reason. The Bible as we have it today, particularly 'modern' translations (IE ALL translations!) are the end result of centuries upon centuries of redaction and creation of orthodoxy from a plenum of ideas. Read Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" for a decent primer. My point is this: we can say 'Look, it's  right there in the Bible!' all day- but a Muslim can say 'Look, it's right there in the Quran!' and Buddhists can say 'Look, it's right there in the Digha Nikaya!' and so on... do you get where I'm going with this?

Your claims are no different in that regard than other spiritual belief systems, living and dead- and in fact are in slightly worse shape than some of the living religions of today, Islam especially, considering that the Quran was written down within a few years of Muhammad's death. Even the Pali canon- based partially on Sanskrit sutras no longer extant- STILL beats out your Bible in the 'historical telephone' game, having been collected rougly 200 years after the supposed death of Siddhartha Gautama. Christianity's orthodox texts, by comparison, weren't agreed upon until 400 years after Jesus supposedly lived. So, anyway, on to the post.

isa820 wrote:

I suppose it is because if one comes with the belief that there is no God, they will find natural explinations for anything used to prove a God.  This is part of human nature, I guess.  After Moses and Aaron turned the rivers to blood, Pharaoh saught a natural explination for this mystery.

It's not about bias. You really have no idea how open a mind many atheists/agnostics have, how much they've looked into religions (some, I have no doubt, probably know more about Christianity than most pastors do), and what you're doing here is special pleading anyway.

Look at it this way: If there is one god, your god, that means he's omnipotent and omniscient. He also sends people to eternal torment or torture (at some point I ran into a Christian who made the distinction, which I thought was.... weird) based on belief or non-belief in his existence.

If he's multi-omni (benevolent, -niscient, -potent) then he knows, without the slightest doubt, who will turn from him and when. He also knows perfectly how much those who will turn from him will suffer after death. Now, with this knowledge, absolute as it is, HOW can it be that there are 1)Atheists, 2)Polytheists, or 3)Different and mutually contradictory 'true' religion(s)? God can and should take care of this problem- allowing us free will and yet not sin, and making it a question of 'how shall we worship god' rather than 'does god exist' and 'which god.'

Also: If god knows all, he knows what *I personally* would accept as incontrovertible evidence of his existence. I still do not believe in god. Ergo- he is either indifferent or malicious. Or not truly multi-omni. And if any of this is the case, he's not the god of the Bible. Well, except for malicious, of course. God's a real asshole in some of the books.

Quote:
It is not unlike those who believe in God, who will flat out deny that some things happen because of nature.  They see a miracle in everything.

See, here's the weird part: If god knows all and can do anything, he'd also know that 'look around you!' isn't sufficient evidence of his existence to some of his human 'children.' So again: What's god waiting for?

The last sentence really sounds.... Actually it just doesn't seem to follow at all from your point. It sounds much more like many believers I've met- heck, it sounds like *me* when I was a believer. I looked for patterns, *saw* patterns, saw god's hand in just about everything. It was a long and very idiosyncratic road to get where I am today, but for me it mostly involved looking into history versus theological 'history.'

Quote:

I am sure that the people who get under your skin are the ones preaching at you, but do not walk like Christ.  They get under my skin too.  I have never been on a site like this before.  I normally spend my time talking to christians explaining the Mystery of Iniquity.  I bet that you have known a "christian" who preached, but you looked at them and thought "I'm a better person than they are, why do I need God".

Not in the least. I don't concern myself with Christians- I concern myself with Christianity.

What gets under *my* skin specifically is the blatant historical lies told about early Church history, about Apostlic descent, about the screamingly obvious contradictions that are hand-waved away with 'mystery of god' or something like that. That and the incomprehensibly bad logic.

I don't give half a rat's ass about individuals; hence, I'm not falling for this 'new Christianity' stuff that's going around now. I see the past, I see the exegesis applied to the texts of the NT, I see how Christianity is an obvious tool of control, fear, shame, and so on, and watch as Christianity tries to re-gain its power and cast of its penitent apologetics in favor of its far more blatant 'divide and conquer' aspect that history has given us. I see it has the potential to do these things, and worse, again. This is why I don't like Christianity.

And let me be extremely clear: I've got plenty of Christian friends. I am, after all, in west Texas. Again: I don't care so much about the believers; I do feel sorry for them, though, in that they're still holding onto this obvious falsehood for reasons I can fathom, but don't like. But when I see how Christianity holds people back from a more full potential, inclucating in them a sense of shame and misery coupled with an undeniable sanctimonious arrogance (the geocentric earth is well and dead, but the earth is still *very special* in the eyes of believers, and the fact that god cares about each specific individual, and followers of Jesus in particular, says a lot), I want them to see Christianity how I see it. They probably won't, of course, and philosophical discussions in person are always stressful, but some day I'd like to do that with them.

Quote:
Again, if you truly wish to commit the unforgivable sin, repent, get baptized in the name of Christ, and you will receive the Spirit...Then, turn away from God, and continue to sin wilfully, and there will remain 'no more sacrifice for you'.  I Double Dog Dare you!

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. I was baptized, I was a Christian. I turned away. I've sinned, by Biblical standards, A LOT. So 'no more sacrifice' for me.

Quote:

My earlier comment that human intelligence has nothing to do with determining God's will does not shut down conversation.  My words came in response to this portion of the quote:

"These were very smart theologians, some of them the heart of many denominations both ancient and modern, and they truly *knew* what parts of the Law God wanted them to keep and which parts God wanted them to ignore.

