The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

"in god we trust on coins and nation under God in pledge" As I'm old enough to remember it wasn't always so. I was in 1st grade when it happened.

yea, I'm not sure how that came to pass.  I've taken some misguided views on that myself.  It was generally understood we were a Christian Nation.  As far as I understand about the pledge, the person who wrote it wrote it as is.  The controversy in my mind is you'd be infringing upon the author of the pledge to change any part of it. 

Honestly, I've heard a lot of opinions about this topic and I conclude that I'm not sure how I should stand on this topic.  From the point of view of a believer, to say that it's a Nation under God is to say that our nation is under the protection and blessing of God.  Keep in mind we have many other views of why things happen the way they do than non-believers.  Therefore, it'd be kind of scary to take God's protection away from our country.  Then again, it's just a pledge and it's not right to make non-believers pledge to our country and have to claim God's Blessing when they really don't. 

Again, it's a believer's point of view.  We don't need to get into a big thing about this at this time.

I won't dwell much on this issue as it's part of many things wrong with Christians attempting to impose beliefs. The problem is the pledge should be a unifier for the citizens as it is now it is not. In no way does a secular pledge make any difference to those of you that believe. Again, people are free to ask god (your choice of which one) to bless America or your losing football team, though you should not expect secular inclusion. This nation needs to be united as Americans first and any subsets such as God believers, regions, or football teams are second.  Though I understand how Christians are loyal to their beliefs first rather than a country. When this conflicts, many have no problem declaring themselves as conscientious objectors. Sometimes I think some people are more loyal to their baseball or football team than they are to the country. They seem to spend more time on them.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Such is the motivation for separation of church and state. It does not belong in a secular world, pray to Jesus when and where you want but don't expect to do so when you have a meeting including atheists, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. Christians really are aware of this but refuse to hear. So much for following their leader.

This is why I try to clarify my following and separate myself from others.  The other side of that however is to accept the fact that Chrisitans might pray in public areas without the expectation of others joining in.  I think this is easily misunderstood as well.

People do all sorts of things in public places without general participation. I stand for freedom of choice in your ideas and beliefs meaning I will tolerant what you do so long as you tolerant what I do. 

caposkia wrote:

This is just a question, but is it possible that you'd want to be a follower of Christ if you discovered that he was real? 

If Jesus was real it makes no difference to me as I see the God belief founded on Yahweh is just as mythical as all the rest. Even using the ideas of figurative language, analogies and stories in the OT as educational examples the basis fails in my view. Some churches including the Catholic Church are already trying these approaches such as saying god may have used evolution to create the world. If Jesus was a real person the whole point of what he was doing is not likely to have been the misinterpretation that has developed. He may have been just a person doing what he thought right for his people or some form of Jewish rebel. I don't have enough info to decide if he was delusional (meaning not exactly sane) or if stories are a devlopment of followers that were deluded. Some people think Criss Angel actually can levitate, they are deluded. Same idea for Jesus. 

As you can see one does not need to accept the basic beliefs of Christianity to understand it.

A return question is fairplay here. What if you learned to your satisafaction that no god has basis in reality?

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

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:If

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If Jesus was real it makes no difference to me as I see the God belief founded on Yahweh is just as mythical as all the rest. Even using the ideas of figurative language, analogies and stories in the OT as educational examples the basis fails in my view. Some churches including the Catholic Church are already trying these approaches such as saying god may have used evolution to create the world. If Jesus was a real person the whole point of what he was doing is not likely to have been the misinterpretation that has developed. He may have been just a person doing what he thought right for his people or some form of Jewish rebel. I don't have enough info to decide if he was delusional (meaning not exactly sane) or if stories are a devlopment of followers that were deluded. Some people think Criss Angel actually can levitate, they are deluded. Same idea for Jesus. 

As you can see one does not need to accept the basic beliefs of Christianity to understand it.

A return question is fairplay here. What if you learned to your satisafaction that no god has basis in reality?

It's fair to ask.  I see your answer and understand your approach.  I meant it as Jesus as the Bible describes him as being real, but I get what you mean.

As far as your question goes:

Simply and strait, if it came to the point that to my satisfaction, it was shown to me that God has no basis in reality, I would have to accept that understanding.  Though I don't know who would answer contradictory to that. 

Is your question implying what would need to be presented?  If so, I'd need clearly explained evidence of happenings in my life that have not been explained and have either been dismissed as delusion or not possible to have happened.   Also to that, chains of events and changes in lives around me as well as my own due to the following of Christ.  My following in particular not dictated by any church or religious organization established other than scripture itself and yet has the same outcome as millions who follow the same as I. 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:It's I see

caposkia wrote:

It's I see your answer and understand your approach.  I meant it as Jesus as the Bible describes him as being real, but I get what you mean.

I knew what you meant and I see you understood my reasons. One can't accept Jesus as real without accepting God as real. I have many reasons that discredit God as a real entity especially the one described in the OT.

caposkia wrote:

As far as your question goes:

Simply and strait, if it came to the point that to my satisfaction, it was shown to me that God has no basis in reality, I would have to accept that understanding.  Though I don't know who would answer contradictory to that.

Many would never even consider other possibilities as they consider such thoughts the work of Satan. 

caposkia wrote:

Is your question implying what would need to be presented?  If so, I'd need clearly explained evidence of happenings in my life that have not been explained and have either been dismissed as delusion or not possible to have happened.   Also to that, chains of events and changes in lives around me as well as my own due to the following of Christ.  My following in particular not dictated by any church or religious organization established other than scripture itself and yet has the same outcome as millions who follow the same as I. 

I've read the other thread where some of this is mentioned. I understand most believers base their belief on personal evidence as did I once upon a time. In my case, I have nothing to indicate a god was treating me in a special way. Further reflection for me showed all events were not related to intervention of a higher power but were statistically likely or otherwise explainable. Perhaps you attribute the cause to a higher power as you lack a better explanation. 

People that treat others with kindness and consideration influence others regardless of their beliefs. As a non-believer I have done more for people in general than I ever did as a Christian. When the party responds with God Bless you, I either ignore it or say a simple thanks is fine. Though of course many would say God drove me to do the good for them. If so, this says free will is altered and the outcome was predisposed. It is more likely simply the way my mind operates. I see people as the most important part of the world, not some promise in an afterlife. I would expect people to treat me the same, though mostly they don't. That however is their problem, they have to live with themselves.

I know an evangelist singer (nationally known-so I won't use his name) who was a basically wild young person. He'd pick up a new girl every night if he could. He did some drugs and partied wildly. He felt the world was all about pleasing him. At some point he had a moment that opened his eyes, I suspect he awoke to some horror, perhaps a guy in bed with him or an old or very ugly fat chick. He would never explain what it was. This was his significant emotional event, SEE for short,  that caused him to reset his life's programming. He then found Christianity and Jesus. He and I talked for hours about his beliefs and mine. He even brought help in the way of Christian missionaries to talk with me. Obviously, none of which affected me in the way they had in mind as I know what you know but I see it in the harsh light of day. Anyway, many that convert do so because of something like his experience. Is he a better person today, surely. I've seen this many times in the past and god and Jesus are used as a means to reset one's destructive behavior. Are there better ways to achieve better mental health and become a good citizen, of course. 

In my friend's case, belief in Jesus made him a far better person than he was. He really needed to change and perhaps therapy would have done as much for him as his conversion. He however wouldn't discuss his problems at all seeing his life as perfectly fine. IMHO, he substituted one crutch for another and really hasn't dealt with the real problem.

This is not the only case I have observed first hand either. My sister is an evangelical who is adamant in her beliefs. We both were exposed to a religious upbringing and I had far more education in religious institutions than her. She was to say the least a wild bitch from hell beginning in her teens. By the time she was in her 20's she changed to a religious fanatic. One of her daughters is a missionary that has spent time in Korea, China, and even Arab countries. We have to say the least very interesting conversations. As a very tolerant individual I put up with her comments, though I serve back as much as she dishes out. 

I would be interested in your experiences as I'm sure others would, to understand how they affected you to the beliefs you have since developed. As we both know, personal experiences do not meet the requirements of science. It is these experiences that have however created the different belief systems more than anything else.  You can do this in this thread if you'd like as it is a follow up on the ideas of this book or you can start a new thread expressly for that purpose. I will treat your ideas fairly though based on my comments you realize I will look hard for realistic explanations and interpretations.

Since you come to these forums that can be quite hostile to those that believe you must do so for a reason. Some come here to attempt to show us the errors of our ways. Some to learn more about atheism. Some come to challenge themselves. Some come to attempt to bridge the gaps of differences or to learn how to coexist. I see you as someone that wants to coexist or bridge differences with some hint of challenging your beliefs. Though all Christians have the mission unspoken sometimes but never absent to evangelize which is part of the basic beliefs. 

