If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Include in your list .. I do hope

Thanks for a moment. If you have the time to look at my last couple of posts. Dana, Included this time, I hope ? Smiling

Most modern scholars have a large beef and complaint with the Pauline epistles found in the New Testament,. The Canonical Gospels are often less of a problem; however they would like to gut the narrative completely and "de-mythologize" the Biblical Gospels. This is not private but in interviews they each have said as much.  Which both leads me to believe and it is pretty safe to assume they would privately want to scrub or throw-out most of the lesser Pauline works entirely, given the chance. This might present a problem :~  In so doing somewhat missing the value of these friendships and the encouragement to fledgling churches Paul gave. And forever missing the development of thought found in the New Testament. That said, most modern scholars have even more issues with the Pentateuch which means “five books" especially the first few chapters in the OT, in the Garden.  Beyond the mere concepts of human nature; Modernity could at least know the reference (not too much to ask). This would go miswanting, to indulge the their insane butcherings, in a word not the best idea, IMO. I can understand the whole wanting to toss out myth but then what would I do with my time ,hehe (Joke/Joking). No, We walk not according to the flesh, thank you Paul. Paul's working out things w/ Weaker Brethren wouldn't find a home with Scholarship, so how could I find a home with them ?  Likewise, it would leave us in the  dark. More speculating would occur to what end ? Therefore, I am not in favor of insane Scholarship's not so secret desires with pulling out a giant meat-ax and start where we have no clue as to what the original intent was (we live in modern times). Textual issues are solved in having other things to compare against.  Scholars like most are lazy, if you keep at it you can solve all sorts of issues, but you have to be willing to make an effort to go in the direction the evidence is leading.

:

:
 

{March 5th  danatemporary wrote}:

danatemporary wrote:
Who is my brother and who is my sister ? At least digitally, I am convinced that transcends Ideology, tenet, philosophy, and creed (,I have a dream).

 

 

  Important:

  (?) The Divine jurisprudence (begin with the Angels) . .

      An all important area to mention is unlocking the angels' original sin (if you will). While not failing to mention the particular religious culture of the time. A modern audience cannot estimate or appreciate how much each of these documents need to be looked at in the setting in which these documents were (originally) written. Now that is of some importance. To better find a way of understanding. I asked about Satan (and comments about the NDE), these expanded roles found later on in the writings that later became the Canon. (Btw, I'd hoped for some feedback on but I appreciate you are busy)  Importantly! Isnt there an aspect of human damnation being hopelessly intertwined with the fate of the angels ?  It shouldn't be glossed over, though I may be overstating it, only slightly, two things: One they each are headed South. And Second, the place was set up in the first place as a solution for the rebel angelic hordes, many instances were cited, according to the Bible. It seems to indicate man's fall brought about the damning to the souls ( how dreadful ). Matthew 25:41 - “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  Book of Hebrews 12:17 -  [Speaking of Esau] For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears,. And a passage I quoted in this Thread,. Conversely the very angels are interested in the matters of redemption. Who if any of the groupings of angels would need redemption? Obviously, the Unclean and Fallen angels are the only answer that makes any sense, according to the text. I do not think Rome's interpretation of a few key passages is right on both a previous verse I cited earlier and also the reference of so 'great a cloud of witnesses". The only game in town, at one time, wouldnt mean they (RCC) were always correct about things. Those fallen angels were looking into these matters, even though it's not explict nor unequivocal. This is what the New Testament writers were communicating about the angels. The case is strong, very strong, all-the-same for such this view. This is consistent with their plight, and the fate that the Fallen Angels made for themselves by being in rebellion against the Almighty, again, according to the holy bible ( and NO need for any concordance to find it :~),. I'd appreciate if you'd help in our understanding (many words in a reply this time). On how this ties into mankind according to the tradition ?  Smiling

In the image the she is a high-class hooker, that is the "she'' (perpetually snake bitten in a few ways).



  The summary doesnt do the actual text any justice. It is comic how the Hindu Hooker's soul is fought over which the better part of the details were omitted. Her soul has the attendants  of Lord Yama and the heavenly angels, if you will, both claiming her.  They have to have Hari and Yama to step in themselves to settle the matter. Before that the attendants get into an argument. It's sort of a loud funny exchange of: No!! She's coming with us!!  :~

Caposkia wrote:
..Satan is more powerful than us


After the Intertestamental period, nothing remains the same about the Devil (well the evil maybe). Especially in the shaping and crafting of the (particularly) expanded role(s) of Satan. I dont always know what to make of Satan (in the Bible), with Ha-Satan taking on the role of prosecuting Attorney of the God's child. By no means am I ever suggesting Satan would be the Judge. That said, Imagine allowing the appointment to the post being granted to apparently the worst arch criminal (in history)!! Legacy issues are unacknowledged.

p.s. -- Smiling


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:You can

Beyond Saving wrote:

You can put whatever perfume on it you want, a sacrifice is murder. Would you vote for a presidential candidate who cut their son's throat as a sacrifice? 

alright, we're going in circles here and also are not focusing.

I could come back again with would you vote for a presidential candidate who would put in place a law that states there are no consequences for wrongdoing?

Point and case here.  Sacrifice has been made, so it wouldn't make sense in the first place just as much as it would make sense to have no consequences for actions.  Also, God never asked for human sacrifice from others, unless you're suggesting that slaughtering animals is murder... which then anyone eating a beef burger would be an accessory to it.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

More than once every couple thousand years. Maybe since god is immortal he doesn't appreciate how long 2000 years is to us. If god really cares about saving us all from hell, why did he stop after Jesus? 

...because Jesus is all that is needed

Beyond Saving wrote:

Since I am not getting the message it is obviously not the best way to communicate with me. 

just because you're not getting the message doesn't mean it's not the best way to communicate with you.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

He did with Jesus.  He's not being secretive, but He does want you to make an effort too.  

I am limited in the effort that I can make, he is omnipotent. 

...and as an omnipotent being, doesn't He get the right to decide how much effort He expects of us? Just because a parent is capable of doing literally everything for their child doesn't suggest that it's good parenting to do so.  Quite the contrary actually.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I read the bible. I found it disgusting. I don't know how any sane human can read the bible in full and decide to worship the being described in it. I also didn't find anything to help me decode any of god's secret messages. Maybe I am simply not smart enough. 

...or maybe you're looking too hard.  Why comb through a rug when you're looking for a car?  

People can read the Bible and worship the being described in it because not only do they learn about God, but they build a trusting relationship with Him and through that relationship they build an understanding that though we don't understand all of the choices God made, we can be assured that they were the right choices because despite all the terrible things written, the outcomes have always been for the better for those who follow God.  He has promised to never let us fall and He keeps His promises.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I would say that any eternal punishment is immoral. Wouldn't you agree? Isn't forgiveness supposed to be a central tenant of Christianity? It doesn't seem forgiving to punish someone eternally no matter what terrible things they did during their short lives.

Forgiveness is central to Christianity...  And Christians do forgive those and those who are true to their following even love their enemies, but unless someone seeks forgiveness, they cannot receive it.  If you're not looking for forgiveness, you're likely not going to get it, even from those who have already forgiven you.  

To make it short, you are already forgiven... if you accept it.  To accept it means that you have turned from what you've done and honestly want it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

We have to determine if this omnipotent being really has our best interests as his goal. It is foolish to automatically assume he does simply because he said so.

except that He's proven it time and time again... but anyway

Beyond Saving wrote:

When we can look at the world and see that his "solution" to human violence by drowning the entire world was clearly a failure because humans are still very violent, why wouldn't we second guess him? Either he isn't omnipotent because by definition an omnipotent being could never fail at anything, or his goal was not to rid the world of violence.

you think it was just violence?  If that was the case, they likely could have destroyed themselves.  

Again, it wasn't a solution, He wanted to rid humanity from the world.  Even if His goal was to rid humanity because he regretted making them, He never failed because He intentionally created humans with the ability to choose... at that He succeeded.  From there it was and Is in our hands.  

You keep coming back with... "if he's omnipotent then..."  but if He's omnipotent then He can do what He wants... In other words, even if He was capable of doing something differently, an omnipotent being can still do it the way He wants.  All these iffs about his Omnipotence only reveals that God can make choices.  If He's omnipotent, then what makes you think you know better than He in the situation you never observed yourself?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Exactly. So when god makes a similar error, how can you believe he is omnipotent and good? We can forgive the human error that leads to the tragedy of a dead civilian, because we know that humans are not perfect. What should we make of a being that kills civilians while claiming to be omnipotent? Either he is not omnipotent and committed an error similar to the human who bombs a civilian target, or he is not good and intentionally killed innocents. 

came from both sides in the example... the problem here is we can't compare human error to choices God makes... it's a completely different playing field.  

He killed innocents, but then again, He claimed in Exodus that all are His, which means those he Killed he really just claimed... if God's real then we must agree that being killed doesn't exactly,.. kill you.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then how do you explain the technology? It is clear that according to the bible Noah built his ark during the bronze age or later. Otherwise, he would not have had the tools necessary to build the ark. Are you claiming that the flood happened before the stone age and the innovation of metal tools was lost? 

consider that pretty much everyone and everything except for Noah and His ark was destroyed... Is it so hard to believe that somethings like tools and innovation may have been lost in the process too?

Just to avoid a sarcastic tangent that leads us into yet another page without progress, lemme play devils advocate for myself here. 

Noah could have taught the information to His children very easily and they could have continued it on.  Sure, but did they have the means to do so or did they kind of have to start from scratch?  

Or... that's a cop out, sure anything could have happened then.  Sure, but do you see why it's hard to believe it happened so recently?  I think you do, because you brought up the issues with it happening in that time period.  

So it didn't happen and I'm just delusional... wishful thinking... living in a dream world... pick your choice... ok.  There is geological evidence of a flood in history... it happened much much earlier than the dates in question and the magnitude of the flood is pretty dramatic.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKPw_VvIyu4 describes why archaeology might not have discovered this. 

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

He decided to give us choice fully knowing what we would do with it. If you are raising a dog you know is violent are you not responsible when you let the dog off leash and it bites someone? 

Humans weren't violent... not until they ate the fruit, which they were capable of doing, but knew they shouldn't.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Whether the adults killed babies or not is irrelevant. The fact that the adults might have killed the children does not justify god actually killing the children. 

interesting angle... so your condemnation is subjective.  I see.

God killing children is simply bringing them to His presence... People killing children is prematurely ending lives that were intended to be lived longer.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have more $$ than I need and I don't want god to give me anything. All I am looking for is evidence of his existence and yes, I am looking. I have asked every person who believes in him to give me evidence of his existence. So far, not a single person has been able to provide a shred of evidence. They all rely on faith based on a book written by ancient humans who believed the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and were extremely ignorant by modern standards. I see no reason to regard their testimony as credible.

I see where you're falling short... you're asking people.   Why don't you try asking God?  People don't possess God.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have lived considerably shorter and have already gotten bored with a number of fun things. It isn't difficult to extrapolate that if I lived for a few thousand years I would get bored with the things I find entertaining today. 

Therein lies the problem... you're looking at it from an "entertainment" standpoint... let's put it this way.  People gifted in generosity don't help the homeless for 40 years of their life because it entertains them.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why would he be unwilling to speak for himself? I grow weary of having the discussion with his proxies, especially since every single one of you has different answers. 

[/quote

This might be where we need to discuss then.  where do our answers differ?  What were the differences?? Be specific.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
 I didn't ignore everyone

 I didn't ignore everyone else.  Haven't had much time as of recent.  I will get to the rest when I can.  Love your input Dana.  Looking fwd to responding to you V

 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:...because

caposkia wrote:

...because Jesus is all that is needed

Not if your God wants everyone to be saved he isn't.

 

caposkia wrote:

just because you're not getting the message doesn't mean it's not the best way to communicate with you

That sounds so completely contradictory.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

You can put whatever perfume on it you want, a sacrifice is murder. Would you vote for a presidential candidate who cut their son's throat as a sacrifice? 

alright, we're going in circles here and also are not focusing.

I could come back again with would you vote for a presidential candidate who would put in place a law that states there are no consequences for wrongdoing?

In a heartbeat. Why I would go back to my campaigning days and raise as much money as I could for such a candidate. That is beside the point though. God did not order Abraham to kill Isaac because Isaac did something deserving of punishment. He ordered Abraham to kill Isaac just to see if he would.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Point and case here.  Sacrifice has been made, so it wouldn't make sense in the first place just as much as it would make sense to have no consequences for actions.  Also, God never asked for human sacrifice from others, unless you're suggesting that slaughtering animals is murder... which then anyone eating a beef burger would be an accessory to it.  

I find the idea of ritual sacrifice of animals to be very distasteful and immoral. Don't you have a problem when some sadist buys a dog for the sole purpose of cutting it up and killing it? I do, and I am a hunter who has killed and butchered many animals throughout my life.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

More than once every couple thousand years. Maybe since god is immortal he doesn't appreciate how long 2000 years is to us. If god really cares about saving us all from hell, why did he stop after Jesus? 

...because Jesus is all that is needed

Obviously not because if Jesus' goal was to save all humans he failed. The only possible conclusion is that god doesn't love all humans and does not want all of them in heaven. There are plenty of really great humans that are nice and kind people who are going to go to hell because god refused to communicate his message more clearly.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Since I am not getting the message it is obviously not the best way to communicate with me. 

just because you're not getting the message doesn't mean it's not the best way to communicate with you.

????? Read that sentence a few times.

 

caposkia wrote:

...and as an omnipotent being, doesn't He get the right to decide how much effort He expects of us? Just because a parent is capable of doing literally everything for their child doesn't suggest that it's good parenting to do so.  Quite the contrary actually.

As an omnipotent being he has the power to do whatever he wants. When we make a moral judgement of such a being, shouldn't we take into account that the being could have done whatever he wants? Punishing your children for eternity is never good parenting. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I read the bible. I found it disgusting. I don't know how any sane human can read the bible in full and decide to worship the being described in it. I also didn't find anything to help me decode any of god's secret messages. Maybe I am simply not smart enough. 

...or maybe you're looking too hard.  Why comb through a rug when you're looking for a car?  

People can read the Bible and worship the being described in it because not only do they learn about God, but they build a trusting relationship with Him and through that relationship they build an understanding that though we don't understand all of the choices God made, we can be assured that they were the right choices because despite all the terrible things written, the outcomes have always been for the better for those who follow God.  He has promised to never let us fall and He keeps His promises.

Lol, yes, I am sure that most people who claim the label Christian haven't read the bible as closely as your average atheist. More than one person has become atheist after they decided to read the bible cover to cover. 

Why would you want to have a relationship with a being who treats humans cruelly for the sole reason that they do not follow him? Hitler was pretty great to his followers too. I don't think we should judge the morality of a being based on how they treat the people they like. We should judge them based on how they treat the people they don't like. In that department, god is very cruel. Drowning, exterminating, sending bears to attack them, genocide and on top of that, sending them to hell for eternity.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

We have to determine if this omnipotent being really has our best interests as his goal. It is foolish to automatically assume he does simply because he said so.

except that He's proven it time and time again... but anyway

How has he proven anything? He hasn't even proven his existence!

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

When we can look at the world and see that his "solution" to human violence by drowning the entire world was clearly a failure because humans are still very violent, why wouldn't we second guess him? Either he isn't omnipotent because by definition an omnipotent being could never fail at anything, or his goal was not to rid the world of violence.

you think it was just violence?  If that was the case, they likely could have destroyed themselves.

I think it could be moral to allow a person to destroy themselves. It is immoral to kill a person because you believe they will destroy themselves. Wouldn't you agree? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Again, it wasn't a solution, He wanted to rid humanity from the world.  Even if His goal was to rid humanity because he regretted making them, He never failed because He intentionally created humans with the ability to choose... at that He succeeded.  From there it was and Is in our hands.  

You keep coming back with... "if he's omnipotent then..."  but if He's omnipotent then He can do what He wants... In other words, even if He was capable of doing something differently, an omnipotent being can still do it the way He wants.  All these iffs about his Omnipotence only reveals that God can make choices.  If He's omnipotent, then what makes you think you know better than He in the situation you never observed yourself?

So god has our "best interests" as his goal, yet he wanted to rid the world of humanity? How can it possibly be both? The question is whether god really has our best interests as his goal and whether or not god is a moral being worth following. I have to make the decision sometime before I die to follow god or not to follow him. Yes, I have a very limited worldview, but it is all I have to work with. Like I pointed out before, and you agreed, it is foolish to assume that an omnipotent being is good simply because it is omnipotent. So I have to look at the evidence and come to the most likely conclusion, which very well might be wrong. Right now, the only description of this being I have to go by is the bible. It is clear that the being of the bible is cruel, petty, vain and doesn't give a shit about humans. If the bible is not an accurate portrayal, I would think an omnipotent being would take a minute to correct it.

 

caposkia wrote:

came from both sides in the example... the problem here is we can't compare human error to choices God makes... it's a completely different playing field.  

He killed innocents, but then again, He claimed in Exodus that all are His, which means those he Killed he really just claimed... if God's real then we must agree that being killed doesn't exactly,.. kill you.  

So why do Christians generally consider death a negative thing? You really should celebrate mass murderers who take one for the team and send all the true believers to a "better place". I hate to break it to you, but Rufus didn't really go to Disney World.

 

caposkia wrote:

consider that pretty much everyone and everything except for Noah and His ark was destroyed... Is it so hard to believe that somethings like tools and innovation may have been lost in the process too?

Just to avoid a sarcastic tangent that leads us into yet another page without progress, lemme play devils advocate for myself here. 

Noah could have taught the information to His children very easily and they could have continued it on.  Sure, but did they have the means to do so or did they kind of have to start from scratch?  

Or... that's a cop out, sure anything could have happened then.  Sure, but do you see why it's hard to believe it happened so recently?  I think you do, because you brought up the issues with it happening in that time period.  

So it didn't happen and I'm just delusional... wishful thinking... living in a dream world... pick your choice... ok.  There is geological evidence of a flood in history... it happened much much earlier than the dates in question and the magnitude of the flood is pretty dramatic.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKPw_VvIyu4 describes why archaeology might not have discovered this. 