Sorry I did not explain myself better.  I led you into thinking what you thought.  My point was/is that people can be smart, and not understand God's word.  I believe that you guys/girls are very smart, but you don't seem to understand the Bible.

Ugh. We're not talking about us, here. We're talking about other theologians. People who did what you recommend in the remainder of your post (fast, prayer, etc.) for DECADES, often under direct persecution, and came to different conclusions about which parts of the Law are done away with and which parts are still in effect. So that just leads back to the same problem; in fact, highlights the issue in a more direct fashion than I've been doing:

Personal exegesis, no matter how 'focused,' no matter how 'holy,' no matter how 'righteous,' is still not going to get you 'the true' interpretation. If anything, the history of theology has shown the folly of the approach you (and every theologian, ever) takes to the scriptures. It's a context-less, or context-lite, approach that does nothing more than distort or minimize the all-important background information to the books in the Bible, and which only comes up with idiosyncratic interpretations. And no matter how many people agree with the idiosyncrasies, they remain idiosyncrasies. Origen's view on souls and their descent, 'borrowed' from Middle Platonism, has been copied and re-copied by eastern churches since it was first put together from other sources. It is still idiosyncratic, but it is an *established* idiosyncrasy.

It's not all about you, bubby.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
isa820 wrote:Acts 2:38 Then

isa820 wrote:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Okay, so I have to repent and be baptized.

For the former, do I have to be sincere or is just saying the words enough?

For the latter, is just splashing some tap on myself and muttering a few words sufficient?

Quote:
Mark 16:17 – 16:18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

They'll cast out devils? Speak with new tongues? Take up serpents? Drink poison, and it won't hurt them? Cure the sick?

I've never seen any of those things! Maybe there aren't any real Christians. Well, I've "kind of" seen the speaking in tongues part. The problem is, those Pentecostals aren't actually speaking a new language; they're just blurting out a stream of gibberish.

Quote:
Mat 10:19 – 10:20 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Don't see how this resolves anything.

Quote:
Acts 10:17 – 10:20 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

Or this.

Quote:
1 Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

That really wouldn't be evidence for anything. It's still a True Scotsman at best. What are the commandments anyways? Abandon your family? Give up your possessions?

Quote:
Jud 1:17 – 1:19 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. (this is referring to those who call themselves christians, who refuse to die to their flesh, and is not directed at atheists)

This doesn't help.

Quote:
Jesus had the Spirit of God.

Jhn 3:34 – 3:35 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him]. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

Or this.

Quote:


Again, if you truly wish to commit the unforgivable sin, repent, get baptized in the name of Christ, and you will receive the Spirit...Then, turn away from God, and continue to sin wilfully, and there will remain 'no more sacrifice for you'.  I Double Dog Dare you!

I would if I could.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


isa820
Posts: 30
Joined: 2009-05-01
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:isa820

butterbattle wrote:

isa820 wrote:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Okay, so I have to repent and be baptized.

For the former, do I have to be sincere or is just saying the words enough?

For the latter, is just splashing some tap on myself and muttering a few words sufficient? 

 

For the former, repenting is what I thought I had spent the most time explaining.  "do you you have to be sencere or just say the words "I repent"????????   Did Jonah tell the people of Nineveh to be sincere or they would be destroyed?  Did he tell them to say the words "REPENT" or they would be destroyed? Repenting is turning from your sin and turning towards God.  It is no longer living according to the flesh, (desires of the flesh).  It is a change in behavior, a change of mind.

As for the latter, get the repenting part right, turn your heart towards God, and this will be the easy part.

butterbattle wrote:
  

Quote:
Mark 16:17 – 16:18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

They'll cast out devils? Speak with new tongues? Take up serpents? Drink poison, and it won't hurt them? Cure the sick?

I've never seen any of those things! Maybe there aren't any real Christians. Well, I've "kind of" seen the speaking in tongues part. The problem is, those Pentecostals aren't actually speaking a new language; they're just blurting out a stream of gibberish.  

 

Now were kinda on the same page.  There are SOME Christians, probably just not that many as you'd think judging by the number of churches. The repenting part is being completely overlooked (the Mystery of Iniquity).  There are a lot of people running around claiming to be Christians, that accept their sin as part of being human.  They believe that it is impossible to stop sinning, and even, that by even trying to keep God's commandments, one is denying the blood of Christ.  It has gotton so twisted it's scary.  

 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It has gotton so

Quote:

It has gotton so twisted it's scary.  

 

Pardon the intrusion but that bit I concur with completely!

 

As a christian, why do you think god screwed up so hugely and ended up encouraging even more hatred, bigotry, cruelty and stupidity instead of helping to eliminate it? Or was that his plan all along, according to you? It's just it strikes me that he'd have been better off leaving well enough alone rather than stirring the shit even more by creating yet more scope for fanatical confusion.

 

Or is this just another of these "mysteries" we mere people will never understand about god's infinite intellect (not that there's much evidence of one at work)?

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


isa820
Posts: 30
Joined: 2009-05-01
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:Quote:It has

Nordmann wrote:

Quote:

It has gotton so twisted it's scary.  

 

Pardon the intrusion but that bit I concur with completely!

As a christian, why do you think god screwed up so hugely and ended up encouraging even more hatred, bigotry, cruelty and stupidity instead of helping to eliminate it? Or was that his plan all along, according to you? It's just it strikes me that he'd have been better off leaving well enough alone rather than stirring the shit even more by creating yet more scope for fanatical confusion.