 

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

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I knew what you meant and I see you understood my reasons. One can't accept Jesus as real without accepting God as real.

yes, that is agreed.  I've heard many issues from the OT.  Many I've understood to be taken out of context or just plain misunderstood.

A big understanding about God too is that people expect him to be a big "carebear in the sky" and well, the OT makes it pretty clear that he's not so.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Many would never even consider other possibilities as they consider such thoughts the work of Satan. 

right, even though people make the choice on their own.  Here lies a big problem within Christiandom.  when things go wrong, no one wants to own up to it, therefore, blame it on Satan. 

From reading the scriptures myself, unless someone gets posessed by a spirit, they can choose to do whatever they want.  Satan can only try to persuade, he does not do like many people would like to think.  (This is what I understand anyway)

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I've read the other thread where some of this is mentioned. I understand most believers base their belief on personal evidence as did I once upon a time. In my case, I have nothing to indicate a god was treating me in a special way. Further reflection for me showed all events were not related to intervention of a higher power but were statistically likely or otherwise explainable. Perhaps you attribute the cause to a higher power as you lack a better explanation. 

Many have suggested that, though few have explained anything.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

People that treat others with kindness and consideration influence others regardless of their beliefs. As a non-believer I have done more for people in general than I ever did as a Christian. When the party responds with God Bless you, I either ignore it or say a simple thanks is fine. Though of course many would say God drove me to do the good for them. If so, this says free will is altered and the outcome was predisposed. It is more likely simply the way my mind operates. I see people as the most important part of the world, not some promise in an afterlife. I would expect people to treat me the same, though mostly they don't. That however is their problem, they have to live with themselves.

yea, that belief doesn't coenside with the scriptures.  God doesn't "drive people" or force them to do anything.  Just as I explained with Satan, God only suggests or persuades. 

The scriptures make it abundantly clear that God lets us all make our own choices.  If it is to follow Him, then he will only influence us as far as we let him.  He is not invasive.  Again, another excuse for people to push God on others.  I don't believe God condones this. 

I would never say that being a Christian will make you treat others better or do more for others.  It might make you a better person, but that's a personal growth.  It has nothing to do with good favors to others or kindness.  I've met many non-believers that were much friendlier than the eleged Christian.  These are choices, not God manuvering you like a puppet.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I know an evangelist singer (nationally known-so I won't use his name) who was a basically wild young person. He'd pick up a new girl every night if he could. He did some drugs and partied wildly. He felt the world was all about pleasing him. At some point he had a moment that opened his eyes, I suspect he awoke to some horror, perhaps a guy in bed with him or an old or very ugly fat chick. He would never explain what it was. This was his significant emotional event, SEE for short,  that caused him to reset his life's programming. He then found Christianity and Jesus. He and I talked for hours about his beliefs and mine. He even brought help in the way of Christian missionaries to talk with me. Obviously, none of which affected me in the way they had in mind as I know what you know but I see it in the harsh light of day. Anyway, many that convert do so because of something like his experience. Is he a better person today, surely. I've seen this many times in the past and god and Jesus are used as a means to reset one's destructive behavior. Are there better ways to achieve better mental health and become a good citizen, of course. 

Right, there are many stories out there like that.  This however doesn't cover the majority from what I'm aware of.  That's just one scenario among many and cannot be the excuse for the people who believe.

In my friend's case, belief in Jesus made him a far better person than he was. He really needed to change and perhaps therapy would have done as much for him as his conversion. He however wouldn't discuss his problems at all seeing his life as perfectly fine. IMHO, he substituted one crutch for another and really hasn't dealt with the real problem.

This is not the only case I have observed first hand either. My sister is an evangelical who is adamant in her beliefs. We both were exposed to a religious upbringing and I had far more education in religious institutions than her. She was to say the least a wild bitch from hell beginning in her teens. By the time she was in her 20's she changed to a religious fanatic. One of her daughters is a missionary that has spent time in Korea, China, and even Arab countries. We have to say the least very interesting conversations. As a very tolerant individual I put up with her comments, though I serve back as much as she dishes out. 

I would be interested in your experiences as I'm sure others would, to understand how they affected you to the beliefs you have since developed. As we both know, personal experiences do not meet the requirements of science. It is these experiences that have however created the different belief systems more than anything else.  You can do this in this thread if you'd like as it is a follow up on the ideas of this book or you can start a new thread expressly for that purpose. I will treat your ideas fairly though based on my comments you realize I will look hard for realistic explanations and interpretations.

Since you come to these forums that can be quite hostile to those that believe you must do so for a reason. Some come here to attempt to show us the errors of our ways. Some to learn more about atheism. Some come to challenge themselves. Some come to attempt to bridge the gaps of differences or to learn how to coexist. I see you as someone that wants to coexist or bridge differences with some hint of challenging your beliefs. Though all Christians have the mission unspoken sometimes but never absent to evangelize which is part of the basic beliefs. 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:yea, that

caposkia wrote:
yea, that belief doesn't coenside with the scriptures.  God doesn't "drive people" or force them to do anything.  Just as I explained with Satan, God only suggests or persuades. 

The scriptures make it abundantly clear that God lets us all make our own choices.  If it is to follow Him, then he will only influence us as far as we let him.  He is not invasive.  Again, another excuse for people to push God on others.  I don't believe God condones this.

You mean after the old testament? Because there were a lot of flat-out orders in the old testament. Like "sacrifice your son" and "walk around the city seven times and I'll slaughter everyone for you". Those were definitely orders. The burning bush laying down the law wasn't a "suggestion".

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:caposkia

HisWillness wrote:

caposkia wrote:
yea, that belief doesn't coenside with the scriptures.  God doesn't "drive people" or force them to do anything.  Just as I explained with Satan, God only suggests or persuades. 

The scriptures make it abundantly clear that God lets us all make our own choices.  If it is to follow Him, then he will only influence us as far as we let him.  He is not invasive.  Again, another excuse for people to push God on others.  I don't believe God condones this.

You mean after the old testament? Because there were a lot of flat-out orders in the old testament. Like "sacrifice your son" and "walk around the city seven times and I'll slaughter everyone for you". Those were definitely orders. The burning bush laying down the law wasn't a "suggestion".

You're just not reading those passages properly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You're just

Brian37 wrote:

You're just not reading those passages properly.

After reading that, and enduring the conniption fit I endured following it ... I think I just figured out what my reaction to Vogon poetry would be.

You and my friend merv would get along famously, I think.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:HisWillness

Brian37 wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

caposkia wrote:
yea, that belief doesn't coenside with the scriptures.  God doesn't "drive people" or force them to do anything.  Just as I explained with Satan, God only suggests or persuades. 

The scriptures make it abundantly clear that God lets us all make our own choices.  If it is to follow Him, then he will only influence us as far as we let him.  He is not invasive.  Again, another excuse for people to push God on others.  I don't believe God condones this.

You mean after the old testament? Because there were a lot of flat-out orders in the old testament. Like "sacrifice your son" and "walk around the city seven times and I'll slaughter everyone for you". Those were definitely orders. The burning bush laying down the law wasn't a "suggestion".

You're just not reading those passages properly.

 

Kind of troublesome resolving God telling Abe to sacrifice his son because god was "tempting him" (testing) only to find out later he met the test. This doesn't do much for all-knowing does it?

In the case of Jericho, the wording used was "ye shall compass the city..........and thus shalt thou do for 6 days......and the 7th day ye shall..........." If the language used was something like this, If you want or you can, if you desire, then perhaps it would not be an order. Since shall, thou shalt  were used I don't see how one can see anything here but orders in this particular myth. Perhaps Cap would like to explain.

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

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 Cap,I think you should

 Cap,

I think you should review your last post and edit it to correct the errors you made in quoting me in the last few paragraphs. Perhaps you were in a rush and forgot to put the quotes on it and then respond?

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

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I knew what you meant and I see you understood my reasons. One can't accept Jesus as real without accepting God as real.

yes, that is agreed.  I've heard many issues from the OT.  Many I've understood to be taken out of context or just plain misunderstood.

A big understanding about God too is that people expect him to be a big "carebear in the sky" and well, the OT makes it pretty clear that he's not so.

So that of course brings up the question if he's not a "big carebear in the sky" what use is he? Look at this from the OT's perspective prior to Jesus. All Yahweh seems to do is kill people or order their death in order to insure "his people" worship him in the manner he wants. The OT Jews didn't all subscribe to the belief of an afterlife so other than not being killed for sinning against him what exactly was their reward?