 

The guy in your link is flat out wrong. We have all sorts of archaeological evidence of very small populations and we find that small populations generally use stone age technologies. The reason is simply, metal working is more involved and time consuming than building stone tools. This means that such technology rarely arises in small mobile populations.

I do see why it is hard to believe the flood happened so recently. I see why it is hard to believe it happened at all, don't you?  

 

caposkia wrote:

Humans weren't violent... not until they ate the fruit, which they were capable of doing, but knew they shouldn't.  

So why did god put the tree there? We recently had a discussion about a 5 year old who shot his sister with a gun. Do we blame the child? I'm sure his parents told him not to shoot his sister at some point. I blame the parents, because they had the power to store the gun where the kid couldn't access it and should have had the foresight to recognize the dangers of storing the gun where an unsupervised 5 year old could get it.  

http://www.rationalresponders.com/5_year_old_boy_shoots_and_kills_2_year_old_sister

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Whether the adults killed babies or not is irrelevant. The fact that the adults might have killed the children does not justify god actually killing the children. 

interesting angle... so your condemnation is subjective.  I see.

God killing children is simply bringing them to His presence... People killing children is prematurely ending lives that were intended to be lived longer.

And obviously you hold god to a very different standard than humans. So your only problem with people killing people is that they might be killing someone earlier than god planned? If the killing fits god's plan than any murder is justifiable?  

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have more $$ than I need and I don't want god to give me anything. All I am looking for is evidence of his existence and yes, I am looking. I have asked every person who believes in him to give me evidence of his existence. So far, not a single person has been able to provide a shred of evidence. They all rely on faith based on a book written by ancient humans who believed the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and were extremely ignorant by modern standards. I see no reason to regard their testimony as credible.

I see where you're falling short... you're asking people.   Why don't you try asking God?  People don't possess God.  

I did, he isn't as good at getting back to me as you are. I have asked several times in my life and god has yet to say a thing. All I have to go on are his followers and what they tell me. Next time you talk to god, tell him to drop me a line, he should know where I am. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have lived considerably shorter and have already gotten bored with a number of fun things. It isn't difficult to extrapolate that if I lived for a few thousand years I would get bored with the things I find entertaining today. 

Therein lies the problem... you're looking at it from an "entertainment" standpoint... let's put it this way.  People gifted in generosity don't help the homeless for 40 years of their life because it entertains them.

Really? I haven't been helping for 40 years yet (not that old), but I help people because I get pleasure from helping people. Most people I encounter in the philanthropist world help others because they have a real enthusiasm and derive pleasure from whatever organization they devote their lives to. Why would people devote so much of their time, money and lives to such endeavors if they did not enjoy it? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why would he be unwilling to speak for himself? I grow weary of having the discussion with his proxies, especially since every single one of you has different answers. 

[/quote

This might be where we need to discuss then.  where do our answers differ?  What were the differences?? Be specific.

Differences are all over the place. How many hundreds of sects of Christianity are there? You all can sort that out amongst yourselves. Tell me when you figure out what message god was really sending with the bible. You guys can't even agree if Noah's flood happened in 5,000 BC or 50,000 years earlier. You can't agree if hell is fire and brimstone or if it is just an absence of god. You can't agree on the existence of evil. You can't agree on whether or not god sends all gays to hell. Listing all the things that Christians disagree on would take too long. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


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

Vaste wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Any business can use money in that sense, but money does not define truth.  In fact, it seems to be proven in industry that the more money a business has, the larger it grows, the less adherant to its core it becomes, before you know it, the business is run blindly by minions while the head rakes in the cash oblivious to where it might be going.   They may be spreading better than us, but we've stayed more cohearant to the truth than they...  Our product is purer, there's has a lot of fillers... compare McDonalds to your local burger joint.
McDonalds is renowned worldwide. Only uncontacted tribes in South America could be expected to not know McDonalds. It has never shown signs of failing.

Sure, Everyone except a few random tribes in the world knows the name Jesus Christ... but do they know the Christ we know?  Likewise, does the world know the McDonalds we know.  If you do the research, you'll find they don't.  It differs drastically depending on the location.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:To which I say

Vastet wrote:
To which I say we should study it to the best of our ability, and not to take the words of men 2000 years ago, who knew even less than we do, as if they were fact.

which is what we do

Vastet wrote:

Understanding death doesn't mean you have a view on whether it is good or bad. If you don't know good and bad, then death is just another thing. Neither to be feared nor embraced. It just is. Only with the capacity to judge good and bad can one say death is good or bad.

If they did not understand death as something not to be desired or "not good" then it would have been pointless for God to warn them that death would be an inevitable consequence.  It would not make sense.  Rather up front it would make sense to say you can stay here as long as you don't eat the fruit... be it that he ultimately kicked them out of the garden.  By context they had to understand death.  

Vastet wrote:

So adam and eve are in hell?

Couldn't say... they had their punishment by ultimately having to die eventually, by having to labor to survive and by getting kicked out of the garden.  I would say they did not go to hell for eating the fruit...  The Bible doesn't detail how good or bad they both were during the rest of their days on Earth.  


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

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Do our parents not have influence on our opportunities in life?  Even grandparents?
Only to the extent which we allow them to.

 

except you have no power over their choices before you were born and when you were a child too young to know the difference... yet their actions still affected who you are today, what you do, where you live, etc.  Granted what you do you have more influence over than other things.  Point being, the choices they made that you had no ability to allow or not allow still affect you good or bad.

We don't need to tangent on this, but just consider all the possible ways even the most minute chioces they made in their lives could have affect on you now... e.g. location you grew up in determined the way you talk. 

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
e.g.  I'm 3rd generation in the U.S.A.  My great grandparents came over for better opportunities.  Though I had no choice in the matter, I was born here.
The way I see things, you wouldn't have been born at all if they hadn't. Your parents would never have met, meaning you would never have existed. So the rest of your paragraph is rather irrelevant. No offence.

none taken, but how can you say that with such certainty?  How do you know my father and mother's parents didn't come from the same street in the same country and move over together?  How do you know my parents couldn't possibly have met under other circumstances?  You can't.    Then again, let's get deep for a second.  Though I might be a completely different person, how do you know that my mother... or my father meeting someone different couldn't still make another version of me?  How can you be certain "I" wouldn't have been born.   this kind of goes into the psychological 'id, ego and super-ego'


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

danatemporary wrote:

      An all important area to mention is unlocking the angels' original sin (if you will). While not failing to mention the particular religious culture of the time. A modern audience cannot estimate or appreciate how much each of these documents need to be looked at in the setting in which these documents were (originally) written. Now that is of some importance. To better find a way of understanding. I asked about Satan (and comments about the NDE), these expanded roles found later on in the writings that later became the Canon. (Btw, I'd hoped for some feedback on but I appreciate you are busy)  Importantly! Isnt there an aspect of human damnation being hopelessly intertwined with the fate of the angels ?  It shouldn't be glossed over, though I may be overstating it, only slightly, two things: One they each are headed South. And Second, the place was set up in the first place as a solution for the rebel angelic hordes, many instances were cited, according to the Bible. It seems to indicate man's fall brought about the damning to the souls ( how dreadful ). Matthew 25:41 - “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  Book of Hebrews 12:17 -  [Speaking of Esau] For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears,. And a passage I quoted in this Thread,. Conversely the very angels are interested in the matters of redemption. Who if any of the groupings of angels would need redemption? Obviously, the Unclean and Fallen angels are the only answer that makes any sense, according to the text. I do not think Rome's interpretation of a few key passages is right on both a previous verse I cited earlier and also the reference of so 'great a cloud of witnesses". The only game in town, at one time, wouldnt mean they (RCC) were always correct about things. Those fallen angels were looking into these matters, even though it's not explict nor unequivocal. This is what the New Testament writers were communicating about the angels. The case is strong, very strong, all-the-same for such this view. This is consistent with their plight, and the fate that the Fallen Angels made for themselves by being in rebellion against the Almighty, again, according to the holy bible ( and NO need for any concordance to find it :~),. I'd appreciate if you'd help in our understanding (many words in a reply this time). On how this ties into mankind according to the tradition ?  Smiling

In the image the she is a high-class hooker, that is the "she'' (perpetually snake bitten in a few ways).



  The summary doesnt do the actual text any justice. It is comic how the Hindu Hooker's soul is fought over which the better part of the details were omitted. Her soul has the attendants  of Lord Yama and the heavenly angels, if you will, both claiming her.  They have to have Hari and Yama to step in themselves to settle the matter. Before that the attendants get into an argument. It's sort of a loud funny exchange of: No!! She's coming with us!!  :~  It popped into my head is all.

Gospel of Luke 

:20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’ 27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

 

 p.s. -- Noticed you skipped over the NDE, WOULD APPRECIATE your feedback on that, when you can.

  __________

 Anime classic  The Anti-hero Spike once said: I'm just watching a bad dream I never wake up from

 

I'm sorry if you were looking for a reply to one of your earlier posts.  I assure you I've read them all and I like the input you've had.  I guess I had some difficulty following them at times.  You put down many thoughts, so it's hard to pull out a question sometimes that needs a specific reply.  Could you please repost the specifics that you wanted me to comment on?

Considering this post, it sounds like you're confused or curious as to the connection between human damnation and angels being kicked out of heaven.  

The Bible doesn't say a whole lot about the angels and exactly what took place in heaven to cause 1/3 of all angels to fall, but what we do know is that they followed Satan and his perspective.  They all rebelled against God somehow with Satan as their leader.  To connect it to mankind, Satan came down as a serpent and talked to them manipulating adam and eve into making a choice that they originally wouldn't have made.  

I think by the way the bible summarizes these events, it makes it sound like their directly linked and all happen at the same time, but I think there's a whole lot that has not been told on the spiritual side.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:caposkia

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

...because Jesus is all that is needed

Not if your God wants everyone to be saved he isn't.

Jesus died ONCE for ALL... everyone CAN be saved through Jesus. (Hebrews 7:26-28, (caps only for emphasis)

 

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

just because you're not getting the message doesn't mean it's not the best way to communicate with you

That sounds so completely contradictory.

yet sometimes the best way to communicate is not the quickest way to hear it.  Consider... would you remember something I said better if I texted it to you or sent it to you in a snail mail letter on offiical letterhead?  


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jesus died

caposkia wrote:

Jesus died ONCE for ALL... everyone CAN be saved through Jesus. (Hebrews 7:26-28, (caps only for emphasis)

 

 

We don't believe that happened though.

We don't feel that way out of malice. Our unbelief is not tied to emotion, although in many cases, the quest to unbelief does begin for emotional reasons, and ends due to rational ones. The evidence is not good enough.

1. The extra-biblical evidence for Jesus is very flimsy, and none of the documented evidence (including the bible) are contemporary to Jesus.

2. If Jesus did anything notable during his life (according to the bible, he did many such things), there is virtually no way that 0 contemporary historians wrote a single thing.

3. The epistles being written before the gospels, and the majority of them framing Jesus as a figure that Paul knew spiritually, rather than in the flesh, has the likely origin of Christianity bearing much resemblance to other monotheisms, such as Islam, and Mormonism. Namely, one prophet who was revealed more information than the common person, by god.

4. The prevalence (and quick rise) of Christianity can be chalked up very easily to how useful it was for the people in power. If you subjugate an entire people, they may revolt. Also, anybody who works in a corporation knows that it is important to keep people motivated. If, however, you could somehow convince these people to be obedient and toil away in this life, and they will be rewarded in the next one, then, well, you've just stumbled upon the best tool ever for EVERY single autocratic ruler. You have a whole nation of people working like slaves, but happy to do it. BRILLIANT!!!

Without evidence for the real person, you're left with the epistles as the origin of the suggestion that he existed. That is nearly identical to Islam and Mormonism. Any Christian would put the burden of proof on a Muslim to prove that Mohammed was real, and not nuts. Any Christian would put the burden of proof on a Mormon to prove that Joseph Smith was not a deliberate fraud (or nuts). Even though that's the case, Christians feel they have no burden of proof here (and I'm singling them out in this case, but the other two do the same thing. It's a mutual fallacy). 

And yes, it is contradictory to say that if I didn't get the message, it's not being communicated properly. If god is omnipotent and omniscient, he knows what it takes to get it into my skull. If he's omnibenevolent, he would do that, because a being possessing all three of those attributes would not be cool with eternal torture...for anyone really. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:alright,

Beyond Saving wrote:

alright, we're going in circles here and also are not focusing.

I could come back again with would you vote for a presidential candidate who would put in place a law that states there are no consequences for wrongdoing?

In a heartbeat. Why I would go back to my campaigning days and raise as much money as I could for such a candidate. That is beside the point though. God did not order Abraham to kill Isaac because Isaac did something deserving of punishment. He ordered Abraham to kill Isaac just to see if he would.

Do you understand who you'd be voting into office here?  I mean you're so against murder and yet you're voting in someone who would not conseqence someone who kills someone else.  No consequences for wrongdoing right?  This would have to be across the board, not just stealing from your neighbor, which also would be ok under your terms.  I honestly don't want to live in this country if you ever become president.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I find the idea of ritual sacrifice of animals to be very distasteful and immoral. Don't you have a problem when some sadist buys a dog for the sole purpose of cutting it up and killing it? I do, and I am a hunter who has killed and butchered many animals throughout my life.

I don't remember dogs being an appropriate sacrifice in the Bible.... also, just like the last response above, I don't get you again.  You're a hunter whom has killed and butcheered many animals... yet sacrifice is disturbing to you?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Obviously not because if Jesus' goal was to save all humans he failed. The only possible conclusion is that god doesn't love all humans and does not want all of them in heaven. There are plenty of really great humans that are nice and kind people who are going to go to hell because god refused to communicate his message more clearly.

is that how it works?  The bible says all who come to Jesus are saved... so how has He failed?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Since I am not getting the message it is obviously not the best way to communicate with me. 

Quote:

just because you're not getting the message doesn't mean it's not the best way to communicate with you.

????? Read that sentence a few times.

K... read my response to that.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

As an omnipotent being he has the power to do whatever he wants. When we make a moral judgement of such a being, shouldn't we take into account that the being could have done whatever he wants? Punishing your children for eternity is never good parenting. 

punishing or letting them leave?  The choice is to be with God or not. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lol, yes, I am sure that most people who claim the label Christian haven't read the bible as closely as your average atheist. More than one person has become atheist after they decided to read the bible cover to cover. 

...and that's the first mistake... thinking you have a full understanding of scripture just by reading the book cover to cover.   Many Christians have read the book cover to cover 5..7...10 times and still don't comprehend it.  It's one thing to read it, it's a whole other thing to study it and live by it.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why would you want to have a relationship with a being who treats humans cruelly for the sole reason that they do not follow him?

your life is really that terrible?  What has he done to you that has been so cruel?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Hitler was pretty great to his followers too. I don't think we should judge the morality of a being based on how they treat the people they like. We should judge them based on how they treat the people they don't like. In that department, god is very cruel. Drowning, exterminating, sending bears to attack them, genocide and on top of that, sending them to hell for eternity.

hitler didn't create those he oppressed.   Rather they chose not to follow His way.  With God you're choosing to follow the Truth or your own way.  One can never compare God's reasoning to human standards.    If God is real, than he is the 'way' 'truth' and 'life'... in other words, God is what is, everything else is really just your imagination or your own choosing.    Not the case with Hitler.  

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

How has he proven anything? He hasn't even proven his existence!

except that He has had many witnesses throughout all the generations through history of His existence and His works, beyond those likely millions through history who claim witness to God's work, He sent one whom God called His own son who exampled many proofs of God and showed this existence to be not only real, but tangible to the generation that saw Jesus.  Even today people still witness His work yet just as the Bible details there will always be those who claim just as you have despite how obvious it gets.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I think it could be moral to allow a person to destroy themselves. It is immoral to kill a person because you believe they will destroy themselves. Wouldn't you agree? 

if we're talking about humanistic standards, of course... but we're talking about God... in the process of destroying themselves, they'd likely also destroy what God had created... also, rather than watch them kill themselves and allow the young ones to suffer (as you seemed to be so concerned about) He ended it all quicker.    Again what is it to be killed by God?  are you officially "dead"?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

So god has our "best interests" as his goal, yet he wanted to rid the world of humanity?

alright.. before we go any further here, lemme be the English nazi for a second...  You use both a present tense and a past tense in the same sentence... that's not only bad English, but it loses focus on the issue.  Which one do you want to focus on?  At the time he wanted to rid the world of Humanity, His best interest was to stop the insanity and scrap the human idea.  We could argue that it was still in the best interest of humanity be it that to destroy them would prevent possibly centuries of hell on Earth for all those infants and children and generations to come.    Currently and now, through Jesus we are saved, so the best interest is in mind here.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

The question is whether god really has our best interests as his goal and whether or not god is a moral being worth following. I have to make the decision sometime before I die to follow god or not to follow him. Yes, I have a very limited worldview, but it is all I have to work with. Like I pointed out before, and you agreed, it is foolish to assume that an omnipotent being is good simply because it is omnipotent. So I have to look at the evidence and come to the most likely conclusion, which very well might be wrong. Right now, the only description of this being I have to go by is the bible. It is clear that the being of the bible is cruel, petty, vain and doesn't give a shit about humans. If the bible is not an accurate portrayal, I would think an omnipotent being would take a minute to correct it.

The Bible is an accurate portrayal but context is important when studying it.  You look at God destorying humanity without information of what humanity was really like at the time, what could have been if not and what is because of it.  You also implant assumptions about death and what happened to specifically infants and children.  The truth is, we know that things were bad and that God was so distraught with what was going on that he actually wished he hasn't made people to begin with.  He also promised to never do that again after it happened.  

If you read the Bible.. and all you saw was a God that is cruel, petty, vain and doesn't give a shit about humans, then you haven't studied it.  You might want to look back through it... stop looking for everything that looks bad and start looking for everything that looks good.. something tells me you might take a bit longer getting through it.  Instead of looking for what looks like evil things God did, how about compiling a list of the good things God has done for us.... shouldn't be too much if what you say is true right?