Or is this just another of these "mysteries" we mere people will never understand about god's infinite intellect (not that there's much evidence of one at work)?  

 

Hi.  Well, to start, I don't quite agree with the way the question is phrased, but I think I understand your point.

Mystery of Iniquity     Mystery=spirit=attitude     Iniquity=being without law

The Mystery of Iniquity is the attitude of being without law.  

2Th 2:7   For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth (restraineth) [will let] (will restrain), until he be taken out of the way.  And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  

So, the attitude of being without law was already present in Paul's day, but was being restrained.  That which was restraining would eventually be taken out of the way, and this attitude would no longer be restrained.  This lawlessness will usher in the lawless one.  

Also, just prior to whats quoted above (2Th 2:3), the Falling Away is mentioned.  This falling away is the attitude of lawlessness in the church.  Now what is seen by Christians is the 10 commandments being removed from every possible visible place, porn accessible and normalized, lying considered just part of being human, abortion legalized... This would be the attitude of lawlessness in the world.  What I referred to as being twisted is the attitude of lawlessness in the church.  In fact, this thread was started on this very point.  On one hand, theists stomp and shout when God's commandments are removed from public view, on the other hand, they claim that the commandments were nailed to the cross!  They say the only difference between them and non-christians is that they are forgiven, and with the very same voice, condem others to hell for doing the same things they do themselves.  I don't understand this any more than you'all do...It is insane.  Divorce is as high (maybe even higher) amoung church goers as it is in the world.  There is a HUGE outreach to pastors who are addicted to porn.  Since they can't confide in anybody within their circle, a counceling center has been set up just for them.  

Because they believe that every sin they will ever commit has already been forgiven, when tempted they give in. This attitude within the church IS the falling away.  I am considered a heathen by many who know me.  They claim that I think I need to work my way to heaven.  They claim that by even trying to obey God, you are denying the blood of Christ!  This thinking is what is twisted.  

In closing, I don't think God screwed up and caused man to hate.  The Bible says that our mind wants what is good, but our flesh what is bad.  This is the struggle man is in.  Our flesh cares only about itsself.  Man is responsible for the things you mentioned, not God.

Gal 5:24  * And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.*

Nordmann wrote:

As a christian, why do you think god screwed up so hugely and ended up encouraging even more hatred, bigotry, cruelty and stupidity instead of helping to eliminate it? Or was that his plan all along, according to you?  

 

What is part of God's plan is to end all that stuff.  According to Genesis, after the fall God removed the tree of living forever.  He did not want bigots, haters, or cruel and stupid people living forever.  According to Revelation, those that are Christ's* (who do not do those things) will be allowed to eat from that tree.  

   

 


isa820
Posts: 30
Joined: 2009-05-01
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie wrote:Isa, I'm

crazymonkie wrote:

Isa, I'm ignoring your 'proofs' based upon Bible verses, and I'm doing this for a very good reason. The Bible as we have it today, particularly 'modern' translations (IE ALL translations!) are the end result of centuries upon centuries of redaction and creation of orthodoxy from a plenum of ideas. Read Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" for a decent primer. My point is this: we can say 'Look, it's  right there in the Bible!' all day- but a Muslim can say 'Look, it's right there in the Quran!' and Buddhists can say 'Look, it's right there in the Digha Nikaya!' and so on... do you get where I'm going with this?

Your claims are no different in that regard than other spiritual belief systems, living and dead- and in fact are in slightly worse shape than some of the living religions of today, Islam especially, considering that the Quran was written down within a few years of Muhammad's death. Even the Pali canon- based partially on Sanskrit sutras no longer extant- STILL beats out your Bible in the 'historical telephone' game, having been collected rougly 200 years after the supposed death of Siddhartha Gautama. Christianity's orthodox texts, by comparison, weren't agreed upon until 400 years after Jesus supposedly lived.  

 

Point taken.  I was trying to only use the Bible to explain things that (according to the Bible) were being used but misunderstood.  In this case, I agree with you.  I guess I speak this way because the people I normally engage accept the Bible as truth.  

However...although what we call the Bible today was connonized some time after Jesus died, the books themselves were written much earlier.  The Bible is the collection of the books that recorded the life of Jesus combined with Jewish holy books recording God's workings amoung men upto the time of Jesus.  I disagree that these books have been revised to fit current belief tho.  Scribes back then had a very important job, and they knew it.  They were extremely careful when copying the word of God.  I have a somewhat large collection of Dead Sea Scrolls.  I have no need to change my doctrine based upon differences between them and my Bible..(which is blueletterbible.com ).

crazymonkie wrote:

It's not about bias. You really have no idea how open a mind many atheists/agnostics have, how much they've looked into religions (some, I have no doubt, probably know more about Christianity than most pastors do), and what you're doing here is special pleading anyway.

Look at it this way: If there is one god, your god, that means he's omnipotent and omniscient. He also sends people to eternal torment or torture (at some point I ran into a Christian who made the distinction, which I thought was.... weird) based on belief or non-belief in his existence.  