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Many would never even consider other possibilities as they consider such thoughts the work of Satan. 

right, even though people make the choice on their own.  Here lies a big problem within Christiandom.  when things go wrong, no one wants to own up to it, therefore, blame it on Satan. 

From reading the scriptures myself, unless someone gets posessed by a spirit, they can choose to do whatever they want.  Satan can only try to persuade, he does not do like many people would like to think.  (This is what I understand anyway)

So, are you saying Satan was more like the prosecutor in Job and not the "evil one"? Satan as evil seems to be a NT development from what I have studied.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

People that treat others with kindness and consideration influence others regardless of their beliefs. As a non-believer I have done more for people in general than I ever did as a Christian. When the party responds with God Bless you, I either ignore it or say a simple thanks is fine. Though of course many would say God drove me to do the good for them. If so, this says free will is altered and the outcome was predisposed. It is more likely simply the way my mind operates. I see people as the most important part of the world, not some promise in an afterlife. I would expect people to treat me the same, though mostly they don't. That however is their problem, they have to live with themselves.

yea, that belief doesn't coenside with the scriptures.  God doesn't "drive people" or force them to do anything.  Just as I explained with Satan, God only suggests or persuades. 

The scriptures make it abundantly clear that God lets us all make our own choices.  If it is to follow Him, then he will only influence us as far as we let him.  He is not invasive.  Again, another excuse for people to push God on others.  I don't believe God condones this. 

I would never say that being a Christian will make you treat others better or do more for others.  It might make you a better person, but that's a personal growth.  It has nothing to do with good favors to others or kindness.  I've met many non-believers that were much friendlier than the eleged Christian.  These are choices, not God manuvering you like a puppet.

If God did manuever you into actions it would negate the whole point. As pointed out by others, he was an authoritarian giving orders to follow with implied penalties for not obeying. I don't see where you would disagree wtih God being an authoritarian as he's really clear about it. Moses paid for his disregarding the will of the god by not being allowed to go to the mythical land of Canaan. All the people of Sodom & Gomorrah were toasted by sulphur because they sinned against him. Though I don't recall them being told they were doing sin against Yahweh. Perhaps they should have known or that chapter got lost to history.

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

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:caposkia

HisWillness wrote:

caposkia wrote:
yea, that belief doesn't coenside with the scriptures.  God doesn't "drive people" or force them to do anything.  Just as I explained with Satan, God only suggests or persuades. 

The scriptures make it abundantly clear that God lets us all make our own choices.  If it is to follow Him, then he will only influence us as far as we let him.  He is not invasive.  Again, another excuse for people to push God on others.  I don't believe God condones this.

You mean after the old testament? Because there were a lot of flat-out orders in the old testament. Like "sacrifice your son" and "walk around the city seven times and I'll slaughter everyone for you". Those were definitely orders. The burning bush laying down the law wasn't a "suggestion".

Indeed.

If Cap is going to claim his statement about God is true, he has to concede that he is ignoring what is clearly written in the Bible.

Capioskia, you cannot have it both ways - which is it?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Geez Cap and idol inventors.

Geez Cap and idol inventors. I need say that for so long I have been embarrassed by the ideas of all "god of abe" type theists. They are a mockery to any sensible NON superstitious, Jesus, buddha like,  character script. "Only begotten son" is SO appallingly ignorant. The only reason most g-o-d definitions still exist is as Einstein said, because stupidity is the most abundant truth of humanity. Indeed ... simple "common sense" is an oxymoron. I cannot appease such devastating obvious wrong dogmatic thinking, which is the very definition of religion. Religion is hate and fear. The only "sensible" Jesus was atheistic, "one with the father / mother / it / cosmos / nature / all connected eternal cosmos.

 Gifted writer, religion basher Thomas Jefferson said it well,

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

MORE:  http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

Pat Condell - See ALL vids. He is a modern version of the simple, in your face,  "saving good word" no hocus pocus Jesus character, as we all need be .... 

Take your god and shove him - 4 min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M114bK4qaiM

Why debate dogma? - 6 min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cXWElb-GE

    Idol invention and worship is obviously wrong, and a fairly common definition of the devil, satan, demon ... the reason for "hell", unnecessary suffering. The religious are the "blind who do not know what they do" ....

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:You mean

HisWillness wrote:

You mean after the old testament? Because there were a lot of flat-out orders in the old testament. Like "sacrifice your son" and "walk around the city seven times and I'll slaughter everyone for you". Those were definitely orders. The burning bush laying down the law wasn't a "suggestion".

No, including the OT.  Any one of them could have said no.  God knows them all well enough to know that none of them would have said no. 

e.g. Moses could just as easily said no to that order, however, if that was going to be Moses' choice, God wouldn't have gone to him in the first place knowing that's what his decision would have been.  It would have been someone else.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Kind of troublesome resolving God telling Abe to sacrifice his son because god was "tempting him" (testing) only to find out later he met the test. This doesn't do much for all-knowing does it?

Who said God didn't know what he'd decide?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In the case of Jericho, the wording used was "ye shall compass the city..........and thus shalt thou do for 6 days......and the 7th day ye shall..........." If the language used was something like this, If you want or you can, if you desire, then perhaps it would not be an order. Since shall, thou shalt  were used I don't see how one can see anything here but orders in this particular myth. Perhaps Cap would like to explain.

It does help taking the ancient languages into consideration.  I understand it as "i need you to do this for me"  as a friend would say to another.  The recieving end can easily say "no" and walk away, but it's understood by the recieving end that God really needs that from them and because of their relationship with him, just like a good friend, they follow through.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 Cap,

I think you should review your last post and edit it to correct the errors you made in quoting me in the last few paragraphs. Perhaps you were in a rush and forgot to put the quotes on it and then respond?

I see what happened, it won't let me edit it anymore.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:So

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So that of course brings up the question if he's not a "big carebear in the sky" what use is he?

He's only useful if he's a carebear?  What use is a leader amidst a crowd?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Look at this from the OT's perspective prior to Jesus. All Yahweh seems to do is kill people or order their death in order to insure "his people" worship him in the manner he wants. The OT Jews didn't all subscribe to the belief of an afterlife so other than not being killed for sinning against him what exactly was their reward?

I'm not sure what they would have said was their reward.  The OT did teach of an afterlife. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

So, are you saying Satan was more like the prosecutor in Job and not the "evil one"? Satan as evil seems to be a NT development from what I have studied.

The definition of evil is anything against God's will.  Satan used to be a high ranking angel.  He went against God and got kicked out of heaven.  Satan continues to challenge God because from my understanding, he thinks God's way is wrong and our bonds with Him are weak. 

In Job, it's clear that Satan was again challenging God saying I'll bet that even your strongest follower will deny you if you take away everything they have.  God said, your on and so it goes. 

The point was that our relationship with God goes beyond comfort and prosperity. 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If God did manuever you into actions it would negate the whole point. As pointed out by others, he was an authoritarian giving orders to follow with implied penalties for not obeying. I don't see where you would disagree wtih God being an authoritarian as he's really clear about it. Moses paid for his disregarding the will of the god by not being allowed to go to the mythical land of Canaan. All the people of Sodom & Gomorrah were toasted by sulphur because they sinned against him. Though I don't recall them being told they were doing sin against Yahweh. Perhaps they should have known or that chapter got lost to history.

God isn't called king because he was elected or because he's not an authority. 

As far as Sodom and Gomorrah, it's implied that they were aware be it that Sodom was once a sinless place.  It's also understood that there could have been riteous people there and therefore the truth would be among them in the city. 

We have to remember the Bible is only a summary.  Many books talk about how no library being able to hold all the information if it was all written down.  It'd be like you writing an autobiography detailing everything in your life.  Could you possibly put that in one book?  How about the biographies of 100 people? 


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:  Any one of

caposkia wrote:

  Any one of them could have said no. 

They could have said no, but at what consequence.  Would god have just excepted them saying no with no kind of punishment? 


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:The

caposkia wrote:
The definition of evil is anything against God's will.

Isn't that very selfish?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So that of course brings up the question if he's not a "big carebear in the sky" what use is he?

He's only useful if he's a carebear?  What use is a leader amidst a crowd?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Look at this from the OT's perspective prior to Jesus. All Yahweh seems to do is kill people or order their death in order to insure "his people" worship him in the manner he wants. The OT Jews didn't all subscribe to the belief of an afterlife so other than not being killed for sinning against him what exactly was their reward?

I'm not sure what they would have said was their reward.  The OT did teach of an afterlife. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

So, are you saying Satan was more like the prosecutor in Job and not the "evil one"? Satan as evil seems to be a NT development from what I have studied.