Beyond Saving wrote:

So why do Christians generally consider death a negative thing? You really should celebrate mass murderers who take one for the team and send all the true believers to a "better place". I hate to break it to you, but Rufus didn't really go to Disney World.

we don't celebrate mass murderers because that's breaking Gods laws.  That is not allowing Gods work to take place, it is if anything inhibiting it though it gets done in other ways.  We true Christians when we lose a loved one have funerals that are a celebration of life, not just a mourning of the loss.  The mourning is simply that we will dearly miss that person, but all in all we celebrate the life they had and the life they're living.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

The guy in your link is flat out wrong. We have all sorts of archaeological evidence of very small populations and we find that small populations generally use stone age technologies. The reason is simply, metal working is more involved and time consuming than building stone tools. This means that such technology rarely arises in small mobile populations.

I do see why it is hard to believe the flood happened so recently. I see why it is hard to believe it happened at all, don't you?

I find it hard to believe it didn't happen be it that evidence has been found for such a flood.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So why did god put the tree there? We recently had a discussion about a 5 year old who shot his sister with a gun. Do we blame the child? I'm sure his parents told him not to shoot his sister at some point. I blame the parents, because they had the power to store the gun where the kid couldn't access it and should have had the foresight to recognize the dangers of storing the gun where an unsupervised 5 year old could get it.  

that is a discussion many of us had... the conclusion that makes the most sense to me is that God had a plan for it... unlike your gun analogy, the tree was likely there to eventually be eaten when Adam and Eve had matured enough to know how to handle the power/comprehension/wisdom... whatever it was that they would recieve from the fruit.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Whether the adults killed babies or not is irrelevant. The fact that the adults might have killed the children does not justify god actually killing the children.   

What if instead these children were just going to be abused... considering death for a chlid is to go and be cared for by God, what would be more unjust, to let them live through a childhood of unnameable abuses or to "die" on Earth and live with God unabused?  

Basically what we're doing here is assuming what was going to happen to these children... all we know is that humanity was at its worst.  Likely all of the above was happening.  What is more justified in this case?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

And obviously you hold god to a very different standard than humans. So your only problem with people killing people is that they might be killing someone earlier than god planned? If the killing fits god's plan than any murder is justifiable?  

We have to look at it as this way... everyone dies.. by the will of God.  So if God takes a life, we here say it was there time.  You see an elderly person dying of old age as murder?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I did, he isn't as good at getting back to me as you are. I have asked several times in my life and god has yet to say a thing. All I have to go on are his followers and what they tell me. Next time you talk to god, tell him to drop me a line, he should know where I am. 

I must ask... when looking for a response from God.. are you looking for an actual vocal response.. or possibly an email?  Consider that God does not communicate necessarily like we do with each other.  What are you looking for when you ask God?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Really? I haven't been helping for 40 years yet (not that old), but I help people because I get pleasure from helping people. Most people I encounter in the philanthropist world help others because they have a real enthusiasm and derive pleasure from whatever organization they devote their lives to. Why would people devote so much of their time, money and lives to such endeavors if they did not enjoy it? 

exactly... but see the difference here?  You don't get bored because you have a real enthusiasm and get pleasure from doing whatever it is... you don't get entertainment by it... there is the difference.   Those entertaining things will pass away.  Charity will not

Beyond Saving wrote:

Differences are all over the place. How many hundreds of sects of Christianity are there? You all can sort that out amongst yourselves. Tell me when you figure out what message god was really sending with the bible. You guys can't even agree if Noah's flood happened in 5,000 BC or 50,000 years earlier. You can't agree if hell is fire and brimstone or if it is just an absence of god. You can't agree on the existence of evil. You can't agree on whether or not god sends all gays to hell. Listing all the things that Christians disagree on would take too long. 

none of those things define the core beliefs of Christianity... and many of those brought up are clear if you read scripture... e.g. God sends all gays to hell as much as He sends all Christians to hell.  In other words, not all Christians are saved, but not all gays are going to hell, some gays are Christian.  Some Christians... are not Christians... consider that for a moment.  

Here also lies the reason why I don't follow religion.   Religion causes disagreements, which causes separation... which is against scripture... anyone who considers themselves a True follower has that understanding and abstains from religious debates with those who defend themselves with doctrine and not scripture.  


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jesus died ONCE for ALL... everyone CAN be saved through Jesus. (Hebrews 7:26-28, (caps only for emphasis)

 

We don't believe that happened though.

i know

Jabberwocky wrote:

We don't feel that way out of malice. Our unbelief is not tied to emotion, although in many cases, the quest to unbelief does begin for emotional reasons, and ends due to rational ones. The evidence is not good enough.

so they say

Jabberwocky wrote:

1. The extra-biblical evidence for Jesus is very flimsy, and none of the documented evidence (including the bible) are contemporary to Jesus.

though witnesses still wrote of it first hand.  Word processors were in short supply.. so was paper that lasts and writing utensils.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

2. If Jesus did anything notable during his life (according to the bible, he did many such things), there is virtually no way that 0 contemporary historians wrote a single thing.

And yet historians do acknowledge his existence in history.  Also keep in mind the witnesses Jesus focused on were of the lowest on the food chain.  Those in power at the time either wanted nothing to do with Him or dispised Him.

Jabberwocky wrote:

3. The epistles being written before the gospels, and the majority of them framing Jesus as a figure that Paul knew spiritually, rather than in the flesh, has the likely origin of Christianity bearing much resemblance to other monotheisms, such as Islam, and Mormonism. Namely, one prophet who was revealed more information than the common person, by god.

Both which came after all scripture had been completed and were inspired by the following and came from those who were beleivers in the faith but decided to go their own way.

Jabberwocky wrote:

4. The prevalence (and quick rise) of Christianity can be chalked up very easily to how useful it was for the people in power. If you subjugate an entire people, they may revolt. Also, anybody who works in a corporation knows that it is important to keep people motivated. If, however, you could somehow convince these people to be obedient and toil away in this life, and they will be rewarded in the next one, then, well, you've just stumbled upon the best tool ever for EVERY single autocratic ruler. You have a whole nation of people working like slaves, but happy to do it. BRILLIANT!!!

except that the Bible promises that you will be hated for that following... why not follow something else that promises you your own planet and many virgins at your disposal?  That sounds more appealing to me than just eternal life with God after death... right?  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Without evidence for the real person, you're left with the epistles as the origin of the suggestion that he existed. That is nearly identical to Islam and Mormonism. Any Christian would put the burden of proof on a Muslim to prove that Mohammed was real, and not nuts. Any Christian would put the burden of proof on a Mormon to prove that Joseph Smith was not a deliberate fraud (or nuts). Even though that's the case, Christians feel they have no burden of proof here (and I'm singling them out in this case, but the other two do the same thing. It's a mutual fallacy). 

but I'm not here to prove you wrong, I'm here to ask you why I'm wrong.  5 years later I'm still looking for that answer.

Jabberwocky wrote:

And yes, it is contradictory to say that if I didn't get the message, it's not being communicated properly. If god is omnipotent and omniscient, he knows what it takes to get it into my skull. If he's omnibenevolent, he would do that, because a being possessing all three of those attributes would not be cool with eternal torture...for anyone really. 

Right, but with the guidance of those who know God, you can hear him..  but if you refuse to humble yourself for a moment and try, then why should God make a further effort?  If you don't care, why should He?


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Double Post (DP)

Double Post (DP)


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:though

caposkia wrote:

though witnesses still wrote of it first hand.  Word processors were in short supply.. so was paper that lasts and writing utensils.  

They did?? What are these writings? Did the later writings refer to them in any detail? 

Also, you seem to rule out the possibilty that the people professing to have witnessed these things could have been deluded, or lying. 

caposkia wrote:

And yet historians do acknowledge his existence in history.  Also keep in mind the witnesses Jesus focused on were of the lowest on the food chain.  Those in power at the time either wanted nothing to do with Him or dispised Him.

Yes they do allude to him in history. They also, however, allude to early Christians.  The Christians were notable, and they certainly were adamant that this person existed. Maybe he was based on a real person from that time, but we can't be sure. The second part of this argument holds no water either. Jesus did focus on the down and outs (according to the bible) but he also was said to have done some very notable and public things (according to the bible) that WOULD have been noted by contemporary historians. The fact remains that they weren't. 

caposkia wrote:

Both which came after all scripture had been completed and were inspired by the following and came from those who were beleivers in the faith but decided to go their own way.

Wow. You actually pulled out the "my book is right, and their books are wrong" defence. This is not an argument, it is simply an assertion.  You've essentially said nothing more than a little bit of special pleading. "after all scripture had been completed". You're saying this as if Christians are the only ones who believe as much about their own scriptures. It's not. You must provide more than an assertion if you're going to convince anyone.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

4. The prevalence (and quick rise) of Christianity can be chalked up very easily to how useful it was for the people in power. If you subjugate an entire people, they may revolt. Also, anybody who works in a corporation knows that it is important to keep people motivated. If, however, you could somehow convince these people to be obedient and toil away in this life, and they will be rewarded in the next one, then, well, you've just stumbled upon the best tool ever for EVERY single autocratic ruler. You have a whole nation of people working like slaves, but happy to do it. BRILLIANT!!!

except that the Bible promises that you will be hated for that following... why not follow something else that promises you your own planet and many virgins at your disposal?  That sounds more appealing to me than just eternal life with God after death... right?  

I wasn't comparing the after-lives. I was stating that slaves are unhappy, and given a chance, they may revolt, run away, or do all sorts of things. Most of us humans don't like to be screwed over our whole lives, and if that seems to be happening, we tend to do something about it. If you can convince your slaves that they will be rewarded when they die (it doesn't matter which version of heaven you plug in here), then you don't have to reward them in real life so long as you keep them convinced.  Whether you're a Christian or not, you have to agree that Christianity could be used for this pur

caposkia wrote:

but I'm not here to prove you wrong, I'm here to ask you why I'm wrong.  5 years later I'm still looking for that answer.

Because there are two extremes of how one can interpret Christian scriptures. 

1. The extreme Creationist view. This does not work. For one, the bible contains many internal contradictions, meaning that a literal interpretation of the whole document simply does not work. Also, it contains countless historical and scientific errors. Once you realize that, you can then move on to

2. Moderate Christianity. The watered down, most of the old testament is allegory/irrelevant, etc. etc....except that is not reconcilable either. If Jesus died for our sins, what about those without sin? What about people who are incapable of making responsible decisions due to a mental defect? Oh, the Christians came up with that solution; original sin!!! But wait! If Adam and Eve weren't actually real, where the hell did that come from?

Method 1 of interpreting the bible (save the contradictions) is somewhat coherent, but it is incompatible with reality. Method 2 is incompatible with itself. There are simply too many problems when you have to eliminate important passages. It's a house of cards, and it fell apart long ago. 

That is why you're wrong. What I do recommend, is that you read a translation of the Qu'ran, and the entire bible, and then explain to yourself why the bible is a god inspired document, and the Qu'ran is not. If you've been trying to find out why you're wrong for 5 years, you're not trying hard enough. 

caposkia wrote:

Right, but with the guidance of those who know God, you can hear him..  but if you refuse to humble yourself for a moment and try, then why should God make a further effort?  If you don't care, why should He?

Hah, "those who (claim they) know God". Those people don't exactly have a sparkling reputation at this moment. Mega-church pastors raking in the dough. Ray Comfort making buttloads as well. Peter Popoff, knowingly scamming people. Clergy from probably every major denomination of Christianity in the world who are child rapists. These are the people we should trust? Are you freaking kidding me? 

Why should he care? Because the alternative is that I suffer for ever. Anything else I do with my life, any accomplishments, even if I devote my life to, and am successful at, curing all disease, and poverty, and remedying all crime, and terrorism from the world, can do nothing to help me. Because on one "yes or no" question, I answered "No, I don't believe that's the case", I deserve to be tortured for ever. It's the furthest thing from the will of an omni-benevolent being I can think of. Yahweh.

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Who sat on the Throne of Satan (honest and curious about) . .

Who sat on the Throne of Satan (honest and curious about) . .

caposkia wrote:

The Bible doesn't say a whole lot about the angels and exactly what took place in heaven to cause 1/3 of all angels to fall, but what we do know is that they followed Satan and his perspective. They all rebelled against God somehow with Satan as their leader. To connect it to mankind, Satan came down as a serpent and talked to them manipulating adam and eve into making a choice that they originally wouldn't have made.

I think by the way the bible summarizes these events, it makes it sound like their directly linked and all happen at the same time, but I think there's a whole lot that has not been told on the spiritual side.


. . . I dont think it is hard to understand when I ask on how the development the an understand came to pass (say that three times fast) And what the understanding became :¬

. . . You may have been confused by why I was asking more than what I was asking, K?

. ... . I do understand why you'd say that, believe it or not. However, I'd like to know more from the pages of the Bible (lucky you). If I were fielding my own set of questions, I would be sure to include examples like this one (Here and Below):

Bible wrote:
17 Then the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?” (and damned if you didnt know it he was right). 18 Micaiah said, “Therefore, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right and on His left. 19 The Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab king of Israel to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that. 20 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ And the Lord said to him, ‘How?’ 21 He said, ‘I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice him and prevail also. Go and do so.’ 22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of these your prophets..


. . . Btw, Rest assured, If one thing is true about the board, it's people are less than subtle. Transparency needn't be enforced, it like the Hindu's Karma, it just is. I don't think you can appreciate the board, if you ever feel under attack (under siege); what a wonder the board is and how open and free it is. I'd feel deeply deprived if it didn't exist. Whatever is going on with me. If I start Columbo¬ing your butt (played by Peter Falk) please feel free to tell me to knock it off (I insist). It is not the least bit conscious on my part, honest! No larceny harbouring and I'm usually honest until it bleeds most days. I do not mean to present this hidden agenda like manner in this. We are simply presented with questions most do not usually ask enough.

. . . I think it may be to 'our' advantage (and pay off) for me to announce to you what I am currently working on yesterday. It will involve me becoming unnecessarily wordy but you got the time :¬ It ties into the question about the roles of Satan, in an odd manner, how he was understood.

. . . Start a the beginning. One the the board's Users brought up something about the christian Devil from Occultists. It was puzzling the parallels the occultists were making. Made some unexpected connections, that highlighted how little is known about Satan (according to the holy bible), as you were suggesting in the reply. Now Parallels are usually simple to follow the reasoning behind them, it's not rocket science, for Heaven's sakes. It comes easy for me. It was one of those, this does not compute moments; and will drive you to dig deeper. Is this a curse and a blessing, it depends? With the Occultists and Ancient Astronauts not with the blessing part, frankly. Unending pain, closer to that, yes. What makes it hard to understand the rational of occults even use. They are like Vultures ... that carry off little bits and pieces of dead religions, ending up with this odd assemblage. Or like a pile of stones in a giant heap. You wonder, what was this supposed to have been ?! Not good! I already know, like with the Spiritists of the late 19th Century, they follow a arbitrary pattern to making it up as they go along, filling in huge gaps in their own personal knowledge (it's absurd). Knowing full well this could be completely arbutrary, I ended it in less murkier waters of the Biblical texts. It led back to the book of Revelations again:

Bible wrote:
I know where you live--where Satan's throne is! And you are holding on to My name and did not deny your faith in Me, even in the days of Antipas, My faithful witness who was killed among you, where Satan lives.

. . . I used the search engine because my books are still in storage. I found out the 700-Club is listed as a source for information. Well That frightens me :¬ That said, From what I understand, The Great Altar of Zeus is the likeliest candidate for "the Seat (Throne) of Satan" specifically referenced and mentioned in Revelation. What do you know (or can find out) ? People have some knowledge about Zeus as being the ultra-super creep, extraordinaire 'ST0RM' god, philandering homosexual rapist (like with his cupbearer) that he was envisioned by the Greeks to be as. And You were suggesting people were 'worse' before the flood, impossible :¬ Can you say character issues ST0RM deities :¬ Relevance? Well, yeah! Obvious to understand how Satan came to be understood in the minds of early christians. I cannot understand this Seat or label, w/ even who it is attribuated to, no more than the Occultists ideas. New meaning to Satan being the author of confusion (implied) :¬ This causes a whole other set of questions! It has to be easier to piece together, than what is on the surface of things (I'd think). What are you to do with who would have sat upon this particular Throne referred to in Revelations ?



__________


The written word is all that stands between living memory and oblivion ¬ D a n a


p.s. -- Lol. That was a fun little romp.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Do you

caposkia wrote:

Do you understand who you'd be voting into office here?  I mean you're so against murder and yet you're voting in someone who would not conseqence someone who kills someone else.  No consequences for wrongdoing right?  This would have to be across the board, not just stealing from your neighbor, which also would be ok under your terms.  I honestly don't want to live in this country if you ever become president.

The President and the federal government has nothing to do with the vast majority of murder prosecutions now. The only time a murderer is brought on federal charges is when drugs or terrorism are involved. The murder would remain illegal under state laws even if the federal law was abolished. Why then we would have a country where the states governed themselves and had a system called federalism like our Constitution intended to set up. How terrible.

We don't need a President, or a god to sit there and tell us what is right and what is wrong. We are more than capable of governing ourselves and our local communities. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I find the idea of ritual sacrifice of animals to be very distasteful and immoral. Don't you have a problem when some sadist buys a dog for the sole purpose of cutting it up and killing it? I do, and I am a hunter who has killed and butchered many animals throughout my life.

I don't remember dogs being an appropriate sacrifice in the Bible.... also, just like the last response above, I don't get you again.  You're a hunter whom has killed and butcheered many animals... yet sacrifice is disturbing to you?

Are you saying it makes a difference if you sacrifice a dog as opposed to a goat or a lamb? 

Sacrifices disturb me because they are pointless and dishonest. I think if you are going to kill an animal you ought to admit you are doing so for your own selfish purposes, whether that is pleasure, utility or both. To kill something simply because you think some powerful being in the sky wants you to is perverted.  