 

I do know atheists have open minds.  They are no different than me.  Open mindedness is not even a talking point here, except to say that if ones mind isn't open enough, knowledge cannot fit in, but if ones mind is open too far, their brains will fall out.  By the way, please explain why you believe I am Special Pleading.

crazymonkie wrote:

If he's multi-omni (benevolent, -niscient, -potent) then he knows, without the slightest doubt, who will turn from him and when. He also knows perfectly how much those who will turn from him will suffer after death. Now, with this knowledge, absolute as it is, HOW can it be that there are 1)Atheists, 2)Polytheists, or 3)Different and mutually contradictory 'true' religion(s)? God can and should take care of this problem- allowing us free will and yet not sin, and making it a question of 'how shall we worship god' rather than 'does god exist' and 'which god.'

Also: If god knows all, he knows what *I personally* would accept as incontrovertible evidence of his existence. I still do not believe in god. Ergo- he is either indifferent or malicious. Or not truly multi-omni. And if any of this is the case, he's not the god of the Bible. Well, except for malicious, of course. God's a real asshole in some of the books.

I have never heard him referred to as omni-benevolent...and one doesn't need to read much of God's word to discover that sometimes he does not intend goodwill towards man.

I think we have already covered the omniscient idea.  Biblically, he does not know if we will listen to him, or turn away from him.  As far as I know, he has all knowledge of all other things, but our free will allows us to choose and this alone he does not know.  

2Pe 3:9   The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Eze 12:3   Therefore, thou son of man, prepare thee stuff for removing, and remove by day in their sight; and thou shalt remove from thy place to another place in their sight: it may be they will consider, though they [be] a rebellious house.

Zep 2:3   Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD'S anger. 

The omnipotence thing I agree with 100%.  If he created all things, he certainly has the power to destroy all things, right?

Your statement "God can and should take care of this problem- allowing us free will and yet not sin" puzzles me. How can God allow us the ability to choose him or reject him, and yet not allow us to reject him at the same time?? The message of all the prophets was "turn back to the Lord, stop going astray".  God reached out to man over and over and over, yet man chose to reject him.  I can try to teach my kids judgement and God's values, I can punish them to enforce my point and I can reward them for well doing, but ultimately, I have to let them be them and hope they turn out the way I intended.  I can't even imagine having control over every decision they'll make.       

crazymonkie wrote:

 

I don't give half a rat's ass about individuals; hence, I'm not falling for this 'new Christianity' stuff that's going around now. I see the past, I see the exegesis applied to the texts of the NT, I see how Christianity is an obvious tool of control, fear, shame, and so on, and watch as Christianity tries to re-gain its power and cast of its penitent apologetics in favor of its far more blatant 'divide and conquer' aspect that history has given us. I see it has the potential to do these things, and worse, again. This is why I don't like Christianity.

And let me be extremely clear: I've got plenty of Christian friends. I am, after all, in west Texas. Again: I don't care so much about the believers; I do feel sorry for them, though, in that they're still holding onto this obvious falsehood for reasons I can fathom, but don't like. But when I see how Christianity holds people back from a more full potential, inclucating in them a sense of shame and misery coupled with an undeniable sanctimonious arrogance (the geocentric earth is well and dead, but the earth is still *very special* in the eyes of believers, and the fact that god cares about each specific individual, and followers of Jesus in particular, says a lot), I want them to see Christianity how I see it. They probably won't, of course, and philosophical discussions in person are always stressful, but some day I'd like to do that with them.  

I guess the only comment I want to make is that Christianity has/is used by some people as a means of control. This fact is undeniable.  However, If you've ever been served a stale or moldy peice of bread, your beef is with the server, not grain.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
isa820 wrote:For the former,

isa820 wrote:

For the former, repenting is what I thought I had spent the most time explaining.  "do you you have to be sencere or just say the words "I repent"????????   Did Jonah tell the people of Nineveh to be sincere or they would be destroyed?  Did he tell them to say the words "REPENT" or they would be destroyed? Repenting is turning from your sin and turning towards God.  It is no longer living according to the flesh, (desires of the flesh).  It is a change in behavior, a change of mind.

As for the latter, get the repenting part right, turn your heart towards God, and this will be the easy part.

Ah, so before I can commit the sin, I have to sincerely repent of my sins. I don't believe in God, and belief is not a matter of choice. Therefore, my first task must be to somehow become convinced that Christianity is true. I obviously wouldn't commit the sin while I'm Christian, so then, I have to somehow lean back towards atheism, or at least a different religion.

Holy crap, that's hard. Reminds me of Death Note.

Quote:
Now were kinda on the same page.  There are SOME Christians, probably just not that many as you'd think judging by the number of churches. The repenting part is being completely overlooked (the Mystery of Iniquity).  There are a lot of people running around claiming to be Christians, that accept their sin as part of being human.  They believe that it is impossible to stop sinning, and even, that by even trying to keep God's commandments, one is denying the blood of Christ.  It has gotton so twisted it's scary.

So, uh, how do you tell whether a person has the holy spirit again?  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
isa820

isa820 wrote:

However...although what we call the Bible today was connonized some time after Jesus died, the books themselves were written much earlier.

Uh, yah, no frickin' duh. Though that still doesn't really help thinking of it as divine, or divinely inspired, or whatever. It simply complicates the issue, particuarly when it comes to transmission. And it's funny that you think modern Bibles are reliable, considering the fact that the oldest complete Bibles we have contain massive amounts of error- some scribal, some purposeful, some unclear in motive. And since that time, we've also lost or forgotten some books that were considered, at the very least, important and canonical- like the Shepard of Hermas, Gospel of Barnabas, and Acts of Paul and Thecla. And that's just looking at the side that one, ignoring the Ebionites, Marcionites and various Gnostic groups.