The definition of evil is anything against God's will.  Satan used to be a high ranking angel.  He went against God and got kicked out of heaven.  Satan continues to challenge God because from my understanding, he thinks God's way is wrong and our bonds with Him are weak. 

In Job, it's clear that Satan was again challenging God saying I'll bet that even your strongest follower will deny you if you take away everything they have.  God said, your on and so it goes. 

The point was that our relationship with God goes beyond comfort and prosperity. 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If God did manuever you into actions it would negate the whole point. As pointed out by others, he was an authoritarian giving orders to follow with implied penalties for not obeying. I don't see where you would disagree wtih God being an authoritarian as he's really clear about it. Moses paid for his disregarding the will of the god by not being allowed to go to the mythical land of Canaan. All the people of Sodom & Gomorrah were toasted by sulphur because they sinned against him. Though I don't recall them being told they were doing sin against Yahweh. Perhaps they should have known or that chapter got lost to history.

God isn't called king because he was elected or because he's not an authority. 

As far as Sodom and Gomorrah, it's implied that they were aware be it that Sodom was once a sinless place.  It's also understood that there could have been riteous people there and therefore the truth would be among them in the city. 

We have to remember the Bible is only a summary.  Many books talk about how no library being able to hold all the information if it was all written down.  It'd be like you writing an autobiography detailing everything in your life.  Could you possibly put that in one book?  How about the biographies of 100 people? 

1. So he's not useful to you as the giver of good things? Does his use come from your fear of his punishment?

2. If I recall, the OT afterlife (Sheol) was kind of gloomy but not punishment. Hell (Gehenna) is purely a Christian creation modified from a vision of a garbage dump.

3. So God created evil (Isaiah 45:7) to go against his will? Nothing like making your own enemies.

4. The story of Job shows that God is a sadist. He told Satan to torment Job as part of a bet the two of them had.

5. God is called King the way so many others are called king - self-appointment (or in this case appointment by his writers).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:HisWillness

caposkia wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

You mean after the old testament? Because there were a lot of flat-out orders in the old testament. Like "sacrifice your son" and "walk around the city seven times and I'll slaughter everyone for you". Those were definitely orders. The burning bush laying down the law wasn't a "suggestion".

No, including the OT.  Any one of them could have said no.  God knows them all well enough to know that none of them would have said no. 

e.g. Moses could just as easily said no to that order, however, if that was going to be Moses' choice, God wouldn't have gone to him in the first place knowing that's what his decision would have been.  It would have been someone else.

Okay, so God just picked the people who would say "yes", thus negating the problem of being defied. Right. The same God who knew they'd say "yes" didn't anticipate the cities that Joshua would have to destroy? The men, women and children who would have to be slaughtered? Or did he know, and he just likes to kill?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:caposkia

HisWillness wrote:

caposkia wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

You mean after the old testament? Because there were a lot of flat-out orders in the old testament. Like "sacrifice your son" and "walk around the city seven times and I'll slaughter everyone for you". Those were definitely orders. The burning bush laying down the law wasn't a "suggestion".

No, including the OT.  Any one of them could have said no.  God knows them all well enough to know that none of them would have said no. 

e.g. Moses could just as easily said no to that order, however, if that was going to be Moses' choice, God wouldn't have gone to him in the first place knowing that's what his decision would have been.  It would have been someone else.

Okay, so God just picked the people who would say "yes", thus negating the problem of being defied. Right. The same God who knew they'd say "yes" didn't anticipate the cities that Joshua would have to destroy? The men, women and children who would have to be slaughtered? Or did he know, and he just likes to kill?

Yep - God stacks the deck and calls it "free will".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:They could have

RatDog wrote:

They could have said no, but at what consequence.  Would god have just excepted them saying no with no kind of punishment? 

Did God say "do this or else"?

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:RatDog

caposkia wrote:

RatDog wrote:

They could have said no, but at what consequence.  Would god have just excepted them saying no with no kind of punishment? 

Did God say "do this or else"?

 

Did he kill them after they didn't?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:caposkia

RatDog wrote:

caposkia wrote:
The definition of evil is anything against God's will.

Isn't that very selfish?

Not if there is no other basis for comparison.  If God is the good in the world, or at least what is best for the world and Satan is the complete opposite...

Let's put it this way, God may have said Satan went against me, or you went against me, whoever, whatever.  It's people that put a word to the face. Evil can be an angry child or a destructive hurricane as well, so if it is selfish at all, we only have ourselves to blame be it that we defined it that way.   


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Did he kill

jcgadfly wrote:

Did he kill them after they didn't?

none didn't, they did, so we don't know.  It's understood simply that God knew them well enough to know that he could count on them.  He knew they wouldn't turn them down.  As far as we know, there could have been 100 people he was considering.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. So he's

jcgadfly wrote:

1. So he's not useful to you as the giver of good things? Does his use come from your fear of his punishment?

Do you only love your parents because you know you're going to be punished if you disobey them?

Your answer. just in case that didn't clarify:

I don't fear his punishment because I'm already forgiven.  Therefore, there is no punishment to fear.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. If I recall, the OT afterlife (Sheol) was kind of gloomy but not punishment. Hell (Gehenna) is purely a Christian creation modified from a vision of a garbage dump.

Hell isn't all the images you see around.  You're right, most of what is "preached" or threatened about hell is simply garbage. 

Sheol of the OT literally is "the grave".  There was no specification of with God or rejected by God in that word.  That is, when it was translated properly as such.  There are many OT translations that will use Sheol for many different Hebrew words.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. So God created evil (Isaiah 45:7) to go against his will? Nothing like making your own enemies.

This is one of those things that I understand as needing to be taken in context.  It doesn't say he created evil.  He causes the darkness and calamity.  If you read starting at 44:21, you'll see a whole section on God forgiving and redeeming.  Redeeming being the repaying (as by definition) of God's people, sometimes this is in the calamity of others.  Vs. 24-28 in that chapter specify further what 45:7 is referencing to. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

4. The story of Job shows that God is a sadist. He told Satan to torment Job as part of a bet the two of them had.

Were you just telling me that or were you expecting a response?

jcgadfly wrote:

5. God is called King the way so many others are called king - self-appointment (or in this case appointment by his writers).

He created it, therefore he rules it.  Sure, self appointed if you like. 

 

I willingly answered your questions, though this is off topic completely and would fit perfectly in the other forum that has been started. 

please continue there if you're interested. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Okay, so

HisWillness wrote:

Okay, so God just picked the people who would say "yes", thus negating the problem of being defied. Right. The same God who knew they'd say "yes" didn't anticipate the cities that Joshua would have to destroy? The men, women and children who would have to be slaughtered? Or did he know, and he just likes to kill?

Sure, The United States always goes to war because we like to kill, right? 

Anticipation? or making a point?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Did he kill them after they didn't?

none didn't, they did, so we don't know.  It's understood simply that God knew them well enough to know that he could count on them.  He knew they wouldn't turn them down.  As far as we know, there could have been 100 people he was considering.

Well Adam and Eve violated the command and they weren't killed immediately...

And again, good thing there was no free will for God to worry about huh? You admitted as much in this post.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Yep - God

jcgadfly wrote:

Yep - God stacks the deck and calls it "free will".

Then you're saying that because we have expectations, laws, and regulations that if we don't follow them, there is consequences, this country actually is not a free country after all.  They've as you said, stacked the deck. 

What about Satan?  Is he playing cards too? 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Kind of troublesome resolving God telling Abe to sacrifice his son because god was "tempting him" (testing) only to find out later he met the test. This doesn't do much for all-knowing does it?

Who said God didn't know what he'd decide?

If you assume he knew what Abe would do then it's sort of a torture such as Gitmo. Psychological and mental. Sacrifice your son, then at the last second, stop, I was just testing you.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In the case of Jericho, the wording used was "ye shall compass the city..........and thus shalt thou do for 6 days......and the 7th day ye shall..........." If the language used was something like this, If you want or you can, if you desire, then perhaps it would not be an order. Since shall, thou shalt  were used I don't see how one can see anything here but orders in this particular myth. Perhaps Cap would like to explain.

It does help taking the ancient languages into consideration.  I understand it as "i need you to do this for me"  as a friend would say to another.  The recieving end can easily say "no" and walk away, but it's understood by the recieving end that God really needs that from them and because of their relationship with him, just like a good friend, they follow through. 

I consider the Exodus stories including Ai and Jericho to not be true based on archeology and the history that has survived from Egypt, Assyria, and the Hittites. If the language is only figurative and telling a story then one can have the people doing whatever you like. If the story were true then there is basis for fear of Yahweh. Since those in the invading group with Joshua were descended from those that rebelled at Sinai (perhaps rebelled isn't strong enough, how about spit in Yahweh's face and built their own god) they knew the stories of how God had killed many at Sinai so they pretty much would have been under the impression to not do as the god asked was likely to shorten their life span.