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Obviously not because if Jesus' goal was to save all humans he failed. The only possible conclusion is that god doesn't love all humans and does not want all of them in heaven. There are plenty of really great humans that are nice and kind people who are going to go to hell because god refused to communicate his message more clearly.

is that how it works?  The bible says all who come to Jesus are saved... so how has He failed?

You said he wanted to save everyone. Obviously, not everyone has been brought to Jesus. In fact, until the last 500 years or so, the vast majority of the human population never even heard of Jesus.

 

caposkia wrote:

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

As an omnipotent being he has the power to do whatever he wants. When we make a moral judgement of such a being, shouldn't we take into account that the being could have done whatever he wants? Punishing your children for eternity is never good parenting. 

punishing or letting them leave?  The choice is to be with God or not. 

Even if you want to phrase it as "letting them leave", I think it is bad parenting not to welcome your children back in the future. I am not even convinced of God's existence, so how could I choose to be with something that I don't believe exists? Now when I die, and I see pearly gates I am going to be going "wow, it does exist". But according to Christians, at that point it is too late for me. I will be sent to hell for eternity. I guess the human equivalent would be being disowned by your parents for moving out of the house. Imo, a good parent would forgive their children and welcome them back after they saw the error of their ways. Admittedly, I am probably not the slightest bit qualified to comment on parenting. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why would you want to have a relationship with a being who treats humans cruelly for the sole reason that they do not follow him?

your life is really that terrible?  What has he done to you that has been so cruel?  

He hasn't done anything to me and that is why my life is great. It would really suck if god decided to get involved in the world again like he did in biblical times. My life wouldn't be so great if he decided to drown me for not following his law. He did many cruel things to many people in the bible. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/3582

 

caposkia wrote:

hitler didn't create those he oppressed.   Rather they chose not to follow His way.  With God you're choosing to follow the Truth or your own way.  One can never compare God's reasoning to human standards.    If God is real, than he is the 'way' 'truth' and 'life'... in other words, God is what is, everything else is really just your imagination or your own choosing.    Not the case with Hitler.  

And you are back to "he created us so whatever he does is good". Do you believe it is impossible that an evil or at least imperfect being might have created humans?

Suppose we were able to prove that humans were created by a powerful being, but not necessarily your god. Should we automatically assume that being is good and has good intentions? On what basis can you assume that? 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

except that He has had many witnesses throughout all the generations through history of His existence and His works, beyond those likely millions through history who claim witness to God's work, He sent one whom God called His own son who exampled many proofs of God and showed this existence to be not only real, but tangible to the generation that saw Jesus.  Even today people still witness His work yet just as the Bible details there will always be those who claim just as you have despite how obvious it gets.

Even today people witness alien abductions. And they will tomorrow too.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I think it could be moral to allow a person to destroy themselves. It is immoral to kill a person because you believe they will destroy themselves. Wouldn't you agree? 

if we're talking about humanistic standards, of course... but we're talking about God... in the process of destroying themselves, they'd likely also destroy what God had created... also, rather than watch them kill themselves and allow the young ones to suffer (as you seemed to be so concerned about) He ended it all quicker.

How can we destroy what god created? He is infinitely more powerful than us. We couldn't destroy anything he didn't want destroyed if we tried.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Again what is it to be killed by God?  are you officially "dead"?  

You are exactly the same kind of dead you would be if a human killed you. If it is bad for a human to kill you, then it is bad for a lion to kill you and it is bad for god to kill you. In general, I consider being killed by anything to be bad and think it should be avoided when possible. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So god has our "best interests" as his goal, yet he wanted to rid the world of humanity?

alright.. before we go any further here, lemme be the English nazi for a second...  You use both a present tense and a past tense in the same sentence... that's not only bad English, but it loses focus on the issue.  Which one do you want to focus on?  

My sentence is structured to question your claim of what is present by point out what happened in the past and is perfectly acceptable English. When you are talking about two separate events that occur in different times, it is necessary to use different tenses to convey the correct meaning. The rule of thumb against using different tenses is as strict as all the other rules in our language. For example, "i before e except after c" and except a bunch of other words as well. The joys of having a language that is a composite of several different languages. Americans have never been very good at following rules Sticking out tongue

So the point of my question is to point out that you claim god currently has our best interests as his goal. I intended to question that claim on the basis of his previous actions. 

 

caposkia wrote:

At the time he wanted to rid the world of Humanity, His best interest was to stop the insanity and scrap the human idea.

Well now you are talking about his best interests. Are his best interests necessarily our best interests? On the face of it, it seems that our interests do not align with his since we are the ones being scrapped. 

 

caposkia wrote:

 We could argue that it was still in the best interest of humanity be it that to destroy them would prevent possibly centuries of hell on Earth for all those infants and children and generations to come.    Currently and now, through Jesus we are saved, so the best interest is in mind here.  

You could argue that if you want to stick with an incredibly weak argument. Now, arguing that through Jesus he saved us and has our best interests in mind now as opposed to a past where he did not have humanity's best interests as a goal makes more sense. However, that suggests that god has changed his goals at least once in the past, which means he could change them again in the future. Should we blindly follow a being who might change his mind and decide to get rid of us in the future?  

 

caposkia wrote:

The Bible is an accurate portrayal but context is important when studying it.  You look at God destorying humanity without information of what humanity was really like at the time, what could have been if not and what is because of it.  You also implant assumptions about death and what happened to specifically infants and children.  The truth is, we know that things were bad and that God was so distraught with what was going on that he actually wished he hasn't made people to begin with.  He also promised to never do that again after it happened.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that god made a mistake when he first made humans? How can an omnipotent and omniscient being wish he didn't do something?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

If you read the Bible.. and all you saw was a God that is cruel, petty, vain and doesn't give a shit about humans, then you haven't studied it.  You might want to look back through it... stop looking for everything that looks bad and start looking for everything that looks good.. something tells me you might take a bit longer getting through it.  Instead of looking for what looks like evil things God did, how about compiling a list of the good things God has done for us.... shouldn't be too much if what you say is true right?

If we are talking about an imperfect being than we can discuss whether the good it does outweighs the bad as a cost benefit analysis. Christians don't claim their god is imperfect nor admit that he makes mistakes. They claim that he is perfect and should be followed blindly because he is perfect. Most Christians I know claim that god is the very definition of good and therefore, everything he does is good. If you want to admit that god is not perfect and not completely good, then I would be happy to have a discussion on whether or not the good he has done outweighs the bad. Without that initial starting point, such discussions are pointless.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

we don't celebrate mass murderers because that's breaking Gods laws.  That is not allowing Gods work to take place, it is if anything inhibiting it though it gets done in other ways.

How do you know? You made the claim earlier in the thread that if you are able to save a little girl about to be hit by the bus that it must have been god who influenced you to be there to save her or not be there in time. Either way, it is "God's will". If god gets involved in things that minute, is it inconceivable that he would influence a mass murderer? According the the bible, he has ordered genocides before so it would be completely consistent for him to order one again. Maybe the Jews were going to be really bad people in the future and god was telling Hitler to kill them all. How would you know he didn't?  Can you say with any certainty that he wouldn't order something similar in the future? 

 

caposkia wrote:

I find it hard to believe it didn't happen be it that evidence has been found for such a flood.

Where is the evidence? And when did it happen? There is a lot of evidence of floods, they tend to occur every single year around rivers and once and awhile you get really big floods that to stone age people would seem like the whole world flooding. Now we call them "100 year" floods. There is no evidence that the entire world ever flooded and there is significant scientific evidence that such an event would be impossible. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So why did god put the tree there? We recently had a discussion about a 5 year old who shot his sister with a gun. Do we blame the child? I'm sure his parents told him not to shoot his sister at some point. I blame the parents, because they had the power to store the gun where the kid couldn't access it and should have had the foresight to recognize the dangers of storing the gun where an unsupervised 5 year old could get it.  

that is a discussion many of us had... the conclusion that makes the most sense to me is that God had a plan for it... unlike your gun analogy, the tree was likely there to eventually be eaten when Adam and Eve had matured enough to know how to handle the power/comprehension/wisdom... whatever it was that they would recieve from the fruit.

Humans invented safes and trigger locks to keep kids away from guns until they are mature enough. Apparently God wasn't smart enough to think of that. 

 

caposkia wrote:

What if instead these children were just going to be abused... considering death for a chlid is to go and be cared for by God, what would be more unjust, to let them live through a childhood of unnameable abuses or to "die" on Earth and live with God unabused?  

Basically what we're doing here is assuming what was going to happen to these children... all we know is that humanity was at its worst.  Likely all of the above was happening.  What is more justified in this case?

And god couldn't think of any other way to prevent abuse? Say for example, have the kids magically brought to the ark along with all the other animals that magically got there and somehow lived in such a small vessel. Really, once you have decided to use magic already, why not use it for something as important as protecting kids?

 

caposkia wrote:

We have to look at it as this way... everyone dies.. by the will of God.  So if God takes a life, we here say it was there time.  You see an elderly person dying of old age as murder?  

If we ever prove god exists, someone really needs to sue him for faulty construction. What gives god the authority to decide when it is our time? Why should we automatically accept that he has seized that authority? 

 

caposkia wrote:

I must ask... when looking for a response from God.. are you looking for an actual vocal response.. or possibly an email?  Consider that God does not communicate necessarily like we do with each other.  What are you looking for when you ask God?

I didn't put any limits on it. Being omnipotent, god should know a way to communicate with me. Dreams, voices in my head, coming as a burning bush, e-mail, voicemail, phone call, text message, instagram, twitter, facebook, fax, as a face in the bottom of my whiskey, with a talking horse or whatever else he wants to dream up. I am not picky, nor am I a difficult person to get a hold of. If I have a choice, I would really love a face to face meeting.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Really? I haven't been helping for 40 years yet (not that old), but I help people because I get pleasure from helping people. Most people I encounter in the philanthropist world help others because they have a real enthusiasm and derive pleasure from whatever organization they devote their lives to. Why would people devote so much of their time, money and lives to such endeavors if they did not enjoy it? 

exactly... but see the difference here?  You don't get bored because you have a real enthusiasm and get pleasure from doing whatever it is... you don't get entertainment by it... there is the difference.   Those entertaining things will pass away.  Charity will not

I have known people who have burnt out after devoting decades of their lives to charity. In fact, I would say it is inevitable that people who have been involved with a particular charity find their enthusiasm waning over time and even when they stay involved they take on less active roles than when they first started. Even if you don't accept that though, there is a major problem with your claim. In order to be charitable, there has to be someone who needs charity. If heaven is perfectly good, no one in heaven needs charity. So what exactly are you supposed to do for eternity?

 

caposkia wrote:

none of those things define the core beliefs of Christianity... and many of those brought up are clear if you read scripture... e.g. God sends all gays to hell as much as He sends all Christians to hell.  In other words, not all Christians are saved, but not all gays are going to hell, some gays are Christian.  Some Christians... are not Christians... consider that for a moment.  

Here also lies the reason why I don't follow religion.   Religion causes disagreements, which causes separation... which is against scripture... anyone who considers themselves a True follower has that understanding and abstains from religious debates with those who defend themselves with doctrine and not scripture.  

So says you, but I have been assured by many Christians that if you are not their particular sect that you will go to hell. They all claim to know the Truth and they all claim they are the ones who understand scripture and everyone else is wrong. The bible is quite clear that god thinks gays deserve to die, whether you can still get into heaven after being killed for committing such a sin depends on which Christian you ask. Most questions I ask I get different answers from different people who claim to be Christian.

The one thing you are all the same on though is that if I point out any particular bible verse, 99.9% of Christians will say "you need to understand the context" or "you can't just read the bible, you have to study it". Now, I admit I have not devoted serious time to studying the bible like I have spent studying subjects that interest me. I have read the entire thing cover to cover twice in my life and I have been to several dozen services where they focused on one passage or another. I have had very in depth discussions with a number of Christians who do study the bible on a daily basis and had them attempt to explain things to me, which is usually how I approach subjects I have a passing interest in. For example, if I want to know something about quantum physics I would make a post on this board and there are plenty of people who have studied the subject enough to give me a decent layman's explanation or refer me to one, so that I understand the basics. Useful since I do not have the time or initiative to get a university level education on the subject but I do get curious occasionally. 

The bible is quite simple compared to quantum physics. It is a single book that purports to have all the answers. However, whenever I am talking to a Christian and ask them to explain some particular detail, they make no sense at all. Ultimately, every explanation boils down to "you have to have faith". How can I have faith in something that does not make sense? Just the thought experiment of assuming there is a god and imagining him doing all the things he has done in the bible makes as much sense to me as when my nephew told me the story about how he was eaten by a bear and pooped out. Standing on their own, the stories in the bible are absurd and things that you would dismiss immediately as mythology if you were visiting some tribal culture that told you the same story. Now, I admit it is possible that something I dismiss as absurd can in fact be possible, but I am not going to believe it without a substantial amount of evidence. And when I ask for evidence, what do I get? Basically, I should believe because a bunch of people throughout history have believed. Not good enough. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Sure,

caposkia wrote:
Sure, Everyone except a few random tribes in the world knows the name Jesus Christ... but do they know the Christ we know?  Likewise, does the world know the McDonalds we know.  If you do the research, you'll find they don't.  It differs drastically depending on the location.  

Only to an extent however. No matter where you go, mcdonalds is a restaurant. I can get mclobsters on the coast while not in the interior, sure. But it's still a restaurant.
Same with christ. No matter where you go, he is a religious figure. Whether saviour or prophet or martyr or even just a messenger, he is inescapably tied to the abrahamic faiths.

caposkia wrote:
which is what we do

It'd be foolish for me to say none of you do, but the majority of those who are vocal about their religion most certainly have no interest in studying anything. They simply regurgitate passages from a 2000+ year old collection of fables and stories and threaten hell to those who aren't satisfied with their explanations.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:f they did

caposkia wrote:
f they did not understand death as something not to be desired or "not good" then it would have been pointless for God to warn them that death would be an inevitable consequence.  It would not make sense.
 

I agree, but that's only one thing that doesn't make sense in a story full of things that make no sense. The thing that makes the least sense is the idea someone can think death is bad when they have no concept of what bad is.

caposkia wrote:
Rather up front it would make sense to say you can stay here as long as you don't eat the fruit... be it that he ultimately kicked them out of the garden.  By context they had to understand death.

But could not frame it as a good or bad consequence, merely as a consequence. Any amount of curiosity at all would be sufficient to override any potential consequence as there was no knowledge of consequences being good or bad. So ultimately god is at fault for creating the scenario.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sorry to break this sentence

Sorry to break this sentence up, but it had two distinct and separate claims for me to counter:

caposkia wrote:
except you have no power over their choices before you were born

If I don't exist I cannot be influenced by anything.

caposkia wrote:
and when you were a child too young to know the difference.

But then I grew up and reevaluated my childhood experiences, choosing what I would allow to influence me. There is very little from my childhood which influences me today.

caposkia wrote:
none taken, but how can you say that with such certainty?  How do you know my father and mother's parents didn't come from the same street in the same country and move over together?

I don't know for certain that you wouldn't have been born, but the probability of your parents meeting and conceiving you in a different country in the same month of the same year is so small I'd bet the entire Earth against it happening.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
May 11th -- Who sat upon the Throne -- Addendum ::

 Unfortunately a Necessary Addendum ::

  To May 5th or I mean May 11th :

                  I cannot dictate to you, your response. However, I should plainly warn you I took exceptional offense (was highly offended) by the insinuations that were made by an individual on the board regarding the May 11th question(s). This clearly is not a trap or an attempt at debunking. Dont miss read this in any way!! If there is a state above offense, it may have been reached within me, so be careful on your reply to this 'Seat of SATAN' reference, I sincerely and earnestly personally implore you. To take a accusatory approach is highly ill advised (apparently). The only purpose is to achieve a fuller understanding. Knowledge. Despite utter innocence, in no way prevented accusations being hurled at me from one christian quarter. Causing a firestorm I do not think you'd appreciate at all. I sure as hell would rather avoid it myself :¬ (Breaking it down firestorm is overstating it but it leaves the same sized crater). This affords me to re-re-state, I ran across this quite 'serendipitously', as I tried to show, this I can honestly assure you of.  I hadn't ever known about this prior to this month. Perhaps because other portions of the Book of Revelation were of far greater interest in the origins of the symbolic imagery used in it. I am simply asking a question here (try not to read too much into it)! This not a tactic or some trap. The other party's insinuations did lasting and permanent damage to our relationship. Something to avoid!! So Please I would appreciate it very much if you would do me the kindness of taking this at face value. I merely was asking this question that had me stumped and didnt seem to make sense to me. It IS an honest inquiry and honest question. You have no reason to believe otherwise, that being the case, let's keep it that way, shall we !?

  F i n


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

I find the idea of ritual sacrifice of animals to be very distasteful and immoral. Don't you have a problem when some sadist buys a dog for the sole purpose of cutting it up and killing it? I do, and I am a hunter who has killed and butchered many animals throughout my life.

I find it inexplicable that the one and only real god would want exactly the same thing as all the fake gods.

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

www.ussliberty.org

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

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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Jinx . . . . Join the way of the Dana Sutra :)


 



 > Attn. -  T0: Caposkia

 

 

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I find the idea of ritual sacrifice of animals to be very distasteful and immoral. Don't you have a problem when some sadist buys a dog for the sole purpose of cutting it up and killing it? I do, and I am a hunter who has killed and butchered many animals throughout my life.