In summary: There are thousands of manuscripts, most printed after movable type was invented and the press industry had begun. Every single one of these manuscripts are not in agreement- some in small ways, others in very big ways. The idea that it was faithfully brought through the centuries is laughable, belied by the most cursory overview of Biblical manuscript history. And that's not even getting into translation issues.

Quote:
I disagree that these books have been revised to fit current belief tho.

Whether or not you like it, it is the reality. One group, eventually calling itself 'orthodox,' collected their Gospels, their Epistles, their one book of Acts and their one Apocalpyse (Revelation) and ignored or destroyed most others. Though there have been copies of some found well past when the orthodox group finally established its hegemony (5th/6th centuries). Now, far later, we have translators, most all of particular sects, coming together and.... shifting, lets say?... the meaning of some words to fit with their ideologes. I'm not that well-versed in the changes, but I do know they're there.

Quote:
Scribes back then had a very important job, and they knew it.  They were extremely careful when copying the word of God.

Yes, but... they still made MASSIVE errors. The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinauticus both have massive numbers of errors. Word of God or not, some of these errors exist, and in some cases are mind-bogglingly stupid. Like when Jesus says believers shouldn't put their light under a bed, or whatever; the Codices say 'candlestick.' Seriously. That's a really minor example- there are many, many more. Which is why both Codices have scribal column notes from as late as the 12th century fixing these errors- and sometimes fixing the 'fixed' errors.

Again: This reality does not bode well for the transmission of the 'word of God.' It indicates, instead, a human-centered process of sloppy transmission that wasn't known for centuries because those same transmitters destroyed or ignored those writings they didn't agree with, others couldn't read the books anyway (and whose fault was it that 'pagan' learning, such as grammar, was set aside... I do wonder), and even if they could, they probably wouldn't have been given access to it (again- whose fault was it that the great libraries went into abeyance); and whose legitimacy was cemented with a combination of useful ignorance among the populace and force, given the name of God. 

Quote:
I have a somewhat large collection of Dead Sea Scrolls.  I have no need to change my doctrine based upon differences between them and my Bible..(which is blueletterbible.com ).

And I've got a collection of Nag Hammadi texts, Pali canon Buddhism, the Diamond Sutra, a digital Quran (all the major English translations and Unicode Arabic, just in case I somehow manage to learn the language), a collection of Sufi proverbs, Chaos Magic texts, Crowley's 'Book of the Law' and the condensed 'Book 4,' and so on and so on. Having these things doesn't really make a difference. What made the difference for me is that EACH of these texts- and yours besides- make competing claims based on pretty weak evidence, then special plead. Hell, that's practically the basic plot summary of the Sutras in the Pali canon- Buddha talks to doubter/antagonist, d/a asks Buddha questions, Buddha answers with basic doctrine, d/a is converted into a lay follower/bhikku. I see no essential difference in method of your claims than I do with these other claims.

Quote:

I do know atheists have open minds.  They are no different than me.  Open mindedness is not even a talking point here, except to say that if ones mind isn't open enough, knowledge cannot fit in, but if ones mind is open too far, their brains will fall out.  By the way, please explain why you believe I am Special Pleading.

Well, that's a converse silly argument. It's like Buddha's 'unproductive questions.' Once you've gone in that direction- to the direction of 'can't talk about that, because then you just won't believe anyway,' or 'your mind is too open (LULZ)' then that ends the conversation.

You are special pleading because you still do not see how your claims are no different from any other supernatural believers' claims. Islam uses the same tactics and uses very similar claims- including the 'well, you're not doing it right; you need to believe first/to pray and meditate and fast for it to make sense' excuse.

Quote:

I have never heard him referred to as omni-benevolent...and one doesn't need to read much of God's word to discover that sometimes he does not intend goodwill towards man.

I've heard omni-benevolent from lots of Protestants before. Lots of Fundies hold onto it. And I appreciate, seriously, that you don't, because the idea is ridiculous- as you well know.

Quote:
I think we have already covered the omniscient idea.  Biblically, he does not know if we will listen to him, or turn away from him.  As far as I know, he has all knowledge of all other things, but our free will allows us to choose and this alone he does not know.

So that means he's not omniscient. Nor omnipotent- because he can't know these things you mention about us. So we either have a definitional problem, or a real ontological problem. So, a quick re-questioning: Is god omniscient? Is god omnipotent? 

Quote:
Your statement "God can and should take care of this problem- allowing us free will and yet not sin" puzzles me. How can God allow us the ability to choose him or reject him, and yet not allow us to reject him at the same time??

Well, if he's omnipotent, he can make this impossibility a possibility. Also: here's the thing- you're assuming by 'free will' I mean the capacity to be agnostic about his existence, at least. I'm not talking about that specifically. All I mean is that god can, being omnipotent, create humans such that we can have a will of our own, yet not sin. God did not.

Quote:
The message of all the prophets was "turn back to the Lord, stop going astray".  God reached out to man over and over and over, yet man chose to reject him.

Right, but here's the thing: GOD MADE US THAT WAY! And- he sustained our existence this way. Which is really strange, considering that he's all-powerful.

Quote:
I can try to teach my kids judgement and God's values, I can punish them to enforce my point and I can reward them for well doing, but ultimately, I have to let them be them and hope they turn out the way I intended.  I can't even imagine having control over every decision they'll make.