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

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Well Adam and

jcgadfly wrote:

Well Adam and Eve violated the command and they weren't killed immediately...

And again, good thing there was no free will for God to worry about huh? You admitted as much in this post.

Right, adam and eve I believe both lived for close to 1000 years.

um... I'm not sure if I understand what you're talking about as far as the free will thing.  It was free will that allowed Adam and Eve to violate God.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. So he's not useful to you as the giver of good things? Does his use come from your fear of his punishment?

Do you only love your parents because you know you're going to be punished if you disobey them?

Your answer. just in case that didn't clarify:

I don't fear his punishment because I'm already forgiven.  Therefore, there is no punishment to fear.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. If I recall, the OT afterlife (Sheol) was kind of gloomy but not punishment. Hell (Gehenna) is purely a Christian creation modified from a vision of a garbage dump.

Hell isn't all the images you see around.  You're right, most of what is "preached" or threatened about hell is simply garbage. 

Sheol of the OT literally is "the grave".  There was no specification of with God or rejected by God in that word.  That is, when it was translated properly as such.  There are many OT translations that will use Sheol for many different Hebrew words.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. So God created evil (Isaiah 45:7) to go against his will? Nothing like making your own enemies.

This is one of those things that I understand as needing to be taken in context.  It doesn't say he created evil.  He causes the darkness and calamity.  If you read starting at 44:21, you'll see a whole section on God forgiving and redeeming.  Redeeming being the repaying (as by definition) of God's people, sometimes this is in the calamity of others.  Vs. 24-28 in that chapter specify further what 45:7 is referencing to. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

4. The story of Job shows that God is a sadist. He told Satan to torment Job as part of a bet the two of them had.

Were you just telling me that or were you expecting a response?

jcgadfly wrote:

5. God is called King the way so many others are called king - self-appointment (or in this case appointment by his writers).

He created it, therefore he rules it.  Sure, self appointed if you like. 

 

I willingly answered your questions, though this is off topic completely and would fit perfectly in the other forum that has been started. 

please continue there if you're interested. 

1. So if you don't love God:

- because he gives you good things (my folks gave me life, among other things)

- because you don't fear his punishment (because you're forgiven and whatever you do after that no longer matters?) (I know why my folks punished me - can you say that about God?)

why do you?

You've basically said there is nothing to the relationship between you and the deity worth having but you keep it anyway.

2. Sheol was simply the realm of the dead - with God or without, there is no punishment there. The punishment came with Hell - easier to control people with a threat of eternal torment if you step out of line. The fact that many translations translate the word differently only shows the bias of the translators.

3. Is 45:7 says evil in KJV. The other versions (NIV in particular) used a politically (ther are political maneuverings in religion) motivated translation. Not that creating calamity makes God look any better...

4. It was sinply relating my view of Job after having read it a number of times. You are welcome to tell me where you think I'm wrong (though I think you'd be standing against the words of the book).

5. More likely the writers wanted to sell the idea of an all-powerful deity and a King was the most powerful being at the time.

You bounce from thread to thread so often that I have a hard time keeping up - it usually depends on how hard you get slapped in the discussions. I just catch you when I see you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. So he's not useful to you as the giver of good things? Does his use come from your fear of his punishment?

Do you only love your parents because you know you're going to be punished if you disobey them?

Your answer. just in case that didn't clarify:

I don't fear his punishment because I'm already forgiven.  Therefore, there is no punishment to fear.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. If I recall, the OT afterlife (Sheol) was kind of gloomy but not punishment. Hell (Gehenna) is purely a Christian creation modified from a vision of a garbage dump.

Hell isn't all the images you see around.  You're right, most of what is "preached" or threatened about hell is simply garbage. 

Sheol of the OT literally is "the grave".  There was no specification of with God or rejected by God in that word.  That is, when it was translated properly as such.  There are many OT translations that will use Sheol for many different Hebrew words.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. So God created evil (Isaiah 45:7) to go against his will? Nothing like making your own enemies.

This is one of those things that I understand as needing to be taken in context.  It doesn't say he created evil.  He causes the darkness and calamity.  If you read starting at 44:21, you'll see a whole section on God forgiving and redeeming.  Redeeming being the repaying (as by definition) of God's people, sometimes this is in the calamity of others.  Vs. 24-28 in that chapter specify further what 45:7 is referencing to. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

4. The story of Job shows that God is a sadist. He told Satan to torment Job as part of a bet the two of them had.

Were you just telling me that or were you expecting a response?

jcgadfly wrote:

5. God is called King the way so many others are called king - self-appointment (or in this case appointment by his writers).

He created it, therefore he rules it.  Sure, self appointed if you like. 

 

I willingly answered your questions, though this is off topic completely and would fit perfectly in the other forum that has been started. 

please continue there if you're interested. 

1. So if you don't love God:

- because he gives you good things (my folks gave me life, among other things)

- because you don't fear his punishment (because you're forgiven and whatever you do after that no longer matters?) (I know why my folks punished me - can you say that about God?)

why do you?

You've basically said there is nothing to the relationship between you and the deity worth having but you keep it anyway.

2. Sheol was simply the realm of the dead - with God or without, there is no punishment there. The punishment came with Hell - easier to control people with a threat of eternal torment if you step out of line. The fact that many translations translate the word differently only shows the bias of the translators.

3. Is 45:7 says evil in KJV. The other versions (NIV in particular) used a politically (ther are political maneuverings in religion) motivated translation. Not that creating calamity makes God look any better...

4. It was sinply relating my view of Job after having read it a number of times. You are welcome to tell me where you think I'm wrong (though I think you'd be standing against the words of the book).

5. More likely the writers wanted to sell the idea of an all-powerful deity and a King was the most powerful being at the time.

You bounce from thread to thread so often that I have a hard time keeping up - it usually depends on how hard you get slapped in the discussions. I just catch you when I see you.

To quote the cop sitting in the boss's office talking to Scarface, "I tried to tell him not to do it when we had you working for us".

I tried to tell Cap that "translations" don't amount to anything. The fact is that the writers, as you said, were writing it, for their times and kings were the most powerful people in all ancient times and those kings, from polytheism to monotheism had literature about claimed gods that reflected the absolute power of the kings, which the kings attributed to being given to them by divine power.

Antiquity fully shows polytheistic rulers to later monotheistic rulers attributing their good fortune and power to the divine, so it is no wonder god(s) were authoritarian because kings were.

 

 

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So that of course brings up the question if he's not a "big carebear in the sky" what use is he?

He's only useful if he's a carebear?  What use is a leader amidst a crowd?

Yahweh shows he's a dictator not a leader. And a rather nasty one at times as well. I like my leaders to be inspiring to all the people not just a select few. If we are supposed to be able to live out our lives exercising free choices then that's what should have happened in the OT. Leading his people into the supposed  promised land and displacing or murdering others can't be justified no matter how much lipstick you put on it. It's still violent and cruel. Though I think these stories are just fables and have no real basis as I said, archeology does not support the invasion by Josh.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Look at this from the OT's perspective prior to Jesus. All Yahweh seems to do is kill people or order their death in order to insure "his people" worship him in the manner he wants. The OT Jews didn't all subscribe to the belief of an afterlife so other than not being killed for sinning against him what exactly was their reward?

I'm not sure what they would have said was their reward.  The OT did teach of an afterlife.

Really you only see this in books such as Enoch not the OT, it was more or less Sheol not the Hell as described in the NT. 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 So, are you saying Satan was more like the prosecutor in Job and not the "evil one"? Satan as evil seems to be a NT development from what I have studied.

The definition of evil is anything against God's will.  Satan used to be a high ranking angel.  He went against God and got kicked out of heaven.  Satan continues to challenge God because from my understanding, he thinks God's way is wrong and our bonds with Him are weak.

In Job, it's clear that Satan was again challenging God saying I'll bet that even your strongest follower will deny you if you take away everything they have.  God said, your on and so it goes. 

The point was that our relationship with God goes beyond comfort and prosperity.

 Actually it's God who brings up Job in 1:8 not Satan. So God decided to have his prosecutor stress out his most hard core follower. Satan told God put your hand against him and he will curse you. It was God who ordered Satan to take action. None of this was Satan's idea at all. In 2:3 God says Satan moveth him against Job which might give that impression. 