I find it inexplicable that the one and only real god would want exactly the same thing as all the fake gods.

theBible wrote:
The Writer of the Book Of Hebrews IX: 22b -- And for without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (forgiveness) of sin

 

 First, Nony has been examining portions of the Old Testament, off and on, for quite a number of years by now. His is a provocative and even insightful take in this remark of his (Above). Admittingly failing to expatiate much. The Religion beat : The New Testament writer's counterproposal :: In a word, Substitutionary Why do every once in a while I get this paranoid feeling I will end up paying for this someday ?!? I didn't write it, in the same book you have both sacrificial and priestly roles described, which strike some people as almost odd .. (I have many hats I can wear at any given moment) :¬

  Our,  ALL men,  treasured right to discovery.  Imbibing the correct knowledge,  while not trying to  piss-off  'Sentient Cosmic Force(s)'  too much in the process (tehe) :¬ 

  * ** *

  At the deepest levels of deepness, often times we avoid the most obvious solution, looking to a clearer way via the least obvious path (Dana sutra)! ¬ Copyrighted  2013  -- Do not re-use without expressed permission 

 * ** *

   Hopefully Cap will arrive back in the next three days or so.  In all fairness I should have warned him (Cap) I have an extensively long track record, in the little interaction that we have, of being a huge Jinx to christians on this board, not the exact intent, this I also assure you  I think I am simply showing friendly overtures, when it often has the exact(-ly) opposite desired effect ,(NOT unlike people management for the clueless, where instead of a desired behavior it ends up in backfiring without meaning to).  I am all over knowledge for knowledge sake though, the content in various religious writings should be incentive enough resulting in fuller understanding. The level of cooperation might not be as much the issue with being a bit of a Jinx, I'm afraid. He'll KNOW. 

:::

     (Edit : Uploaded images, experiencing glitchy difficulties & vehicle broke down, still) 

_______

  "Don't Copy that Floppy" ¬ Bill Gates  HomeBrew Computer Club /(Society), 1976; 1983 Pot calling the kettle Billy Boy. Does Tim Patterson EVER get credit for 'his' QDOS (I ask you)?   Btw,  They say,  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but ask first, K?

 p.s. - More dana funny-pant's broken down humor. Why Not Tiptoe Thur' the Tulips With Me (See: Uploads)?  :¬ 

F i n i s h e d

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:They did??

Jabberwocky wrote:

They did?? What are these writings? Did the later writings refer to them in any detail? 

Mostly NT writings have a better understanding of eye witness accounts.  When investigating the scripture, scholars find evidence of authorship that points to those claimed to be a witness in the story.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Also, you seem to rule out the possibilty that the people professing to have witnessed these things could have been deluded, or lying.

You seem to rule out the possibility that they may have actually witnessed it.

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

Yes they do allude to him in history. They also, however, allude to early Christians.  The Christians were notable, and they certainly were adamant that this person existed. Maybe he was based on a real person from that time, but we can't be sure. The second part of this argument holds no water either. Jesus did focus on the down and outs (according to the bible) but he also was said to have done some very notable and public things (according to the bible) that WOULD have been noted by contemporary historians. The fact remains that they weren't. 

no????  What evidences would contemporary historians find as far as proof that Jesus did these things publicly other than those who claim to have witnessed it?

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Both which came after all scripture had been completed and were inspired by the following and came from those who were beleivers in the faith but decided to go their own way.

Wow. You actually pulled out the "my book is right, and their books are wrong" defence.

No, I pulled out the... "they were born and raised in families of a following that adhered to Biblical scripture and then came up with their own following" defense... but anyway, moving on...

Jabberwocky wrote:

This is not an argument, it is simply an assertion.  

You can look that information up in history.  The assertion was you claiming that I said they were wrong.

Jabberwocky wrote:

You've essentially said nothing more than a little bit of special pleading. "after all scripture had been completed".

...which you can research and find proof of...

Jabberwocky wrote:

You're saying this as if Christians are the only ones who believe as much about their own scriptures. It's not. You must provide more than an assertion if you're going to convince anyone.

likewise Eye-wink

Jabberwocky wrote:

I wasn't comparing the after-lives. I was stating that slaves are unhappy, and given a chance, they may revolt, run away, or do all sorts of things. Most of us humans don't like to be screwed over our whole lives, and if that seems to be happening, we tend to do something about it. If you can convince your slaves that they will be rewarded when they die (it doesn't matter which version of heaven you plug in here), then you don't have to reward them in real life so long as you keep them convinced.  Whether you're a Christian or not, you have to agree that Christianity could be used for this pur

it can be and has been... does that make the whole system false?

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

but I'm not here to prove you wrong, I'm here to ask you why I'm wrong.  5 years later I'm still looking for that answer.

Because there are two extremes of how one can interpret Christian scriptures. 

1. The extreme Creationist view. This does not work. For one, the bible contains many internal contradictions, meaning that a literal interpretation of the whole document simply does not work. Also, it contains countless historical and scientific errors. Once you realize that, you can then move on to

no non-believer has been able to show me these contradictions to date.  So far there have been assumed contradictions that turned out to be misinterpretations based on their version of the English scriptures.   

If you want to get into that with me, you better know something about the languages.

Jabberwocky wrote:

2. Moderate Christianity. The watered down, most of the old testament is allegory/irrelevant, etc. etc....except that is not reconcilable either. If Jesus died for our sins, what about those without sin? What about people who are incapable of making responsible decisions due to a mental defect? Oh, the Christians came up with that solution; original sin!!! But wait! If Adam and Eve weren't actually real, where the hell did that come from?

in other words... the uneducated guess... they hypocrathise!... yea I made it up...

Jabberwocky wrote:

Method 1 of interpreting the bible (save the contradictions) is somewhat coherent, but it is incompatible with reality. Method 2 is incompatible with itself. There are simply too many problems when you have to eliminate important passages. It's a house of cards, and it fell apart long ago. 

if it did, then why is it still standing?  and standing strong in this world?  Dont' give me the ignorance excuse either... there are many well educated individuals out there who believe in it.  I am truly curious on your stance here.

Jabberwocky wrote:

That is why you're wrong. What I do recommend, is that you read a translation of the Qu'ran, and the entire bible, and then explain to yourself why the bible is a god inspired document, and the Qu'ran is not. If you've been trying to find out why you're wrong for 5 years, you're not trying hard enough. 

I have not been trying to figure it out... i've been asking those who tell me I'm wrong to show me why... they've failed.  

If you want to challenge my understanding of why the Bible is inspired by God, the Qu'ran is not the way to go.  A simple history lesson can defend my position on that.  C'mon, give me a challenge.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hah, "those who (claim they) know God". Those people don't exactly have a sparkling reputation at this moment. Mega-church pastors raking in the dough. Ray Comfort making buttloads as well. Peter Popoff, knowingly scamming people. Clergy from probably every major denomination of Christianity in the world who are child rapists. These are the people we should trust? Are you freaking kidding me? 

you've been brainwashed by the media... you really think they were who I was talking about???.. no wonder you have a problem with Christianity.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Why should he care? Because the alternative is that I suffer for ever. Anything else I do with my life, any accomplishments, even if I devote my life to, and am successful at, curing all disease, and poverty, and remedying all crime, and terrorism from the world, can do nothing to help me. Because on one "yes or no" question, I answered "No, I don't believe that's the case", I deserve to be tortured for ever. It's the furthest thing from the will of an omni-benevolent being I can think of. Yahweh.

 

The question was if you don't care why should he... your statement above obviously shows you care, therefore He does too... and you don't get eternal separation from God just because you you answered one yes or no question wrong.  You are accountable for every little thing you've done in life.  Good and bad... are you suggesting you were a perfect angel throughout your whole life?  

 


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

danatemporary wrote:
Who sat on the Throne of Satan (honest and curious about) . .
caposkia wrote:
The Bible doesn't say a whole lot about the angels and exactly what took place in heaven to cause 1/3 of all angels to fall, but what we do know is that they followed Satan and his perspective. They all rebelled against God somehow with Satan as their leader. To connect it to mankind, Satan came down as a serpent and talked to them manipulating adam and eve into making a choice that they originally wouldn't have made. I think by the way the bible summarizes these events, it makes it sound like their directly linked and all happen at the same time, but I think there's a whole lot that has not been told on the spiritual side.
. . . I dont think it is hard to understand when I ask on how the development the an understand came to pass (say that three times fast) And what the understanding became :¬ . . . You may have been confused by why I was asking more than what I was asking, K? . ... . I do understand why you'd say that, believe it or not. However, I'd like to know more from the pages of the Bible (lucky you). If I were fielding my own set of questions, I would be sure to include examples like this one (Here and Below):
Bible wrote:
17 Then the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?” (and damned if you didnt know it he was right). 18 Micaiah said, “Therefore, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right and on His left. 19 The Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab king of Israel to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that. 20 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ And the Lord said to him, ‘How?’ 21 He said, ‘I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice him and prevail also. Go and do so.’ 22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of these your prophets..
. . . Btw, Rest assured, If one thing is true about the board, it's people are less than subtle. Transparency needn't be enforced, it like the Hindu's Karma, it just is. I don't think you can appreciate the board, if you ever feel under attack (under siege); what a wonder the board is and how open and free it is. I'd feel deeply deprived if it didn't exist. Whatever is going on with me. If I start Columbo¬ing your butt (played by Peter Falk) please feel free to tell me to knock it off (I insist). It is not the least bit conscious on my part, honest! No larceny harbouring and I'm usually honest until it bleeds most days. I do not mean to present this hidden agenda like manner in this. We are simply presented with questions most do not usually ask enough. . . . I think it may be to 'our' advantage (and pay off) for me to announce to you what I am currently working on yesterday. It will involve me becoming unnecessarily wordy but you got the time :¬ It ties into the question about the roles of Satan, in an odd manner, how he was understood. . . . Start a the beginning. One the the board's Users brought up something about the christian Devil from Occultists. It was puzzling the parallels the occultists were making. Made some unexpected connections, that highlighted how little is known about Satan (according to the holy bible), as you were suggesting in the reply. Now Parallels are usually simple to follow the reasoning behind them, it's not rocket science, for Heaven's sakes. It comes easy for me. It was one of those, this does not compute moments; and will drive you to dig deeper. Is this a curse and a blessing, it depends? With the Occultists and Ancient Astronauts not with the blessing part, frankly. Unending pain, closer to that, yes. What makes it hard to understand the rational of occults even use. They are like Vultures ... that carry off little bits and pieces of dead religions, ending up with this odd assemblage. Or like a pile of stones in a giant heap. You wonder, what was this supposed to have been ?! Not good! I already know, like with the Spiritists of the late 19th Century, they follow a arbitrary pattern to making it up as they go along, filling in huge gaps in their own personal knowledge (it's absurd). Knowing full well this could be completely arbutrary, I ended it in less murkier waters of the Biblical texts. It led back to the book of Revelations again:
Bible wrote:
I know where you live--where Satan's throne is! And you are holding on to My name and did not deny your faith in Me, even in the days of Antipas, My faithful witness who was killed among you, where Satan lives.
. . . I used the search engine because my books are still in storage. I found out the 700-Club is listed as a source for information. Well That frightens me :¬ That said, From what I understand, The Great Altar of Zeus is the likeliest candidate for "the Seat (Throne) of Satan" specifically referenced and mentioned in Revelation. What do you know (or can find out) ? People have some knowledge about Zeus as being the ultra-super creep, extraordinaire 'ST0RM' god, philandering homosexual rapist (like with his cupbearer) that he was envisioned by the Greeks to be as. And You were suggesting people were 'worse' before the flood, impossible :¬ Can you say character issues ST0RM deities :¬ Relevance? Well, yeah! Obvious to understand how Satan came to be understood in the minds of early christians. I cannot understand this Seat or label, w/ even who it is attribuated to, no more than the Occultists ideas. New meaning to Satan being the author of confusion (implied) :¬ This causes a whole other set of questions! It has to be easier to piece together, than what is on the surface of things (I'd think). What are you to do with who would have sat upon this particular Throne referred to in Revelations ?

 

 

 

That was a lot to say.  I see your confusion too.  It is simple.  There's really not much to know about Satan.  He is a fallen angel:  Luke 10:18... and he was thrown down to Earth with the angels that rebelled with him.  Revelation 12:9.  Unlike popular belief, Satan's dwelling place isn't this hell that everyone's so upset about, it's Earth.  This would explain why so much bad happens here.  But again, it's only what we allow, Luke 10:17.  

From what i understand, any god claiming to be thee god is of Satan.  It may not be Satan himself, but of his following.  Some argue that other gods did good things... Satan is not oppose to good acts, he is opposed to Yahweh, so anything that will pull people from the God of the Bible will do, including good.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Are you

Beyond Saving wrote:

Are you saying it makes a difference if you sacrifice a dog as opposed to a goat or a lamb? 

there were specific rules as to what types of animals were sacrificial, reread Exodus and Numbers.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You said he wanted to save everyone. Obviously, not everyone has been brought to Jesus. In fact, until the last 500 years or so, the vast majority of the human population never even heard of Jesus.

There are a few resurrections in Revelation that seem to rectify that issue.  In other words, if they didn't know Jesus then, they will when they return.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Even if you want to phrase it as "letting them leave", I think it is bad parenting not to welcome your children back in the future. I am not even convinced of God's existence, so how could I choose to be with something that I don't believe exists? Now when I die, and I see pearly gates I am going to be going "wow, it does exist". But according to Christians, at that point it is too late for me. I will be sent to hell for eternity. I guess the human equivalent would be being disowned by your parents for moving out of the house. Imo, a good parent would forgive their children and welcome them back after they saw the error of their ways. Admittedly, I am probably not the slightest bit qualified to comment on parenting. 

You mean like the prodigal son??? Bible reference... anyway  God does accept His children back when they return.. many don't return however such as your case.  

It's one thing not to believe, it's another thing to seek out reasons to not believe.  You have a lot of misguided problems with God.  Instead of considering them misguided, you feed off of them and compile them.

Beyond Saving wrote:

He hasn't done anything to me and that is why my life is great. 

then you have nothing to say on that.

Beyond Saving wrote:

And you are back to "he created us so whatever he does is good". Do you believe it is impossible that an evil or at least imperfect being might have created humans?

 

 

somehow the 2nd part got erased... I didn't mean to do that.  To answer both bluntly... no and we can't.  

you follow with, 'so why do you think your God is so good?'  That is the question isn't it.  That goes back to considering all that He has done, all the patience He has had, all the love he has shown us, but of course you will see none of that because God has punished some... so God is bad.... bad parents punish their kids for doing something wrong...

oh, but not eternally... eternal suffering is bad parenting... unless you consider that eternal is not forever and what is eternal to us might not be in the grand scheme of things.  

This gets into the science of time and how that might work, but it's quite a tangent.

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Even today people witness alien abductions. And they will tomorrow too.

absolutely, I also had lunch with Elvis the other day.. though the number of people claiming that might be in the hundreds... Alien abductions, many hundreds of thousands I'm sure.  Witnesses of God's work, over 1 Billion.  

now how do we decipher which group might actually have a founded understanding of what they're experiencing and why???

Beyond Saving wrote:

How can we destroy what god created? He is infinitely more powerful than us. We couldn't destroy anything he didn't want destroyed if we tried.

He left us in charge of His creation.  and He WANTS us to have a choice... it's as simple as that.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are exactly the same kind of dead you would be if a human killed you. If it is bad for a human to kill you, then it is bad for a lion to kill you and it is bad for god to kill you. In general, I consider being killed by anything to be bad and think it should be avoided when possible. 

absolutely... so I wonder why those people didn't try to avoid it in the flood?  What? they didn't have a choice?  of course they did.. again, I understand it that if any of them took the warnings that a flood was coming seriously, they would have been on that ship with Noah.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

My sentence is structured to question your claim of what is present by point out what happened in the past and is perfectly acceptable English. When you are talking about two separate events that occur in different times, it is necessary to use different tenses to convey the correct meaning. The rule of thumb against using different tenses is as strict as all the other rules in our language. For example, "i before e except after c" and except a bunch of other words as well. The joys of having a language that is a composite of several different languages. Americans have never been very good at following rules Sticking out tongue

So the point of my question is to point out that you claim god currently has our best interests as his goal. I intended to question that claim on the basis of his previous actions. 

God when He had determined to destroy humanity did not have humanities best interests in mind.  Today however he does... that's why your sentence was bad English and lost focus on the point.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You could argue that if you want to stick with an incredibly weak argument. Now, arguing that through Jesus he saved us and has our best interests in mind now as opposed to a past where he did not have humanity's best interests as a goal makes more sense. However, that suggests that god has changed his goals at least once in the past, which means he could change them again in the future. Should we blindly follow a being who might change his mind and decide to get rid of us in the future?  

He won't, he had promised it and I have yet to see in history or today my God break a promise.  

But on a separate note, no you should not blindly follow a being.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Wait a minute. Are you saying that god made a mistake when he first made humans? How can an omnipotent and omniscient being wish he didn't do something?

God had regretted a choice He had made.   A being to has all power and all knowledge will know all possibilities... including the bad.  Omniscience is complete knowledge... by definition it says nothing about being a puppeteer of future events.  Rather the knowledge God possesses may reveal a number of possible futures and God likely hoped it would never come to that particular future.  The thing is, when God gave us choice, He allowed us to choose our own path out of the infinite number of paths to take.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

If we are talking about an imperfect being than we can discuss whether the good it does outweighs the bad as a cost benefit analysis. Christians don't claim their god is imperfect nor admit that he makes mistakes. They claim that he is perfect and should be followed blindly because he is perfect. Most Christians I know claim that god is the very definition of good and therefore, everything he does is good. If you want to admit that god is not perfect and not completely good, then I would be happy to have a discussion on whether or not the good he has done outweighs the bad. Without that initial starting point, such discussions are pointless.

Which in turn deems our discussion pointless

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

 

caposkia wrote:

we don't celebrate mass murderers because that's breaking Gods laws.  That is not allowing Gods work to take place, it is if anything inhibiting it though it gets done in other ways.

How do you know? You made the claim earlier in the thread that if you are able to save a little girl about to be hit by the bus that it must have been god who influenced you to be there to save her or not be there in time. Either way, it is "God's will". If god gets involved in things that minute, is it inconceivable that he would influence a mass murderer? According the the bible, he has ordered genocides before so it would be completely consistent for him to order one again. Maybe the Jews were going to be really bad people in the future and god was telling Hitler to kill them all. How would you know he didn't?  Can you say with any certainty that he wouldn't order something similar in the future? 

yes, because of Jesus Christ... it would go against that whole effort.  Before Jesus' time, many believed that if something bad happened to you, that it was because you deserved it in some way.. see the book of Job.  It wasn't very clear, however Jesus' whole ministry taught a much clearer picture about those ideas

Beyond Saving wrote:

Where is the evidence? And when did it happen? There is a lot of evidence of floods, they tend to occur every single year around rivers and once and awhile you get really big floods that to stone age people would seem like the whole world flooding. Now we call them "100 year" floods. There is no evidence that the entire world ever flooded and there is significant scientific evidence that such an event would be impossible. 