Very bad example. God KNOWS ALL. He doesn't *guess,* he doesn't *figure,* he doesn't *assume,* he KNOWS. Instantly. All things. Except, apparently, what humans can do. Which really doesn't make sense and undermines the idea of god's omnipotence anyway.

In your example: You guess, based upon previous knowledge of your childrens' behavior, what they will probably do. It's not really 'knowing' in the sense of how god knows. You're right: We can't understand what it's like to know everything and have power over everything. But that's god. And we can use logic to understand how the concepts of absolute power and knowledge could work out.      

Quote:

I guess the only comment I want to make is that Christianity has/is used by some people as a means of control. This fact is undeniable.  However, If you've ever been served a stale or moldy peice of bread, your beef is with the server, not grain.

 

If the basis for the philosophical system is prone to abuse- which it is- and the moral system comes down to no more and no less than a crude, might-makes-right power wield- which it does- and the historical base on which the system is based is not that solid- which is the case- then I feel justified in being more than a little skeptical when it comes to claims of a certain philosophical system.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

isa820 wrote:

REPLY TO CRAZYMONKEY

Yes, I see the problem.  

I am wondering what exactly the extra-biblical evidence should support.  If I need to show extra-biblical evidence that the Bible is the word of God, I'm not sure I can do it.  I could provide prophesy within the Bible that has been fulfilled, but you would probably argue that the event actually took place before the prophesy was written.  I will provide them, if they would work.  Let me know. 

It is not clear what you can show even from the bible. No place does it claim to be the word of god. It recounts stories of people who may or may not have made such claims directly or indirectly.

In fact we have to assume our equally intelligent ancestors really believed in magic and these clearly absurd tales before we would even consider taking them seriously. But for a fact no one knows who, when or where the idea that the stories were to taken seriously got started. Clearly no educated person believed in magic and miracles. Those were accents to stories invented to make stories more entertaining. Our ancestors were not stupid. They did not see magic so they did not believe in stories of magic. The illiterate peasants might have been superstious louts but that has nothing to do with educated people. And today a 3rd grade education exceeds that of the average lout in the good old days. 


 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

isa820 wrote:
crazymonkie wrote:

Isa, I'm ignoring your 'proofs' based upon Bible verses, and I'm doing this for a very good reason. The Bible as we have it today, particularly 'modern' translations (IE ALL translations!) are the end result of centuries upon centuries of redaction and creation of orthodoxy from a plenum of ideas. Read Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" for a decent primer. My point is this: we can say 'Look, it's  right there in the Bible!' all day- but a Muslim can say 'Look, it's right there in the Quran!' and Buddhists can say 'Look, it's right there in the Digha Nikaya!' and so on... do you get where I'm going with this?

Your claims are no different in that regard than other spiritual belief systems, living and dead- and in fact are in slightly worse shape than some of the living religions of today, Islam especially, considering that the Quran was written down within a few years of Muhammad's death. Even the Pali canon- based partially on Sanskrit sutras no longer extant- STILL beats out your Bible in the 'historical telephone' game, having been collected rougly 200 years after the supposed death of Siddhartha Gautama. Christianity's orthodox texts, by comparison, weren't agreed upon until 400 years after Jesus supposedly lived.  

 

Point taken.  I was trying to only use the Bible to explain things that (according to the Bible) were being used but misunderstood.  In this case, I agree with you.  I guess I speak this way because the people I normally engage accept the Bible as truth.  

However...although what we call the Bible today was connonized some time after Jesus died, the books themselves were written much earlier.  The Bible is the collection of the books that recorded the life of Jesus combined with Jewish holy books recording God's workings amoung men upto the time of Jesus.  I disagree that these books have been revised to fit current belief tho.  Scribes back then had a very important job, and they knew it.  They were extremely careful when copying the word of God.  I have a somewhat large collection of Dead Sea Scrolls.  I have no need to change my doctrine based upon differences between them and my Bible..(which is blueletterbible.com ).

When you bring up the OT you have an entirely different problem. There is absolutely no evidence of any collection of those books older than the Greek Septuagint. Nor is there any historical or archaeological evidence of any Judeans/Jews prior to the period of Greek influence. There is no sign of any indigenous civilization beyond dirt farmers and goatherds and small farming towns prior to the Greek period.

You may have scrolls but there is no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language, that it was ever more than a liturgical language. When the Judeans first appear in history with the arrival of Pompey in the region they are speaking Aramaic. The squared script commonly associated with this liturgical hebrew language is the Aramaic script.

There dirt farmers and goatherds did not have scribes. We have thousands of examples from medieval monks that literal copying was subject to lots of changes either because of the monotony or to break the boredom. But even the idea of an exact copy does NOT appear in history until around the 10th c. AD. There was a concept of a faithful copy as in faithful to the meaning but there was no general arbiter of meaning until the 10th c.

The "tradition" of the OT being the inspired word of some god has a few problems. No one knows when it started. No one knows who started it. No one knows why it was started. With all of those problems it is clear we have no idea why anyone today would think it inspired. Why do you? Who told you a traiditon of unknown origin means more than jack shit and why did you believe them?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


mcap
Posts: 16
Joined: 2009-05-23
User is offlineOffline
why remove it?

 You ask why Christians have a problem with this?Because some Christians think that this will just be the beginning of your onslaught on our religion.Can I ask a question?Why do Atheists feel the need to remove these things? 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
mcap wrote:You ask why

mcap wrote:
You ask why Christians have a problem with this?Because some Christians think that this will just be the beginning of your onslaught on our religion.