I realize the point being made in Job, yet again it's cruel and violent. His family and servants all die because God ordered Satan to test Job.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If God did manuever you into actions it would negate the whole point. As pointed out by others, he was an authoritarian giving orders to follow with implied penalties for not obeying. I don't see where you would disagree with God being an authoritarian as he's really clear about it. Moses paid for his disregarding the will of the god by not being allowed to go to the mythical land of Canaan. All the people of Sodom & Gomorrah were toasted by sulfur because they sinned against him. Though I don't recall them being told they were doing sin against Yahweh. Perhaps they should have known or that chapter got lost to history.

God isn't called king because he was elected or because he's not an authority.

Yahweh would get few votes in an actual election based on his record. He's a dictator in the OT and that's very clear.

caposkia wrote:

As far as Sodom and Gomorrah, it's implied that they were aware be it that Sodom was once a sinless place.  It's also understood that there could have been riteous people there and therefore the truth would be among them in the city.

If you go by the OT, no city was a sinless place as all men sin. There is only the level of sin in question. Again, there is nothing to suggest Sodom & Gomorrah were toasted by the angel of Yahweh. The only proof is a Sumerian tablet with trade info dating to the 3rd millennium and even that's not certain. There's also the report from a tablet claiming an asteroid destroyed it around 3123 BCE. This is far before the time of Abe.

caposkia wrote:

We have to remember the Bible is only a summary.  Many books talk about how no library being able to hold all the information if it was all written down.  It'd be like you writing an autobiography detailing everything in your life.  Could you possibly put that in one book?  How about the biographies of 100 people? 

The exact reference is John 21:25 when it speaks of all the things Jesus did that there weren't enough books in the world to hold it. That however was before the computer age, you can store 1 to 2 Tbytes easily now. In Kings it speaks of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel and the prophet Nathan and the book of Gad the Seer. I don't know of any others speaking of no library being able to hold the info.

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

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The other thing that people

The other thing that people miss in the stories is the repeating themes. If god's plan is perfect, THEN WHY several times throughout the bible there seem to be attempts at do-overs.

God creates this eden, then they get thrown out, WHY? Then god seems to want to start over by killing all but one family, then he seems to want to start over again by killing himself to himself, then he has all of us beat the shit out of each other in a froth of genocide in a final battle so that we can kiss his ass for eternety.

God acts like the child playing a video game who gets frustrated when he cant get to the next level and constantly hits the reset button.

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. So if you

jcgadfly wrote:

1. So if you don't love God:

- because he gives you good things (my folks gave me life, among other things)

- because you don't fear his punishment (because you're forgiven and whatever you do after that no longer matters?) (I know why my folks punished me - can you say that about God?)

why do you?

I love my God because I understand that he gave me life as you see with your folks as well as other things like the drives and abilities in life that I have. (if he truly is my creator, then he must have given me the talents I have)

I also love Him because of how much I know he loves me.  He sent His son down to take my place on that cross.  He loves me so much that he took what I deserved for my sins on himself.  He has proven that he wants a relationship so bad with me that he put his son through the worst of it for me. 

It's not that whatever I do no longer matters now.  It's that I'm forgiven if I truly want to be.  If I continue to do wrong (whatever it is) I can't exactly be forgiven of it because I still do it. 

jcgadfly wrote:

You've basically said there is nothing to the relationship between you and the deity worth having but you keep it anyway.

if that's so, then you'd have to say the same about your parents.  We call God our father because we don't only see Him as a King, but as our creator or parent if you will. 

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Is 45:7 says evil in KJV. The other versions (NIV in particular) used a politically (ther are political maneuverings in religion) motivated translation. Not that creating calamity makes God look any better...

the KJV I would not say is the greatest English translation to nit pick from. 

I'm not trying to make God "look good", I'm just clarifying what I feel was a misunderstanding.  If you think that makes God look bad, I can't change your mind on that.

jcgadfly wrote:

4. It was sinply relating my view of Job after having read it a number of times. You are welcome to tell me where you think I'm wrong (though I think you'd be standing against the words of the book).

breifly, the point of the book of Job was to show that the relationship God's followers have with Him is more than the comfort and "goodness" in life that he has provided.   Job shows that through the worst of it, knowing that cursing God and turning away could have ended his suffering, he still held on because he valued the relationship he had with God that much. 

You seem to be stuck on the idea that God "gambled" with his people as you say.  Though I'd like to point out that Job lost nothing and gained everything from his ordeal, beyond that the story has a history.

It's actually a great mystery.  The story is so old that it's actually unknown in the Chirstian community whether the story actually happened or not.  (this of course assuming the other stories of the Bible are true)

All that is known about the book of Job is that it was a story that was verbally handed down for many many years.  Long before it was ever actually written down. No one knows the source or where it actually started.  It is known as the Oldest book in the OT.  Maybe not in the writing source, but as far as the story itself goes. 

Whether the story is true or not, there are examples of that kind of faith and love toward God throughout the world even today.  Read "Voice of Martyers" magazine sometime. 

Basically, it proves a point that many have tried to accuse me of on here.  There's more to the relationship between God and I than warm fuzzies in my tummy or fear of being punished for not following him.

jcgadfly wrote:

5. More likely the writers wanted to sell the idea of an all-powerful deity and a King was the most powerful being at the time.

Or it was the best comparison be it that people of the time wouldn't have understood any other form of power that ruled over everything. 

There are many things put in the Bible that anyone trying to convince people of a fake authority would not have put in if they were wise.  For example, how about the empowerment of women.  The people of the time definitely didn't see women as a trustworthy source let alone anyone who should have any higher responsibility than to care for a child and yet the Bible consistently puts women in very powerful positions.  Esp. the NT. (e.g. the woman at the well, Mary M.)

jcgadfly wrote:

You bounce from thread to thread so often that I have a hard time keeping up - it usually depends on how hard you get slapped in the discussions. I just catch you when I see you.

I'm only in 2 threads and I hit both of them equally.  When I finish this one I go to the other one


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Yahweh shows he's a dictator not a leader. And a rather nasty one at times as well. I like my leaders to be inspiring to all the people not just a select few. If we are supposed to be able to live out our lives exercising free choices then that's what should have happened in the OT. Leading his people into the supposed  promised land and displacing or murdering others can't be justified no matter how much lipstick you put on it. It's still violent and cruel. Though I think these stories are just fables and have no real basis as I said, archeology does not support the invasion by Josh.

anything "not nice" can be viewed as violent and cruel.  People always expect God to be a fuzzy fuzzy happy guy in the sky.  I guess we're not the loving country we're suppose to be either then.

People see God as a dictator because his laws are matter of fact and people don't like that. 

I guess that means we're in a dictatorship as well.  e.g.  run a red light, you get a ticket.  Kill someone, you go to jail, possibly get the chair.  Yes you get a trial, but if you read the NT, God works the same way.  The difference with God is if you honestly seek forgiveness, you get it, where as here in the U.S., no matter how sorry you were about killing that person, you're still getting the chair. 

Name me one other dictator that forgives you if you sincerely seek it. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 Actually it's God who brings up Job in 1:8 not Satan. So God decided to have his prosecutor stress out his most hard core follower. Satan told God put your hand against him and he will curse you. It was God who ordered Satan to take action. None of this was Satan's idea at all. In 2:3 God says Satan moveth him against Job which might give that impression. 

I realize the point being made in Job, yet again it's cruel and violent. His family and servants all die because God ordered Satan to test Job.

Where does it say, "God ordered Satan"?  God only made a suggestion to prove a point.  It's showing our relationship.  It's also going beyond the point to show that we might not understand why things happen, but that we trust God enough to know that whatever it is, it's ultimately for a good.  In this case, to show others the strength of our relationship with him. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Yahweh would get few votes in an actual election based on his record. He's a dictator in the OT and that's very clear.

How many times have you thought that about your parents growing up?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The exact reference is John 21:25 when it speaks of all the things Jesus did that there weren't enough books in the world to hold it. That however was before the computer age, you can store 1 to 2 Tbytes easily now. In Kings it speaks of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel and the prophet Nathan and the book of Gad the Seer. I don't know of any others speaking of no library being able to hold the info.

technicalities

The simple plain point was that there was a lot more to say about the topic than what was written. 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Brian37. Your last 2

Yeah Brian37. Your last 2 posts say enough. This god of abe stuff is so ignorant I often feel foolish even discussing that idiotic g-o-d idea, but I always come back to realize that fantasy menace must be defeated.

Geez Cap, I don't know what to further say to you. You sadden me.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Geez

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Geez Cap, I don't know what to further say to you. You sadden me.

why? Is it because the intentions are simpler to understand than you thought?

Everyone on here wants to make everything so complicated when it's really not that hard.

You feel foolish and yet you're still here so many pages later.  What exactly do you expect to get out of this?  I'm sure you're not here because you want to feel foolish.