I believe I"ve already posted a link on that somewhere a bit back... maybe it was on a different thread.  I'll have to find it.   Remind me if you don't see it from me in my next series of posts.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Humans invented safes and trigger locks to keep kids away from guns until they are mature enough. Apparently God wasn't smart enough to think of that. 

or it was part of the test... nah, that's to obvious

Beyond Saving wrote:

And god couldn't think of any other way to prevent abuse? Say for example, have the kids magically brought to the ark along with all the other animals that magically got there and somehow lived in such a small vessel. Really, once you have decided to use magic already, why not use it for something as important as protecting kids?

that goes back to what the children would have brought, whether it was a punishment for the parents to realize what they have done to their families, etc.  Also, you seem to have all the answers for someone who doesn't know everything.  Have you ever considered that maybe God thought of that and knew that wouldn't be a good idea?  Why?  I don't know, but I do know that every choice He has made has resulted in better things for his followers.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If we ever prove god exists, someone really needs to sue him for faulty construction. What gives god the authority to decide when it is our time? Why should we automatically accept that he has seized that authority? 

because it was always His authority and He created us and everything we depend on to survive and beyond... maybe....

Beyond Saving wrote:

I didn't put any limits on it. Being omnipotent, god should know a way to communicate with me. Dreams, voices in my head, coming as a burning bush, e-mail, voicemail, phone call, text message, instagram, twitter, facebook, fax, as a face in the bottom of my whiskey, with a talking horse or whatever else he wants to dream up. I am not picky, nor am I a difficult person to get a hold of. If I have a choice, I would really love a face to face meeting.  

When the time is right then... whenever that is... I believe it will happen.  I'm sure that's not much assurance for you, but I don't doubt that if you are sincere with your words it will happen.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have known people who have burnt out after devoting decades of their lives to charity. In fact, I would say it is inevitable that people who have been involved with a particular charity find their enthusiasm waning over time and even when they stay involved they take on less active roles than when they first started. Even if you don't accept that though, there is a major problem with your claim. In order to be charitable, there has to be someone who needs charity. If heaven is perfectly good, no one in heaven needs charity. So what exactly are you supposed to do for eternity?

be there for each other and God in whatever way that might be.  The thing is, I believe that if every person in the world was charitable as discussed above, then we'd already be in that perfectly good heaven.  I believe that's what eternal life is like.  We're still going to have choice, we're still going to have to live life, but before anything can become a problem, someone will be there to remedy it.  God will always assure that someone is aware when something might not go right... this of course is pure speculation, but it makes a lot of sense.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

none of those things define the core beliefs of Christianity... and many of those brought up are clear if you read scripture... e.g. God sends all gays to hell as much as He sends all Christians to hell.  In other words, not all Christians are saved, but not all gays are going to hell, some gays are Christian.  Some Christians... are not Christians... consider that for a moment.  

Here also lies the reason why I don't follow religion.   Religion causes disagreements, which causes separation... which is against scripture... anyone who considers themselves a True follower has that understanding and abstains from religious debates with those who defend themselves with doctrine and not scripture.  

So says you, but I have been assured by many Christians that if you are not their particular sect that you will go to hell. They all claim to know the Truth and they all claim they are the ones who understand scripture and everyone else is wrong. The bible is quite clear that god thinks gays deserve to die, whether you can still get into heaven after being killed for committing such a sin depends on which Christian you ask. Most questions I ask I get different answers from different people who claim to be Christian.

Again why I don't follow religion.  You've been assured by many "Christains" of a particular sect... that right there should send off warning bells.  If a sect claims to be a part of a greater following and yet claims they're the only way... there's a problem with that.  

Also, the bible states that a man should not lie with another man like man lies with a woman and likewise with women... I dont' remember reading any quote from the Bible saying Gays must die.  If you could show me that, it'd be helpful.

Beyond Saving wrote:

The one thing you are all the same on though is that if I point out any particular bible verse, 99.9% of Christians will say "you need to understand the context" or "you can't just read the bible, you have to study it". Now, I admit I have not devoted serious time to studying the bible like I have spent studying subjects that interest me. I have read the entire thing cover to cover twice in my life and I have been to several dozen services where they focused on one passage or another. I have had very in depth discussions with a number of Christians who do study the bible on a daily basis and had them attempt to explain things to me, which is usually how I approach subjects I have a passing interest in. For example, if I want to know something about quantum physics I would make a post on this board and there are plenty of people who have studied the subject enough to give me a decent layman's explanation or refer me to one, so that I understand the basics. Useful since I do not have the time or initiative to get a university level education on the subject but I do get curious occasionally. 

The bible is quite simple compared to quantum physics. It is a single book that purports to have all the answers. However, whenever I am talking to a Christian and ask them to explain some particular detail, they make no sense at all. Ultimately, every explanation boils down to "you have to have faith". How can I have faith in something that does not make sense? Just the thought experiment of assuming there is a god and imagining him doing all the things he has done in the bible makes as much sense to me as when my nephew told me the story about how he was eaten by a bear and pooped out. Standing on their own, the stories in the bible are absurd and things that you would dismiss immediately as mythology if you were visiting some tribal culture that told you the same story. Now, I admit it is possible that something I dismiss as absurd can in fact be possible, but I am not going to believe it without a substantial amount of evidence. And when I ask for evidence, what do I get? Basically, I should believe because a bunch of people throughout history have believed. Not good enough. 

I don't blame you that it's not good enough, but when a Christian says "you need to understand the context" there's something to it.  A Christian resorts to "you need to have faith" when they realize that you're not willing to investigate what they're trying to tell you.  It doesn't make sense to you because you choose not to give it enough effort.  I agree that in order to have faith in something you need to understand it, but in order to understand it, you need to study it and study it appropriately.  I wouldn't trust you with Chemistry just because you read a book on it cover to cover.  I would expect that you would have needed to use several books to "study" the concepts and proceedures.  I would also expect that you were studying under some experts in the field and possibly worked towards a degree.    Otherwise you're likely to blow a hole in the building you happen to be in under the right circumstances.  

The Bible is a compilation summary if you will.  hundreds... possibly thousands of ancient scripts have been compiled into books, which have been compiled into a series known as the Bible.  When you see a book, you're looking at thousands of years of compiled documentation of what we understand to be actual events.  It is for short a historical timeline of a particular following.  The understanding of that following comes in the context, not a cover to cover casual read. 

I truly hope that conversation with God will happen sooner rather than later for you.  I'm curious as to the outcome.

I will get to everyone elses at a later date.  Sorry I couldn't get to everyone tonight


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
>Plans of a god are Deep waters; we'LL have scars to prove it :

 Re :: The plans of a god are Deep waters; we'll have the scars to prove it:

 

Caposkia wrote:
..Some argue that other gods did good things... Satan is not oppose to good acts, he is opposed to Yahweh, so anything that will pull people from the God of the Bible will do, including good.


 

 See: Uploaded Image

 

Caposkia wrote:
  ..Some argue that other gods did good things... Satan is not oppose to good acts, he is opposed to Yahweh, so anything that will pull people from the God of the Bible will do, including good.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

They did?? What are these writings? Did the later writings refer to them in any detail? 

Mostly NT writings have a better understanding of eye witness accounts.  When investigating the scripture, scholars find evidence of authorship that points to those claimed to be a witness in the story.  

Could you clarify what you mean here? This is a poorly written sentence, and I wouldn't simply state that, but I'm not sure what you're even trying to convey. But I think you mean that scholars state that some of the pieces of the scriptures indicate that they are writing of eyewitnesses. However there are two problems with that. The information would be at BEST second hand, but the bigger problem is that the oldest of the synoptic gospels (Mark) was written some 30-40 years after the events supposedly occurred. This puts the information at probably at best third hand info. Even if they were writing of people who have claimed to witness these things (which I don't think they were) it doesn't mean that they happened. 

caposkia wrote:

You seem to rule out the possibility that they may have actually witnessed it.

I don't completely rule out the possibility, but I see it as an extraordinarily unlikely scenario. This is an incredible claim made, and it's only being written 30 or so years after. Have you ever heard of the alleged Roswell alien crash? There are a lot of places where you can read about what people who proclaim to have seen these things said. These are self-proclaimed eyewitnesses to what they understand to have been an extra-terrestrial phenomenon.  That sort of claim DOES require more evidence than at absolute best 2nd hand anecdotal evidence coming from self-proclaimed eyewitnesses, who already have come to the conclusion of what they saw actually was. When it comes to the Roswell crash, I think you would agree with me that they could have been mistaken, and misinterpreted what they saw. They could have been in a delusional state (be it due to drugs or something else). A combination of those two things can go a long way, as you may see something normal but uncommon, and interpret it as something other-worldly. Also, it is completely possible that some or all of the alleged witnesses are making the entire thing up! I doubt it's all of them, as someone most probably (but not definitely) saw something to set this off, and stay adamant that someone was wrong. However, it does not mean it's worthy of any consideration.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

Yes they do allude to him in history. They also, however, allude to early Christians.  The Christians were notable, and they certainly were adamant that this person existed. Maybe he was based on a real person from that time, but we can't be sure. The second part of this argument holds no water either. Jesus did focus on the down and outs (according to the bible) but he also was said to have done some very notable and public things (according to the bible) that WOULD have been noted by contemporary historians. The fact remains that they weren't. 

no????  What evidences would contemporary historians find as far as proof that Jesus did these things publicly other than those who claim to have witnessed it?

Probably very little to none. They would have heard about it second hand. However, they didn't. Jesus managed to do so many incredible things that the bible claims were witnessed by so many people, but not a single historian heard a thing, and thought to write it down? It took several decades to get something written, and by then it is easily chalked up to a small but growing cult called Christianity. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Wow. You actually pulled out the "my book is right, and their books are wrong" defence.

No, I pulled out the... "they were born and raised in families of a following that adhered to Biblical scripture and then came up with their own following" defense... but anyway, moving on...

You do realize that adherents of Judaism could claim the same about your book, right? They think that you're wrong for exactly the same reason that you think that Muslims are wrong. You haven't established yet why your book is correct, but have already accused others of writing an inaccurate revision.

caposkia wrote:

You can look that information up in history.  

That Islam came after Christianity? Yes. That it was similar, and slightly plagiarized? Yes! That Christianity is correct, and Islam is a deviation (as you seem to suggest), no. Still haven't found Jesus in history.

caposkia wrote:

The assertion was you claiming that I said they were wrong.

Umm, that is exactly what you say. You claim that Christianity is correct, and right there you asserted that Islam is an incorrect deviation. By definition, you did say exactly that.

caposkia wrote:

...which you can research and find proof of...

Only in the bible does it say that it is the final correct word. Literally anybody can write a sentence in a book and do the same thing. That does not make it true. Special pleading.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You're saying this as if Christians are the only ones who believe as much about their own scriptures. It's not. You must provide more than an assertion if you're going to convince anyone.

likewise Eye-wink

No. I am examining 3 Abrahamic scriptures. I find in them many similar themes, and many falsehoods. There is nothing that shows me that any of the 3 is more correct than another. I deem them all to be false (in exactly the same way that you deem the Qu'ran to be false). You are the one who is saying that the first one is incomplete, and only the first two together are the truth. You are affording a certain combination of these books a special status (one of truth) that you do not afford to all of them. Instead of providing why you think that's true, you're giving short answers, and breaking up my post to make it difficult to read (I have to have 3 tabs open just to cobble this together here).

Below: on using religion to exercise power over people

caposkia wrote:

it can be and has been... does that make the whole system false?

No. I was making an entirely different point, which you're trying to dodge again, rather than admit that this could have contributed greatly to the spread of Christianity.

caposkia wrote:

no non-believer has been able to show me these contradictions to date.  So far there have been assumed contradictions that turned out to be misinterpretations based on their version of the English scriptures.   

If you want to get into that with me, you better know something about the languages.

Which languages are you well versed in? Hebrew? Greek?

While we wait, Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give very differing genealogies of Joseph (Jesus's step-father if you will). Are the names mistranslated? Also, Luke holds 15 more names. Are we to believe that it was so badly mistranslated that most of the names were wrong, and many others were split in half (even though they seem to be full biblical-like names)?

If you'd like, answer that. If not, simply provide what your related languages credentials are, and we shall see how we can discuss this. 

Contradictions aside, you seem to take a literal view nonetheless. Let's start with Genesis. Adam and Eve could not have been the first people, as genetics have proven that our most recent common male ancestor, and our most recent common female ancestor, lived many many generations apart. Adam and Eve as written in Genesis are a genetic impossibility.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

2. Moderate Christianity. The watered down, most of the old testament is allegory/irrelevant, etc. etc....except that is not reconcilable either. If Jesus died for our sins, what about those without sin? What about people who are incapable of making responsible decisions due to a mental defect? Oh, the Christians came up with that solution; original sin!!! But wait! If Adam and Eve weren't actually real, where the hell did that come from?

in other words... the uneducated guess... they hypocrathise!... yea I made it up...

Ok, so you take view one. Got it...not a bad portmanteau though. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Method 1 of interpreting the bible (save the contradictions) is somewhat coherent, but it is incompatible with reality. Method 2 is incompatible with itself. There are simply too many problems when you have to eliminate important passages. It's a house of cards, and it fell apart long ago. 

if it did, then why is it still standing?  and standing strong in this world?  Dont' give me the ignorance excuse either... there are many well educated individuals out there who believe in it.  I am truly curious on your stance here.

Simple. Fear. Are educated people immune to every phobia? No. Humans almost unanimously have some fear of the unknown, and there is no greater unknown then death. I know many educated people with all sorts of fears, from heights, to dark, to spiders...anything! Hell, people who fear spiders can be scared of a spider even after they are convinced that they are harmless. Fear is not meant to be rational, and it is difficult to frame death in a comfortable light. Some people, once they've convincned themselves that they (and everyone else) will in some way cheat death, have every reason to re-assure themselves that that is the case.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

That is why you're wrong. What I do recommend, is that you read a translation of the Qu'ran, and the entire bible, and then explain to yourself why the bible is a god inspired document, and the Qu'ran is not. If you've been trying to find out why you're wrong for 5 years, you're not trying hard enough. 

I have not been trying to figure it out... i've been asking those who tell me I'm wrong to show me why... they've failed.  

You're asking me to unravel your faith in one sentence, and when I tell you that it's not possible, you're stating that I've failed. I'm telling you that all of the holy books are very similar. You seem unwilling to read one in order to find that out for yourself. 

caposkia wrote:

If you want to challenge my understanding of why the Bible is inspired by God, the Qu'ran is not the way to go.  A simple history lesson can defend my position on that.  C'mon, give me a challenge.

Did your science classes tell you that dinosaur fossils came from the world-wide flood? If it did, your history classes may have been tampered with as well. You keep urging me to give you a challenge, when you refuse to challenge yourself, or cite a SINGLE historical source (even after stating several times that the bible is perfectly historically sound)

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hah, "those who (claim they) know God". Those people don't exactly have a sparkling reputation at this moment. Mega-church pastors raking in the dough. Ray Comfort making buttloads as well. Peter Popoff, knowingly scamming people. Clergy from probably every major denomination of Christianity in the world who are child rapists. These are the people we should trust? Are you freaking kidding me? 

you've been brainwashed by the media... you really think they were who I was talking about???.. no wonder you have a problem with Christianity.

I did cite extreme examples, but yes I do possess a severe distrust for those who claim to know god better than I do. There is almost no way to verify if the person authentically believes that, or if they're lying (the only way being is if they get busted admitting their deceit, or if James Randi shows up with a radio scanner in the case of Popoff). If somebody claims that god is speaking to them, that means that one of following three options are true:

1. They're lying

2. They're insane

3. God is really speaking to them.

Number 3 wouldn't be any less scary than 1 & 2 either, because it would also mean that god only speaks to some people.  It would also mean that, since god would know that frauds and insane people exist, he would deem it safe to communicate to humanity in this way, and tell them to give people advice, without providing some sort of evidence of authenticity.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Why should he care? Because the alternative is that I suffer for ever. Anything else I do with my life, any accomplishments, even if I devote my life to, and am successful at, curing all disease, and poverty, and remedying all crime, and terrorism from the world, can do nothing to help me. Because on one "yes or no" question, I answered "No, I don't believe that's the case", I deserve to be tortured for ever. It's the furthest thing from the will of an omni-benevolent being I can think of. Yahweh.

 

The question was if you don't care why should he... your statement above obviously shows you care, therefore He does too... and you don't get eternal separation from God just because you you answered one yes or no question wrong.  You are accountable for every little thing you've done in life.  Good and bad... are you suggesting you were a perfect angel throughout your whole life?  

I never said that I was. However, if we are simply judged by our ratio of good vs. bad actions, then why is believing in Christianity necessary?

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
The human mind is ever seeking deeper meaning . .

 

 

Quote:
If you want to challenge my understanding of why the Bible is inspired by God . . C'mon, give me a challenge.

  The human mind is ever seeking deeper meaning , lessor reliant or dependent on well marked truth than its' amazing capability (the human mind) to order the world . .

¬  Dana

 

 


Skepticus
atheist
Skepticus's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2011-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:In attacking

Jimenezj wrote:

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

No, you're argument is very weak. Atheists responds to outlandish claims by theists. Do you really want to talk logic? Then tell me: Where is heaven? Theism to the logic person seems unreasonable!


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
“Ask, and it will be.., seek and ye will find" (how to begin) :

danatemporary wrote:

 

 

Quote:
If you want to challenge my understanding of why the Bible is inspired by God . . C'mon, give me a challenge.

  The human mind is ever seeking deeper meaning , lessor reliant or dependent on well marked truth than its' amazing capability (the human mind) to order the world . .

¬  Dana

The holy Bible contains approximately 66 book, and something on the order of / close to 774, 746 words contained in our English translation of it. For the sake of time and space can we pick up on a few topics ?