We all have the freedom to believe whatever we want. I understand that you're paranoid, but I would never attempt to take away your rights, and I don't think any other atheist on this forum would support such action either. Slippery slope fallacy, by the way. However, the first amendment declares that the government shall not endorse any establishment of religion. The Ten Commandments is a religious message; thus, displaying it in government buildings is a violation of the amendment.

mcap wrote:
Can I ask a question?Why do Atheists feel the need to remove these things?

Many atheists, but not all. Personally, I'm not too worry about it. The first several commandments get on my nerves, but...meh, it's just a piece of paper.

- Because it violates the first amendment.

- Would you care if the government plastered Islamic prayer verses everywhere? Would you care if they put up displays of Epicurus's Riddle?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
mcap wrote: You ask why

mcap wrote:
You ask why Christians have a problem with this?Because some Christians think that this will just be the beginning of your onslaught on our religion.Can I ask a question?Why do Atheists feel the need to remove these things? 

Which is no more accurate than redneck sexist beliefs about 'reverse discrimination' from the 'liberal costal elite' on the 'Christian' values of the U.S.

This is a nation whose principles were avowedly secular, but whose founders were theists of various types. The Ten Commandments, first and foremost, have no place in secular law, and secondly, even if they did, focus far too much on worshipping the right god (singular) to be useful for secular law anyway. And regardless, these are supposed to be immutable laws- which makes them even less useless for secular law.

Here is the standard list, from Exodus 20:2-17-

"2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;

3 Do not have any other gods before me.

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.

10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it."

These first commands are utterly worthless in a secular society. And unenforceable, thankfully. These would need to be taken out.

"12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you."

George Carlin goes into this: Respect/honor should not be automatic, but earned. Also: How would we know what the proper amount of 'honor' is to one's father and mother? What would the penalty be for disobedience? The Mosaic law is pretty clear: Stoning to death is the punishment. Are we to revive punishments, at a national level, for disrespect to fathers and mothers? Ridiculous.

13 "You shall not kill"

...Unless it's those assholes across the river or in another valley. Or unbelievers. Or 'heretics.' Or self defense. Or...... This is one of the most avoided and disseminated 'hard' codes in all of human history.

Not murdering is a good idea.... but the proscription should be (and is) more nuanced.

14 "You shall not commit adultery."

A private matter that should be only the business of those involved. That this was one of the first laws thrown away should tell you something about the stupidity of making it into a law.

15 "You shall not steal."

To which should be added "....from your own people." Who HASN'T had this rule?!? Even the most rapacious raiders in all of human history were against stealing from their neighbors. Not so much against other cultures. Oh, and some set the limits in unusual spots: What are we to make, for instance, of the Celtic practice of accepting stealing, if it was done in plain sight during the day, but condemning it if it was done in secret?

16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour."

And we needed god to tell us this?

17 "You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."

Uh huh. And how is this enforceable? This is an internal law- discipline of one's self- applied very strangely to the outer world. One cannot legislate thoughts; one can legislate action, that is all. This attempts to legislate thought, hence it should be (and rightfully is) thrown out.

The idea is right, it's just a bad idea to make it into an immutable law.

'We' feel the need to remove these things because they had no place in the courts to begin with. This is NOT and never was a Christian nation; it is a nation with a great deal of religion in it, mostly Protestant because of the way it was colonized and spread, but Christianity was not meant to have a place in the halls of power, as with England (or worse- France).

Another important point: There are at least two versions of the 'big ten' in the Pentateuch, in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21; there's also a really different version in Exodus 34:11-27. So first you'd have to narrow down which 10 you want posted. And give a good reason why the other hundreds of commands have been abrogated, while those have not. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


Redsky
Redsky's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
Question for our Christian visitors

Quite right. Why get upset? Get rid of the ten commandments. They are not necessary. No one ever got saved by hearing the ten commandments. Salvation comes through hearing the words of Christ and believing in Him. If the O.T. and the commandments brought salvation, there would not have been any need for the advent of Christ.

If you love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and love your neighbour as yourself then you are fulfilling the greatest commandments.

Carrier of The Word Of God


Redsky
Redsky's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
Question for our Christian visitors

And just for good measure, here's something else.

The people who lived in O.T. times didn't understand what God was like.

The same problem exists today. The Rational crew are right to debunk the hateful way God has been presented, but they are not right in claiming that God doesn't exist.

The explanation of the "so called" split personality God is on this link.

http://redskynews.com/?page_id=62/

 

Or download The Little Scroll at www.redskynews.com

 

Carrier of The Word Of God


BigUniverse
BigUniverse's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-08-20
User is offlineOffline
 Even if you don't believe

 

Even if you don't believe in the ten commandments that doesn't mean that you can't appreciate what they mean to people who do believe in them.  Why do you have to take away the beliefs of other people in order to feel more secure in your own?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
BigUniverse wrote:Even if

BigUniverse wrote:

Even if you don't believe in the ten commandments that doesn't mean that you can't appreciate what they mean to people who do believe in them.  Why do you have to take away the beliefs of other people in order to feel more secure in your own?

People have the freedom to believe anything they want. However, removing the ten commandments from government buildings would not take away anyone's beliefs, and it is something that could, arguably, be required under the first amendment. Again, secularists aren't trying to destroy other people's faiths; they're trying to separate religion from government. 