I kind of understand how you feel though.  I mean I posted a forum with a specific focus and how many pages did it take for somone to actually start talking about it?  Talk about foolish.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I AM GOD AS

caposkia wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Geez Cap, I don't know what to further say to you. You sadden me.

why? Is it because the intentions are simpler to understand than you thought?

Everyone on here wants to make everything so complicated when it's really not that hard.

You feel foolish and yet you're still here so many pages later.  What exactly do you expect to get out of this?  I'm sure you're not here because you want to feel foolish.

I kind of understand how you feel though.  I mean I posted a forum with a specific focus and how many pages did it take for somone to actually start talking about it?  Talk about foolish.

And then you never really discussed it with pjts...

There was what - one post per person on the topic? Then you assisted in the threadjacking.

Let's face it there are as many "true Christians" as there are Christians (and probably just as many "true atheists&quotEye-wink.

When did "true" start meaning "correct" in addition to its other meanings?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I AM GOD AS

caposkia wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Geez Cap, I don't know what to further say to you. You sadden me.

why? Is it because the intentions are simpler to understand than you thought?

Everyone on here wants to make everything so complicated when it's really not that hard.

You feel foolish and yet you're still here so many pages later.  What exactly do you expect to get out of this?  I'm sure you're not here because you want to feel foolish.

I kind of understand how you feel though.  I mean I posted a forum with a specific focus and how many pages did it take for somone to actually start talking about it?  Talk about foolish.

Quote:
Everyone on here wants to make everything so complicated when it's really not that hard.

Just the oposite, most here are not distracted by convoluted antiquated myth based on goal post moving arguments whose supporters of such want to justify the blatherings of goat hearders.

The lenghts you have to go to trick your brain into buying into any claim of supernatural is astountingly and needlessly complex. Our argument is quite simple. It makes much more sense that humans like the idea of a super hero so they make up claims and trick themselves into believing them to be fact.

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I AM GOD AS

caposkia wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Geez Cap, I don't know what to further say to you. You sadden me.

why? Is it because the intentions are simpler to understand than you thought?

Everyone on here wants to make everything so complicated when it's really not that hard.

You feel foolish and yet you're still here so many pages later.  What exactly do you expect to get out of this?  I'm sure you're not here because you want to feel foolish.

Why do you ask that, cap? I AM GOD AS YOU already gave you the basic reasons in his post.

Quote:

I kind of understand how you feel though.  I mean I posted a forum with a specific focus and how many pages did it take for somone to actually start talking about it?  Talk about foolish.

Quote:
Everyone on here wants to make everything so complicated when it's really not that hard.

We simply want you to make a start on laying out the experiences that contributed to your belief in God. It is you who make it complicated by continuing to find reasons to avoid just going ahead on that basis, asking us to tell you just what we want or expect as evidence.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:caposkia

BobSpence1 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Geez Cap, I don't know what to further say to you. You sadden me.

why? Is it because the intentions are simpler to understand than you thought?

Everyone on here wants to make everything so complicated when it's really not that hard.

You feel foolish and yet you're still here so many pages later.  What exactly do you expect to get out of this?  I'm sure you're not here because you want to feel foolish.

Why do you ask that, cap? I AM GOD AS YOU already gave you the basic reasons in his post.

Quote:

I kind of understand how you feel though.  I mean I posted a forum with a specific focus and how many pages did it take for somone to actually start talking about it?  Talk about foolish.

Quote:
Everyone on here wants to make everything so complicated when it's really not that hard.

We simply want you to make a start on laying out the experiences that contributed to your belief in God. It is you who make it complicated by continuing to find reasons to avoid just going ahead on that basis, asking us to tell you just what we want or expect as evidence.

Bob, I love you, you know me better than any other human. BUT, "We simply want you to make a start on laying out the experiences that contributed to your belief in God."

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO "experiance" in their mind is anicdotal not demonstrable. Don't give them fuel to move the goal posts. Why do you think my pony is unshakeable?

They can lay out anything they want, and they do. But what they cant do is demonstrate it or falsify it, so that is what I demand beyond "experiance".

I've had a good fart, but I certainly wouldn't claim that it was magicaly evil because my friend smelled it(experiance) and almost gagged.

Now where is that Lamborginni I pulled out of my ass?

Cap, take heart here, we are not "distracting" you. We simply are not fooled by theism. We simply have played this chess game countless times. And even as you can see by my objections to my friend Bob, I see better tactics to "skin the cat" for lack of better metaphor.

 

Bob is the good cop and I am the bad cop, he is willing to take the more scenic route and I cut to the chase. But, dispite our disagreements he and I are well versed in your thinking and you will have a hard time with both of us, not to mention others here.

Quit complaining about what tactics we use and provide demonstrable evidence other than "words have different meanings". DUH! But how does that translate into evidence? You can fight with Bob or me. You can try the scenic route with him or take me on, but in the end the generic claim of "supernatural" is an unfalsifiable claim and as worthy of consideration as smurfs or vampires.

He's the only friend you've got, me......as most here know...am out for blood(not litterally of course, just in debate).

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 caposkia

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Yahweh shows he's a dictator not a leader. And a rather nasty one at times as well. I like my leaders to be inspiring to all the people not just a select few. If we are supposed to be able to live out our lives exercising free choices then that's what should have happened in the OT. Leading his people into the supposed  promised land and displacing or murdering others can't be justified no matter how much lipstick you put on it. It's still violent and cruel. Though I think these stories are just fables and have no real basis as I said, archeology does not support the invasion by Josh.

anything "not nice" can be viewed as violent and cruel.  People always expect God to be a fuzzy fuzzy happy guy in the sky.  I guess we're not the loving country we're suppose to be either then.

People see God as a dictator because his laws are matter of fact and people don't like that. 

I guess that means we're in a dictatorship as well.  e.g.  run a red light, you get a ticket.  Kill someone, you go to jail, possibly get the chair.  Yes you get a trial, but if you read the NT, God works the same way.  The difference with God is if you honestly seek forgiveness, you get it, where as here in the U.S., no matter how sorry you were about killing that person, you're still getting the chair. 

Name me one other dictator that forgives you if you sincerely seek it.

You must have the version of the OT that is G rated to say "anything not nice can be viewed as violent and cruel". 

If the stories about god were true he would be emotionless, which may explain a lot of Yahweh's violence. Though he claims to be a jealous god which is an emotion.

People see anyone that rules without consent to be a dictator and yahweh never had elections.

I don't get where you think our country should be loving, it's a system of fairness and justice for the group. We also (some of us anyway) voted for those in control.

Perhaps you need a class in comparative government systems. 

PS: Why do you jump to the NT when we were talking about the OT??? The best way to understand these problems is to do so by pretending the NT doesn't exist while you analyze the OT, otherwise you'll just run off to the Jesus saves exit and ignore the problems.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 Actually it's God who brings up Job in 1:8 not Satan. So God decided to have his prosecutor stress out his most hard core follower. Satan told God put your hand against him and he will curse you. It was God who ordered Satan to take action. None of this was Satan's idea at all. In 2:3 God says Satan moveth him against Job which might give that impression. 

I realize the point being made in Job, yet again it's cruel and violent. His family and servants all die because God ordered Satan to test Job.

Where does it say, "God ordered Satan"?  God only made a suggestion to prove a point.  It's showing our relationship.  It's also going beyond the point to show that we might not understand why things happen, but that we trust God enough to know that whatever it is, it's ultimately for a good.  In this case, to show others the strength of our relationship with him. 

As previously discussed those who would know Yahweh's power would obey as did Satan in Job you said so regarding Abe et al. so just because we are discussing Satan who you claim to be evil though no proof is found in the OT to support more than doing Yahweh's programs suddenly you want actual orders in triplicate. Hint- the snake is not Satan as this is figurative language at least according to many Jews and Catholics perhaps you think it is real.

And to answer specifically in Job 1:12 "Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth your hand." If the all powerful temperamental Yahweh told you something like this would you not take it to be an order?

We may not understand why things happen but that doesn't mean we need to trust an unproved god concept to do what is right in the end. Your god may actually be growing a human population for eventual consumption by his home planet for dinner. I don't see the relationship in the OT to support your loving god claim.

When did Yahweh send out missions to India, Africa, North & South America and all the sin infested tribes in Arabia, Europe, Asia, & Palestine. Please provide such proof and then we can discuss how he's fair and not a violent dictator.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Yahweh would get few votes in an actual election based on his record. He's a dictator in the OT and that's very clear.

How many times have you thought that about your parents growing up?

Actually I never did think that.