The holy Bible contains approximately 66 book, and something on the order of / close to 774, 746 words contained in our English translation of it. For the sake of time and space can we pick up on a few topics ?


  Hello AE or even Cap:

 
   (*sigh*) I honestly hate when people throw down challenges to the board and no one picks it up.  I may be mis-reading him (Caposkia) he is somewhat less defensive and far more approachable than a JesusLovesYou, TWD39, Jimenejz, Lee, or even the other like Jean Chauvin or the Professor (sigh). Remember 'Dolly the sheep', a decade back, was the female ewe having been 'cloned' from adult cells. Her 'creator' the Mr. Mad scientist came to a poetic and fitting end. I mention this because, what isn't commonly known is Dolly was the only ewe (there will never be another ewe, old-timey song) that survived to adulthood from 277. Christendom is often filled with disastrous 'failed' attempts, that are just as frankensteinian in nature. Fate will not be kind, IMO. In a hardening of hearts, Most of which inexplicably make their way to this board. Therefore, there is much joy Cap brings to me period, presuming he is quite different from these others. Anyhow. In a direct statement on this page, any can infer he thinks everyone is simply misinterpreting biblical portions in the holy bible. That said, Can we focus a moment on how this may persistently lead to a dismissiveness adopted by Cap, a common reaction. With all this 'misinterpreting' carrying on. Christendom is operating today all over the world. Faith is not a primary place to focus. (Texts remember). JesusLovesYou once said, ".. you dont understand faith". Okay. What of words ? Are words understandable, if you take context and cross-referencing into consideration ? Make a couple of sentences worth of "In my Opinion", says and tells NOTHING on what you are basing it upon/on! Can you say counterproductive :¬

  I'd think most recognize if there are between 3-5 interpretations in any given area of the holy bible. Out of which two can be tossed out immediately. What is presented, even if never documented as such. Christians work off the principle of Scripture interprets Scripture. I know BeyondSaving, HarleySporter, AtheistExtremist (example Thread in 'I wonder how many Theists are on this board') have flatly suggested the holy bible is not clear enough to even know what these words actually mean. Multiple interpretations only cloud the issue for each of them. Not meaning to single anyone out. I mention this for Caposkia's benefit (solely). This one (Dana), however, chooses to believe the texts are not containing an un-interpretable mass of unintelligible words, as it is made out to be. Caposkia is working off a set of (biblical) interpretations, about the Bible, allowing him, to his mind, affirm the Bible is/as the Inspired Word of 'G-d'. If there are multiple interpretations, it would warrant a further investigation, wouldn't it? (?)Couldnt we seek out their actually meaning of these words and wording? I indicated I was willing to question Caposkia about his interpretation of the bible, and delve into the texts. This requires full engagement to even begin to do so. No need for any to resort to 'tactics'!! Where does that leave us (plural). Caposkia said he was game. Thus far all I noticed was questions being asked, Caposkia was commenting on.  I partially address this to AE, with his family situation, he has experience with probing these things. And, I wanted to remind him Foz (It works for me) left a reply. To Cap exclusively, Could be productive to examine the texts for ideas about the Satan, as they've emerged, in a mutually respectful manner.

(Edit:: Uploaded the Ned Image to post--Edit Upload! )

Post Script --

  There is a road block that arises when people say "I don't know" and move on. I find cruelly dissatisfying myself (just so that you know)!! 

  . . .


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Are you saying it makes a difference if you sacrifice a dog as opposed to a goat or a lamb? 

there were specific rules as to what types of animals were sacrificial, reread Exodus and Numbers.

Yes, but if I am trying to make the determination of whether or not god is a good being and a leader I should follow does it make a difference? To me it seems like his rules are completely arbitrary. I find ritual sacrifice of a lamb as distasteful as the ritual sacrifice of a dog. Is the only difference to you because god says one is good and has no comment on the other? If god encouraged the sacrifice of dogs would you be ok with that? The sacrifice of people? 

 

caposkia wrote:

There are a few resurrections in Revelation that seem to rectify that issue.  In other words, if they didn't know Jesus then, they will when they return.

So the only people at risk of going to hell are people who have met Christians? Thanks a lot. I wonder how many billions of people are sitting in hell just because they met a missionary and didn't believe them. 

 

caposkia wrote:

You mean like the prodigal son??? Bible reference... anyway  God does accept His children back when they return.. many don't return however such as your case.  

The option of returning is stripped from me as soon as I have absolute evidence of his existence. If I see pearly gates when I die, suddenly I have evidence and I might be inclined to start believing. But according to most Christians I talk to, it is too late then. 

 

caposkia wrote:

It's one thing not to believe, it's another thing to seek out reasons to not believe.  You have a lot of misguided problems with God.  Instead of considering them misguided, you feed off of them and compile them.

I have asked you several times to provide reasons to believe, you have none except the bible and vague generalities. The problems I point out are more questions of whether I would actually worship the being if he did exist. I find it rather amazing that so many Christians routinely ignore the evil they claim has been done by their god. To worship the being described by Christians, you have to be ok with genocide, torture and cruelty. I am not ok with those things. 

 

caposkia wrote:

you follow with, 'so why do you think your God is so good?'  That is the question isn't it.  That goes back to considering all that He has done, all the patience He has had, all the love he has shown us, but of course you will see none of that because God has punished some... so God is bad.... bad parents punish their kids for doing something wrong...

oh, but not eternally... eternal suffering is bad parenting... unless you consider that eternal is not forever and what is eternal to us might not be in the grand scheme of things.  

This gets into the science of time and how that might work, but it's quite a tangent.

So hell isn't eternal then? I'm sorry, I don't see much love coming from god, haven't seen any at all actually. Nor do I see stories of god displaying a lot of love in the bible. I see him routinely killing humans that don't do what he wants in rather painful ways. Of course, it isn't really killing if god does it. Killing is wonderful when god does it, it is only terrible if humans do it. I forgot your blatant double standard. Personally, I prefer not to be killed by anyone or anything be it human, animal or god. I kinda like life and I assume that many of those people god killed or had killed did too. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Even today people witness alien abductions. And they will tomorrow too.

absolutely, I also had lunch with Elvis the other day.. though the number of people claiming that might be in the hundreds... Alien abductions, many hundreds of thousands I'm sure.  Witnesses of God's work, over 1 Billion.  

now how do we decipher which group might actually have a founded understanding of what they're experiencing and why???

We use this thing called evidence. Something which people who see aliens, Elvis, Bigfoot and god have none. The only reason the Christian religion is so large is because they spent the better part of the last couple of millenia going around conquering people and forcing the dominance of their religion. Without the Constantine adopting Christianity, it would probably be a footnote in history. Imperialism and colonialism work at spreading culture.

 

caposkia wrote:

He left us in charge of His creation.  and He WANTS us to have a choice... it's as simple as that.

Yet he gets mad when we don't make the choice he wants us to make. Why? If you are going to give someone the freedom to choose, it is hardly sensible to then get mad when they make a choice. For example, we don't want people to murder other people, so we do everything we can to prevent you from being able to make that choice. If the police have reason to believe you are about to murder someone, they will attempt to stop you and you will be punished for conspiracy to commit murder. Our society says you do not have the freedom to choose to murder someone. A good recent example is the kid who was arrested the other day for plotting to blow up his school. Do you think we should have allowed him the choice?

Of course, we are severely limited in our ability to actually prevent murders ahead of time because we are not omnipotent. God doesn't have that problem. Suppose we were omnipotent and police could prevent murders with 100% accuracy without ever punishing someone who wasn't going to commit a murder. Would you support the police waiting for the murder to happen because we need to allow the murderer to have a choice?!?!? I am a big fan of choice and freedom and argue for all sorts of freedoms in the political forums. Even I do not support the freedom to choose to murder someone.

 

caposkia wrote:

absolutely... so I wonder why those people didn't try to avoid it in the flood?  What? they didn't have a choice?  of course they did.. again, I understand it that if any of them took the warnings that a flood was coming seriously, they would have been on that ship with Noah.

 

Obviously they didn't take the threats seriously. Probably because god didn't provide any more evidence of his existence back then than he does today. If some random guy on the street came up to you and told you to come to his boat because God is going to flood the world, would you go with him? And you are a Christian. Add in the fact that in those days it was virtually impossible (and extremely dangerous) to travel across the world to get to the boat. They couldn't exactly just hop onto an airplane. If people did try to get to the Ark, most of them would have died during the journey. Perhaps you are familiar with the Oregon Trail? Approximately 10% of the people who attempted it died and most gave up long before they made it to the end. That was less than 200 years ago when we had way more technology, more medical knowledge, food preservation techniques etc. than man had however many thousands of years ago the flood happened. 

 

caposkia wrote:

He won't, he had promised it and I have yet to see in history or today my God break a promise.  

But on a separate note, no you should not blindly follow a being.

You believe the promise of a being that virtually exterminated humanity? You should read the article Brian linked to here. The relevant point in the article to the discussion here is that the police released the thugs who were torturing the accused witch because they promised to leave her alone. Sure enough, as soon as they were out they set on her again. When the police were called they said, "We can't do anything, they promised to leave her alone." The moral of the story, don't trust people or beings that torture and kill. So why should I trust this promise made by god? Given that he is eternal, a few thousand years of him not breaking the promise is hardly a good reason. A few thousand years is a very short time for him. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Where is the evidence? And when did it happen? There is a lot of evidence of floods, they tend to occur every single year around rivers and once and awhile you get really big floods that to stone age people would seem like the whole world flooding. Now we call them "100 year" floods. There is no evidence that the entire world ever flooded and there is significant scientific evidence that such an event would be impossible. 

I believe I"ve already posted a link on that somewhere a bit back... maybe it was on a different thread.  I'll have to find it.   Remind me if you don't see it from me in my next series of posts.

Yeah, the link you had was to a video and the guy had absolutely zero evidence. Just declarations and naked assertions. I'm a big fan of nudity, but I think assertions really should wear something. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Humans invented safes and trigger locks to keep kids away from guns until they are mature enough. Apparently God wasn't smart enough to think of that. 

or it was part of the test... nah, that's to obvious

I wouldn't "test" a kid by leaving a gun laying around. 

 

caposkia wrote:

that goes back to what the children would have brought, whether it was a punishment for the parents to realize what they have done to their families, etc.  Also, you seem to have all the answers for someone who doesn't know everything.  Have you ever considered that maybe God thought of that and knew that wouldn't be a good idea?  Why?  I don't know, but I do know that every choice He has made has resulted in better things for his followers.

How do you know that his choices resulted in better things? If you can't explain why the ideas I propose were worse choices than the ones god made then you have no basis for declaring god's choices were the best possible ones. Perhaps there is some great reason why his choices were the best that I can't know because of my limited perspective. So why doesn't god take a moment and write a book explaining them? Or better yet, come have that conversation with me? Why should I automatically put my faith in him being right about everything? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

If we ever prove god exists, someone really needs to sue him for faulty construction. What gives god the authority to decide when it is our time? Why should we automatically accept that he has seized that authority? 

because it was always His authority and He created us and everything we depend on to survive and beyond... maybe....

So when humans create an intelligent being do you think it will be moral for us to assume the authority to kill and punish that being for whatever reasons we decide? 

 

caposkia wrote:

When the time is right then... whenever that is... I believe it will happen.  I'm sure that's not much assurance for you, but I don't doubt that if you are sincere with your words it will happen.

I'll keep you posted. I have been waiting for several decades so far. He better hurry cause I am not going to survive to be an old man. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Also, the bible states that a man should not lie with another man like man lies with a woman and likewise with women... I dont' remember reading any quote from the Bible saying Gays must die.  If you could show me that, it'd be helpful.

Leviticus 20 and Romans 1. He Leviticus God specifically tells Moses that gays should be killed. In Romans, it doesn't say they must die, but it describes a number of sins and describes those who commit them as "worthy of death", whether that means humans should take an active roll in killing them I guess is a matter of interpretation. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I don't blame you that it's not good enough, but when a Christian says "you need to understand the context" there's something to it.  A Christian resorts to "you need to have faith" when they realize that you're not willing to investigate what they're trying to tell you.  It doesn't make sense to you because you choose not to give it enough effort.  I agree that in order to have faith in something you need to understand it, but in order to understand it, you need to study it and study it appropriately.  I wouldn't trust you with Chemistry just because you read a book on it cover to cover.  I would expect that you would have needed to use several books to "study" the concepts and proceedures.  I would also expect that you were studying under some experts in the field and possibly worked towards a degree.    Otherwise you're likely to blow a hole in the building you happen to be in under the right circumstances.  

A scientist can generally supply me with a layman's explanation that makes sense. A chemist could explain to me the basic fundamentals of how C4 works and how it is made without necessarily going in depth enough that I would actually be capable of making C4. I'm not looking to be an expert, I'm just looking for a sensible explanation to give me enough reason to believe that the "experts" are doing something other than talking out of their ass. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: It'd be

Vastet wrote:
It'd be foolish for me to say none of you do, but the majority of those who are vocal about their religion most certainly have no interest in studying anything. They simply regurgitate passages from a 2000+ year old collection of fables and stories and threaten hell to those who aren't satisfied with their explanations.

...and that's called dispensationalism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:   I agree,

Vastet wrote:
  I agree, but that's only one thing that doesn't make sense in a story full of things that make no sense. The thing that makes the least sense is the idea someone can think death is bad when they have no concept of what bad is.

I think we're getting terms confused here... they didn't know what evil was, not bad.  bad is very subjective to the individual.  evil is anything that is not of/from God.  (this is considering the context of scripture only, not how we use the term today.)

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Rather up front it would make sense to say you can stay here as long as you don't eat the fruit... be it that he ultimately kicked them out of the garden.  By context they had to understand death.
But could not frame it as a good or bad consequence, merely as a consequence. Any amount of curiosity at all would be sufficient to override any potential consequence as there was no knowledge of consequences being good or bad. So ultimately god is at fault for creating the scenario.

I think the good/bad thing was clarified above, but again, if they had no concept that death is something they would not want, then:

1.  God would not have had to warn them with the threat of death and

2.  Satan would not have had to lie to them about death


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: If I don't

Vastet wrote:
If I don't exist I cannot be influenced by anything.

...but once you do exist, you can be influenced by everything that is and was and also future possibilities. 

Vastet wrote:

 But then I grew up and reevaluated my childhood experiences, choosing what I would allow to influence me. There is very little from my childhood which influences me today.

Same here, but this influence discussion goes to before and those things that have influenced you that you have no control over as well.  Despite what you change from childhood, pieces always stick with you and make you who you are.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
none taken, but how can you say that with such certainty?  How do you know my father and mother's parents didn't come from the same street in the same country and move over together?
I don't know for certain that you wouldn't have been born, but the probability of your parents meeting and conceiving you in a different country in the same month of the same year is so small I'd bet the entire Earth against it happening.

Same with life happening at all from an evolutionary standpoint... and yet non-believers concede that it happened.    In fact, the odds of life were likely 1000 X smaller (I didn't do the math literally, i don't know the odds of my birth under different circumstances)


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

danatemporary wrote:

 Unfortunately a Necessary Addendum ::

  To May 5th or I mean May 11th :

                  I cannot dictate to you, your response. However, I should plainly warn you I took exceptional offense (was highly offended) by the insinuations that were made by an individual on the board regarding the May 11th question(s). This clearly is not a trap or an attempt at debunking. Dont miss read this in any way!! If there is a state above offense, it may have been reached within me, so be careful on your reply to this 'Seat of SATAN' reference, I sincerely and earnestly personally implore you. To take a accusatory approach is highly ill advised (apparently). The only purpose is to achieve a fuller understanding. Knowledge. Despite utter innocence, in no way prevented accusations being hurled at me from one christian quarter. Causing a firestorm I do not think you'd appreciate at all. I sure as hell would rather avoid it myself :¬ (Breaking it down firestorm is overstating it but it leaves the same sized crater). This affords me to re-re-state, I ran across this quite 'serendipitously', as I tried to show, this I can honestly assure you of.  I hadn't ever known about this prior to this month. Perhaps because other portions of the Book of Revelation were of far greater interest in the origins of the symbolic imagery used in it. I am simply asking a question here (try not to read too much into it)! This not a tactic or some trap. The other party's insinuations did lasting and permanent damage to our relationship. Something to avoid!! So Please I would appreciate it very much if you would do me the kindness of taking this at face value. I merely was asking this question that had me stumped and didnt seem to make sense to me. It IS an honest inquiry and honest question. You have no reason to believe otherwise, that being the case, let's keep it that way, shall we !?

  F i n

If this was referring to my post, I'm not aware of what I might have said that could have offended you.   I assure you my reply to your question I tried to keep generic and to the point, but maybe I misunderstood how basic of an answer you were looking for.  

Again if I offended you, I'm sorry, I did not realize what I wrote would come across like that.  if you can show me what I said, I will correct my wording to appeal directly to your question or statement


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

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I find the idea of ritual sacrifice of animals to be very distasteful and immoral. Don't you have a problem when some sadist buys a dog for the sole purpose of cutting it up and killing it? I do, and I am a hunter who has killed and butchered many animals throughout my life.

I find it inexplicable that the one and only real god would want exactly the same thing as all the fake gods.

...or is it that all the fake gods want exactly the same thing as the real God.  Consider this, if my God is "the real God" and all the other ones are fake, then they had to have come/existed AFTER my God, not before.


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

danatemporary wrote:

 

   Hopefully Cap will arrive back in the next three days or so.  In all fairness I should have warned him (Cap) I have an extensively long track record, in the little interaction that we have, of being a huge Jinx to christians on this board, not the exact intent, this I also assure you  I think I am simply showing friendly overtures, when it often has the exact(-ly) opposite desired effect ,(NOT unlike people management for the clueless, where instead of a desired behavior it ends up in backfiring without meaning to).  I am all over knowledge for knowledge sake though, the content in various religious writings should be incentive enough resulting in fuller understanding. The level of cooperation might not be as much the issue with being a bit of a Jinx, I'm afraid. He'll KNOW. 