Personally, I don't worry too much about it either. It's true that I only agree with the general meaning of about five out of the ten commandments, but unless it actually gets sent to Congress as a bill, it has no legal authority at all. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BigUniverse
BigUniverse's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Taking away the ten

Taking away the ten commandments will not remove people beliefs, but it will make some people feel unhappy.  Why upset people when you don't need to?  Does upsetting Christians make atheists feel happy?   It also has the effect of making people feel like they are being attacked because of what they believe in, or at the very least it creates a feeling of hostility.  Is this really necessary, and if so why?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
BigUniverse wrote:Taking

BigUniverse wrote:

Taking away the ten commandments will not remove people beliefs, but it will make some people feel unhappy.  Why upset people when you don't need to?  Does upsetting Christians make atheists feel happy?   It also has the effect of making people feel like they are being attacked because of what they believe in, or at the very least it creates a feeling of hostility.  Is this really necessary, and if so why?

Is it necessary? I don't think so because it's harmless as it is. However, if given the choice, I would still choose for them to be removed because I disagree with about half of the commandments.

Do atheists want to remove the ten commandments because they want to upset Christians? Well, no. They do it mostly because they think the combination of government and religion is dangerous.

Does it create a feeling of hostility? Definitely. When mutually exclusive beliefs clash, people will be uncomfortable; it's inevitable. 

How about this? If you lived in a country where the majority of the population was Muslim instead of Christian, and, instead of the Ten Commandments, government buildings displayed the Sura Al-Fatiha, what would your position be?

  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


LiveForChrist
Theist
Posts: 2
Joined: 2009-11-02
User is offlineOffline
Hi :)

Okay so there seems to be a bit of confusion but I can clear it up. The thing you are arguing is that if Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament then we no longer have to live by it. NO! Absolutley NOT TRUE. We MUST live by the Old Testament but we also MUST live by the New Testament. In the Old Testament it tells you not to kill steal lie etc. In the New testament it tells you to look deep into your heart. Because killing and wanting somebody dead is the same thing in God's eyes. Looking lustflly at a woman is the same thing as having sex with her because you have committed a sin if the heart. The New Testament does not destroy the Old. It allows us to look deeper and into the interior of ourselves. So instead of saying thou shalt not lie, don't conspire in your heart to do something that may be wrong but may not "technically" be lying.

 

God did not want man to live by a set of rules and do rituals just to go to heaven. He wants us to truly love him and love others from the heart. So taking down a stone of the Ten commandments is nothing compared to it being written into our hearts. You can remove it from a school or court or aywhere else but you cant remove it from the hearts and minds of true Christians Smiling

 

Hope that answered your question Smiling


Ecclesiastical (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
new to this forum and response

 

Interesting ...question ... but I think LiveForChrist is close to what I believe.

 

ALSO, amongst the above mentioned...

 The 10 Commandments were to show people could NOT attain salvation through thier own works...

While it would be nice to have at least someone obey ALL of the commandments ...

We know that Only ONE person did (Jesus Christ) 

Rom3:23 :" for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

 

...of course I think you are well versed enough to understand that that
is not a "free licence" to act against the 10 commandments...

Personally I see the 10 commandments as a end all Goal...
as we are "commanded" to do much more then just the 10 "commandments"...

 

 

 


fishpaste (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I don't understand why you

I don't understand why you guys give theists all the easy questions.

 

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote:Most

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

I thought I would never say this here or see that stupid fucking man on the internet again....

 

... A British Musician had this much to say about Roy F'n Moore and the 10 Commandments:

The flaming stupids! They're eating my brainzzzzzz!


 

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Don't

MattShizzle wrote:
Don't forget also that Jesus said he came to change "not one jot or tittle (whatever the fuck a jot or tittle are!) of the old law."

Oh come now... you can't blame someone for speaking silly Ye Olde English dialect smack out ofThe Dark Ages of Europe. (You know, when the Vatican actually held power in the World)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:This

Hambydammit wrote:
This deserves to be kept near the top of the list, too! What a great question.

Sorry, I'm not used to public speaking.

Hambydammit...WE THE WHITE GOD FEARING PEOPLE OF ROCK RIDGE wish to express our extreme displeasure with your choice of sheriff. Please remove him immediately! The fact that you have sent him here just goes to prove that you are the leading asshole in the state!

 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


MattyB
MattyB's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2010-01-20
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote:Most

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

Hello, this is my first post in the forum.  I recognize T.I.G. from another forum.  As a Christian, I realize the impact that Christianity has had (whether directly or indirectly) on my upbringing.  I'm from the South, and in the South, you'll likely be Baptist, Pentecostal, or Catholic.  My mother pretty much left my faith up to me, but I did have a frequent experience with church-goers.  So, basically, God was common to Southern way of life.  Many people (conservatives) are upset about the 10 commandments being removed because it constitutes their traditional values and way of life.  Another group of people (liberals) are attacking their way of life, and so naturally they get on the defensive.  Who can blame them?

If the same thing was to happen in a traditionally Islamic nation, the people would be in an uproar.  The notion that America was founded by secularist is not accurate.  The only time secularism had it's hold in American politics was when the Constitution was drafted and confirmed.  Other than that, secularism didn't have a big part in American society and development.  That is the American tradition that people of today are trying to abolish.  Don't be surprised if you encounter great resistance. 

The Gospel verses Religion=God-made vs. man-made