 

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

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Yahweh shows he's a dictator not a leader. And a rather nasty one at times as well. I like my leaders to be inspiring to all the people not just a select few. If we are supposed to be able to live out our lives exercising free choices then that's what should have happened in the OT. Leading his people into the supposed  promised land and displacing or murdering others can't be justified no matter how much lipstick you put on it. It's still violent and cruel. Though I think these stories are just fables and have no real basis as I said, archeology does not support the invasion by Josh.

anything "not nice" can be viewed as violent and cruel.  People always expect God to be a fuzzy fuzzy happy guy in the sky.  I guess we're not the loving country we're suppose to be either then.

People see God as a dictator because his laws are matter of fact and people don't like that. 

I guess that means we're in a dictatorship as well.  e.g.  run a red light, you get a ticket.  Kill someone, you go to jail, possibly get the chair.  Yes you get a trial, but if you read the NT, God works the same way.  The difference with God is if you honestly seek forgiveness, you get it, where as here in the U.S., no matter how sorry you were about killing that person, you're still getting the chair. 

Name me one other dictator that forgives you if you sincerely seek it.

You must have the version of the OT that is G rated to say "anything not nice can be viewed as violent and cruel". 

If the stories about god were true he would be emotionless, which may explain a lot of Yahweh's violence. Though he claims to be a jealous god which is an emotion.

People see anyone that rules without consent to be a dictator and yahweh never had elections.

I don't get where you think our country should be loving, it's a system of fairness and justice for the group. We also (some of us anyway) voted for those in control.

Perhaps you need a class in comparative government systems. 

PS: Why do you jump to the NT when we were talking about the OT??? The best way to understand these problems is to do so by pretending the NT doesn't exist while you analyze the OT, otherwise you'll just run off to the Jesus saves exit and ignore the problems.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 Actually it's God who brings up Job in 1:8 not Satan. So God decided to have his prosecutor stress out his most hard core follower. Satan told God put your hand against him and he will curse you. It was God who ordered Satan to take action. None of this was Satan's idea at all. In 2:3 God says Satan moveth him against Job which might give that impression. 

I realize the point being made in Job, yet again it's cruel and violent. His family and servants all die because God ordered Satan to test Job.

Where does it say, "God ordered Satan"?  God only made a suggestion to prove a point.  It's showing our relationship.  It's also going beyond the point to show that we might not understand why things happen, but that we trust God enough to know that whatever it is, it's ultimately for a good.  In this case, to show others the strength of our relationship with him. 

As previously discussed those who would know Yahweh's power would obey as did Satan in Job you said so regarding Abe et al. so just because we are discussing Satan who you claim to be evil though no proof is found in the OT to support more than doing Yahweh's programs suddenly you want actual orders in triplicate. Hint- the snake is not Satan as this is figurative language at least according to many Jews and Catholics perhaps you think it is real.

And to answer specifically in Job 1:12 "Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth your hand." If the all powerful temperamental Yahweh told you something like this would you not take it to be an order?

We may not understand why things happen but that doesn't mean we need to trust an unproved god concept to do what is right in the end. Your god may actually be growing a human population for eventual consumption by his home planet for dinner. I don't see the relationship in the OT to support your loving god claim.

When did Yahweh send out missions to India, Africa, North & South America and all the sin infested tribes in Arabia, Europe, Asia, & Palestine. Please provide such proof and then we can discuss how he's fair and not a violent dictator.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Yahweh would get few votes in an actual election based on his record. He's a dictator in the OT and that's very clear.

How many times have you thought that about your parents growing up?

Actually I never did think that.

 

Well I did think of my parents and I wanted to challenge them, but because of my age and superstitions and lack of knoweldge I was most certainly plyable to their demands, not because I was willing in every case, but because I feared physical punishment or denial of food or affection.

A parent unwilling to learn is a dictator, and god is an empty threat to reality because reality is what we all face.

Being the alpha male doesn't make you  die less or more than a subordinate. Learing and the willingness to conceed when proven wrong  can help all to extend the ride.

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I AM GOD AS

caposkia wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Geez Cap, I don't know what to further say to you. You sadden me.

why? Is it because the intentions are simpler to understand than you thought?

Everyone on here wants to make everything so complicated when it's really not that hard.

You feel foolish and yet you're still here so many pages later.  What exactly do you expect to get out of this?  I'm sure you're not here because you want to feel foolish.

I kind of understand how you feel though.  I mean I posted a forum with a specific focus and how many pages did it take for somone to actually start talking about it?  Talk about foolish.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cap. Simple is certainly an atheist message. For what reason(s) do you think mature thinking atheists reject god of abe type ideas?

I feel foolish because this abe god faith is even embarrassing. I am still here because I care.

About simple ... That's why at this time in history, rather than say "no god", I say "all existence is god, therefore separatist type of thinking like "god of abe" is 100% myth and wrong. As I've said before, "all is god or nothing is god, there's no middle on this."    

Your Becky Garrison is just another cleaver brainwashed dreamer. "A Full Out War" is necessary against "Religious Faith" , and was even the " gnosis (knowing) " jesus character message against the masses and majority of NT jesus story writers.

Cap,  Do not think I have come to bring peace (( appeasement with the faithful, the surrenderies to idol master worshiping )) , but instead to bring a sword, to divide the simple "knowing" from the "faithful"

   Amazon review regarding Becky Garrison's book, " The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail"

1out of 5 stars Lacks Understanding of Proactive Atheism, May 7, 2008

   By Christopher Ockman - "I always give writers/critics like this a chance, but I still end up feeling that we're being demonized. There has never been a war fought over the non-existence of God or in the name of a non-God. Of course people put their philosophies up against others'. It's how philosophy grows stronger/how bad or fal

Books like this are just signs of religion growing weak. While we're still a minority, we're growing like the ice caps are melting ( bad analogy, I know ). People are getting smarter/less gullible, and are demanding reason and logic. Go ahead and boohoo about how us mean old atheists are trying to take away your blankies."

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote: why?

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

 

 

 

Cap. Simple is certainly an atheist message. For what reason(s) do you think mature thinking atheists reject god of abe type ideas?

I feel foolish because this abe god faith is even embarrassing. I am still here because I care.

About simple ... That's why at this time in history, rather than say "no god", I say "all existence is god, therefore separatist type of thinking like "god of abe" is 100% myth and wrong. As I've said before, "all is god or nothing is god, there's no middle on this."    

Your Becky Garrison is just another cleaver brainwashed dreamer. "A Full Out War" is necessary against "Religious Faith" , and was even the " gnosis (knowing) " jesus character message against the masses and majority of NT jesus story writers.

Cap,  Do not think I have come to bring peace (( appeasement with the faithful, the surrenderies to idol master worshiping )) , but instead to bring a sword, to divide the simple "knowing" from the "faithful"

   Amazon review regarding Becky Garrison's book, " The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail"

1out of 5 stars Lacks Understanding of Proactive Atheism, May 7, 2008

   By Christopher Ockman - "I always give writers/critics like this a chance, but I still end up feeling that we're being demonized. There has never been a war fought over the non-existence of God or in the name of a non-God. Of course people put their philosophies up against others'. It's how philosophy grows stronger/how bad or fal

Books like this are just signs of religion growing weak. While we're still a minority, we're growing like the ice caps are melting ( bad analogy, I know ). People are getting smarter/less gullible, and are demanding reason and logic. Go ahead and boohoo about how us mean old atheists are trying to take away your blankies."

 

             Spot on IAGAY, well said.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Prozac ... OPPS,

Thanks Prozac ... OPPS, correction of quote,

"Of course people put their philosophies up against others'. It's how philosophy grows stronger / how bad or false philosophy gets phased out. Keep in mind that we do it with words, not with violent holy wars.

Books like this are just signs of religion growing weak. While we're still a minority, we're growing like the ice caps are melting (bad analogy, I know ...... "

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:And then you

jcgadfly wrote:

And then you never really discussed it with pjts...

There was what - one post per person on the topic? Then you assisted in the threadjacking.

Let's face it there are as many "true Christians" as there are Christians (and probably just as many "true atheists&quotEye-wink.

When did "true" start meaning "correct" in addition to its other meanings?

You're right, I follow through with answering off topic questions which would assist in the threadjacknig.  I'll stop

True started coming in when a sect of Christians years and years ago decided to "do it their way" instead of following what is written. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Just the

Brian37 wrote:

Just the oposite, most here are not distracted by convoluted antiquated myth based on goal post moving arguments whose supporters of such want to justify the blatherings of goat hearders.

The lenghts you have to go to trick your brain into buying into any claim of supernatural is astountingly and needlessly complex. Our argument is quite simple. It makes much more sense that humans like the idea of a super hero so they make up claims and trick themselves into believing them to be fact.

 

funny, in some ways, the book makes similar claims about your views