Dana, don't worry.  I feel your input has been very helpful.  The thing is, your input is real and seems quite unbias... which means if I have a problem with any of it, then I'm the one that needs to recheck my understanding.  Those others I do wonder if they're stuck in dispenationalism.  That disallows them to question what they're taught...


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Could you

Jabberwocky wrote:

Could you clarify what you mean here? This is a poorly written sentence, and I wouldn't simply state that, but I'm not sure what you're even trying to convey. But I think you mean that scholars state that some of the pieces of the scriptures indicate that they are writing of eyewitnesses. However there are two problems with that. The information would be at BEST second hand, but the bigger problem is that the oldest of the synoptic gospels (Mark) was written some 30-40 years after the events supposedly occurred. This puts the information at probably at best third hand info. Even if they were writing of people who have claimed to witness these things (which I don't think they were) it doesn't mean that they happened.

It seems you understood that I meant the writings were the writings of eyewitnesses... (not all)

however, your point that Mark was written 30-40 years later does not nullify the possibility of a first hand account, only that it was written later... Does that open us up to a situation where the story was handed from person to person before written down... it could, but then again, how long did it take during that time for eye witness works to be "compiled and finalized".  Understand that the 30-40 years isn't necessarily when it was first written down, but it is when it was formalized into a document.  Also, it is understood that Mark is a source for other NT books along with another book that we have yet to lay our hands on.. and maybe never will... no one knows when "Q" as it is called was written.  What you state can only be assumption at best and there is enough evidence in the writing to suggest it is a direct writing from a witness

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

I don't completely rule out the possibility, but I see it as an extraordinarily unlikely scenario. This is an incredible claim made, and it's only being written 30 or so years after. Have you ever heard of the alleged Roswell alien crash? There are a lot of places where you can read about what people who proclaim to have seen these things said. These are self-proclaimed eyewitnesses to what they understand to have been an extra-terrestrial phenomenon.  That sort of claim DOES require more evidence than at absolute best 2nd hand anecdotal evidence coming from self-proclaimed eyewitnesses, who already have come to the conclusion of what they saw actually was. When it comes to the Roswell crash, I think you would agree with me that they could have been mistaken, and misinterpreted what they saw. They could have been in a delusional state (be it due to drugs or something else). A combination of those two things can go a long way, as you may see something normal but uncommon, and interpret it as something other-worldly. Also, it is completely possible that some or all of the alleged witnesses are making the entire thing up! I doubt it's all of them, as someone most probably (but not definitely) saw something to set this off, and stay adamant that someone was wrong. However, it does not mean it's worthy of any consideration.

that makes sense, so what's your case for the scripture then?

 

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

Probably very little to none. They would have heard about it second hand. However, they didn't. Jesus managed to do so many incredible things that the bible claims were witnessed by so many people, but not a single historian heard a thing, and thought to write it down? It took several decades to get something written, and by then it is easily chalked up to a small but growing cult called Christianity. 

very little to none for sure.  How are you sure that at the time no historian heard a thing?  Or was it that they didn't think it was either legitimate or important at the time?  Unless people witnessed Jesus, as teh Bible stated, most did not believe he was who he said he was.\

Jabberwocky wrote:

You do realize that adherents of Judaism could claim the same about your book, right? They think that you're wrong for exactly the same reason that you think that Muslims are wrong. You haven't established yet why your book is correct, but have already accused others of writing an inaccurate revision.

only because history shows it to be so.  Jews would really be the only group that could claim we wrote an inaccurate revision because their books are the only ones older than the NT.  All of the Muslim writings not only have been written at least 600 years after the final book of the Bible had been finalized, but there is lots of evidence that the writer took many ideas from the Bible scripture... it's why they have so many parallels and follow the same God.

Jabberwocky wrote:

That Islam came after Christianity? Yes. That it was similar, and slightly plagiarized? Yes! That Christianity is correct, and Islam is a deviation (as you seem to suggest), no. Still haven't found Jesus in history.

Others have

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_Jesus

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed"

Jabberwocky wrote:

Umm, that is exactly what you say. You claim that Christianity is correct, and right there you asserted that Islam is an incorrect deviation. By definition, you did say exactly that.

that's fine.  Of course I claim that Christianity is correct and Islam is not, I'm a Christian... sorry if I forgot to mention that.  Though I am not unfounded on my reasoning as you likely see in this post.

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

...which you can research and find proof of...

Only in the bible does it say that it is the final correct word. Literally anybody can write a sentence in a book and do the same thing. That does not make it true. Special pleading.

that quote you have of mine above is in reference to the Muslim texts being written 600 years after the final book of the Bible was compiled, not about it being the final correct word... nice try though.

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. I am examining 3 Abrahamic scriptures. I find in them many similar themes, and many falsehoods. There is nothing that shows me that any of the 3 is more correct than another. I deem them all to be false (in exactly the same way that you deem the Qu'ran to be false). You are the one who is saying that the first one is incomplete, and only the first two together are the truth. You are affording a certain combination of these books a special status (one of truth) that you do not afford to all of them. Instead of providing why you think that's true, you're giving short answers, and breaking up my post to make it difficult to read (I have to have 3 tabs open just to cobble this together here).

I typically try to respond directly to specific points... I've learned from being on this site people get pissy when you respond to a large statement and forget to address something.  Sorry if that bothers you, from here on, I'll try to respond to yours more as a whole.

Anyway, the problem with you claiming that I claim that the Quran is completely false is that I can't claim it's completely false... because the Quran has a lot of scripture in it... therefore there is a lot of truth in it.  The problem with it is it clearly in many instances teaches against Chrstian teaching and pulls its followers away from Jesus as THE source for salvation.  Of course again, the research I've done shows the dating in general suggests that the Biblical scripture had a lot of influence in the writing and not the other way around

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. I was making an entirely different point, which you're trying to dodge again, rather than admit that this could have contributed greatly to the spread of Christianity.

I don't dodge.  I see those as excuses when you don't have an answer like the dodge accusation.  instead I may have misunderstood... let's try again, what was your point

Jabberwocky wrote:

Which languages are you well versed in? Hebrew? Greek?

While we wait, Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give very differing genealogies of Joseph (Jesus's step-father if you will). Are the names mistranslated? Also, Luke holds 15 more names. Are we to believe that it was so badly mistranslated that most of the names were wrong, and many others were split in half (even though they seem to be full biblical-like names)?

If you'd like, answer that. If not, simply provide what your related languages credentials are, and we shall see how we can discuss this. 

Contradictions aside, you seem to take a literal view nonetheless. Let's start with Genesis. Adam and Eve could not have been the first people, as genetics have proven that our most recent common male ancestor, and our most recent common female ancestor, lived many many generations apart. Adam and Eve as written in Genesis are a genetic impossibility.

I'm better versed in Hebrew than Greek... 

Carm seems to have a good detailed explanation behind your differing genealogies question:

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/why-are-there-different-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3

...and I agree with them that it's hard for me to believe that those who put the books together were blatently unaware of the conflicting genealogies and likely knew of the hsitory and found no problem with it.  Lemme know what you think.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Simple. Fear. Are educated people immune to every phobia? No. Humans almost unanimously have some fear of the unknown, and there is no greater unknown then death. I know many educated people with all sorts of fears, from heights, to dark, to spiders...anything! Hell, people who fear spiders can be scared of a spider even after they are convinced that they are harmless. Fear is not meant to be rational, and it is difficult to frame death in a comfortable light. Some people, once they've convincned themselves that they (and everyone else) will in some way cheat death, have every reason to re-assure themselves that that is the case.

I'm not sure if I can buy that as a reason, though I don't doubt that many hold to that reasoning... what of those that don't?  I can say that fear of death is not my reason... in fact, I'd be likely to follow a religion that offers reincarnation.  I think it would be cool to come back and live life many times in many different cultures... you also learn from past lives and become experts in certain fields after a while... i'd be destined to be rich at some point!!!... but here I am... believing that Christ is my salvation... 

Jabberwocky wrote:

You're asking me to unravel your faith in one sentence, and when I tell you that it's not possible, you're stating that I've failed. I'm telling you that all of the holy books are very similar. You seem unwilling to read one in order to find that out for yourself. 

I could have sworn that I've read more than 1 sentence from you... and over the 6 years I've been on here... yea, must have been more than one sentence... I'm also referring to those who are no longer talking to me.  You may still have something to prove.  

...and I have read the Quran... and the Torrah... I did a study on Confucianism a while back and briefly studied ancient chinese culture which is riddled with religion and belief.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Did your science classes tell you that dinosaur fossils came from the world-wide flood? If it did, your history classes may have been tampered with as well. You keep urging me to give you a challenge, when you refuse to challenge yourself, or cite a SINGLE historical source (even after stating several times that the bible is perfectly historically sound)

You seem to imply many things about me that have no founding.  I went to a secular college, so you can't blame my classes.  I am going through a historical runthrough of scripture as we speak with PJTS.... and you'll find that it's not that simple really.  You want history, go to this thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17279

Jabberwocky wrote:

I did cite extreme examples, but yes I do possess a severe distrust for those who claim to know god better than I do. There is almost no way to verify if the person authentically believes that, or if they're lying (the only way being is if they get busted admitting their deceit, or if James Randi shows up with a radio scanner in the case of Popoff). If somebody claims that god is speaking to them, that means that one of following three options are true:

1. They're lying

2. They're insane

3. God is really speaking to them.

Number 3 wouldn't be any less scary than 1 & 2 either, because it would also mean that god only speaks to some people.  It would also mean that, since god would know that frauds and insane people exist, he would deem it safe to communicate to humanity in this way, and tell them to give people advice, without providing some sort of evidence of authenticity.

The Bible in this case would be the Authenticity.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

I never said that I was. However, if we are simply judged by our ratio of good vs. bad actions, then why is believing in Christianity necessary?

You are judged just as in a court of law... regardless of how much $ you donate to a good cause or how many hours you've served at a soup kitchen, if you're caught stealing, you're going to have consequences.  it's not good vs. bad.


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

danatemporary wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 

 

Quote:
If you want to challenge my understanding of why the Bible is inspired by God . . C'mon, give me a challenge.

  The human mind is ever seeking deeper meaning , lessor reliant or dependent on well marked truth than its' amazing capability (the human mind) to order the world . .

¬  Dana

The holy Bible contains approximately 66 book, and something on the order of / close to 774, 746 words contained in our English translation of it. For the sake of time and space can we pick up on a few topics ?

The holy Bible contains approximately 66 book, and something on the order of / close to 774, 746 words contained in our English translation of it. For the sake of time and space can we pick up on a few topics ?


  Hello AE or even Cap:

 
   (*sigh*) I honestly hate when people throw down challenges to the board and no one picks it up.  I may be mis-reading him (Caposkia) he is somewhat less defensive and far more approachable than a JesusLovesYou, TWD39, Jimenejz, Lee, or even the other like Jean Chauvin or the Professor (sigh). Remember 'Dolly the sheep', a decade back, was the female ewe having been 'cloned' from adult cells. Her 'creator' the Mr. Mad scientist came to a poetic and fitting end. I mention this because, what isn't commonly known is Dolly was the only ewe (there will never be another ewe, old-timey song) that survived to adulthood from 277. Christendom is often filled with disastrous 'failed' attempts, that are just as frankensteinian in nature. Fate will not be kind, IMO. In a hardening of hearts, Most of which inexplicably make their way to this board. Therefore, there is much joy Cap brings to me period, presuming he is quite different from these others. Anyhow. In a direct statement on this page, any can infer he thinks everyone is simply misinterpreting biblical portions in the holy bible. That said, Can we focus a moment on how this may persistently lead to a dismissiveness adopted by Cap, a common reaction. With all this 'misinterpreting' carrying on. Christendom is operating today all over the world. Faith is not a primary place to focus. (Texts remember). JesusLovesYou once said, ".. you dont understand faith". Okay. What of words ? Are words understandable, if you take context and cross-referencing into consideration ? Make a couple of sentences worth of "In my Opinion", says and tells NOTHING on what you are basing it upon/on! Can you say counterproductive :¬

  I'd think most recognize if there are between 3-5 interpretations in any given area of the holy bible. Out of which two can be tossed out immediately. What is presented, even if never documented as such. Christians work off the principle of Scripture interprets Scripture. I know BeyondSaving, HarleySporter, AtheistExtremist (example Thread in 'I wonder how many Theists are on this board') have flatly suggested the holy bible is not clear enough to even know what these words actually mean. Multiple interpretations only cloud the issue for each of them. Not meaning to single anyone out. I mention this for Caposkia's benefit (solely). This one (Dana), however, chooses to believe the texts are not containing an un-interpretable mass of unintelligible words, as it is made out to be. Caposkia is working off a set of (biblical) interpretations, about the Bible, allowing him, to his mind, affirm the Bible is/as the Inspired Word of 'G-d'. If there are multiple interpretations, it would warrant a further investigation, wouldn't it? (?)Couldnt we seek out their actually meaning of these words and wording? I indicated I was willing to question Caposkia about his interpretation of the bible, and delve into the texts. This requires full engagement to even begin to do so. No need for any to resort to 'tactics'!! Where does that leave us (plural). Caposkia said he was game. Thus far all I noticed was questions being asked, Caposkia was commenting on.  I partially address this to AE, with his family situation, he has experience with probing these things. And, I wanted to remind him Foz (It works for me) left a reply. To Cap exclusively, Could be productive to examine the texts for ideas about the Satan, as they've emerged, in a mutually respectful manner.

 

(Edit:: Uploaded the Ned Image to post--Edit Upload! )

Post Script --

  There is a road block that arises when people say "I don't know" and move on. I find cruelly dissatisfying myself (just so that you know)!! 

  . . .

Thank you Dana.  The books to focus on would be Genesis, Job and Revelation with spots in the Gospels only when encountering demons.  To really get into it, we'd have to study each individually to see what each says... Again it's pretty basic...: Genesis - Satan and angels are thrown down out of heaven to Earth.. Job - confirms that Satan roams Earth, Revelation - reviels that Satan opposes God and intends to be like God though He could never amount to it.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Yes, but

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, but if I am trying to make the determination of whether or not god is a good being and a leader I should follow does it make a difference? To me it seems like his rules are completely arbitrary. I find ritual sacrifice of a lamb as distasteful as the ritual sacrifice of a dog. Is the only difference to you because god says one is good and has no comment on the other? If god encouraged the sacrifice of dogs would you be ok with that? The sacrifice of people? 

The sacrifices were and are distasteful.. I understand it to be the point that the purpose of the sacrifice was to annul sins that were seen just as distasteful to God... Also, what it was is it wasn't just a sacrifice of a living creature for redemption, but they were property and money.  To sacrifice a perfectly healthy animal was to sacrifice a paycheck or a few years down the line.  

No one I believe was ever "ok" with it, only they believed it had to be done for their betterment and to prove they wanted to repent of the sins in question.  It's much more difficult to do a distasteful thing such as an animal sacrifice than to pray and say.. I'll never do it again.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

So the only people at risk of going to hell are people who have met Christians? Thanks a lot. I wonder how many billions of people are sitting in hell just because they met a missionary and didn't believe them. 

You are held accountable for what you know.  What that means can be up for interpretation.  if you heard a missionary and they did a poor job at representing scripture are you held accountable?  Probably not as much as someone who heard from a good missionary who presented it exactly the way God intended it to be presented.  

Can't blame missionaries for your own choices.. again though, it sounds to me as if you're open to the idea if somehow it can be shown to you in the right way.  You're a lot different than the hypocrites I seem to run into more often than not.

Beyond Saving wrote:

The option of returning is stripped from me as soon as I have absolute evidence of his existence. If I see pearly gates when I die, suddenly I have evidence and I might be inclined to start believing. But according to most Christians I talk to, it is too late then. 

You have this whole life to make a decision.  Death is not the time from what we understand... live everyday as if it was your last.  Obviously not literally

anyway, It's one thing to literally not see it and try, it's another thing to resist any possibility until it slaps you in the face.. yea, the slap in the face is too late.  Date's over at that point.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have asked you several times to provide reasons to believe, you have none except the bible and vague generalities. The problems I point out are more questions of whether I would actually worship the being if he did exist. I find it rather amazing that so many Christians routinely ignore the evil they claim has been done by their god. To worship the being described by Christians, you have to be ok with genocide, torture and cruelty. I am not ok with those things. 

no, you have to accept the history that has come to pass... but what you really have to accept is Jesus Christ.  Most non-believers don't believe becasue all they see is what you listed.  i don't remember Jesus suggesting those.  I know what you're referring to in the OT, but what is the context and the intention?  Do you know the whole story or are you assuming it was just for fun?

Beyond Saving wrote:

So hell isn't eternal then? I'm sorry, I don't see much love coming from god, haven't seen any at all actually. Nor do I see stories of god displaying a lot of love in the bible. I see him routinely killing humans that don't do what he wants in rather painful ways. Of course, it isn't really killing if god does it. Killing is wonderful when god does it, it is only terrible if humans do it. I forgot your blatant double standard. Personally, I prefer not to be killed by anyone or anything be it human, animal or god. I kinda like life and I assume that many of those people god killed or had killed did too. 

I don't remember anyone rejoicing over God killing someone... Usually it was a severe consequence for an action that person knew they shouldn't do.  Those who don't know God wouldn't see love, those who know God do see love.  God loves the world, but the world hates Him.  

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

We use this thing called evidence. Something which people who see aliens, Elvis, Bigfoot and god have none. The only reason the Christian religion is so large is because they spent the better part of the last couple of millenia going around conquering people and forcing the dominance of their religion. Without the Constantine adopting Christianity, it would probably be a footnote in history. Imperialism and colonialism work at spreading culture.

that's one way of looking at it... but then again, numbers speak too.  evidence has been there, but most ignore it.  heresay as they call it.  The difference in your comparisons that I see is that we don't see something and jump to conclusions, rather we research and investigate to conclude.  There's also a thing called reliable sources, but of course any non-beleiver would not find any believer a reliable source of God's work... makes sense right?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet he gets mad when we don't make the choice he wants us to make. Why? If you are going to give someone the freedom to choose, it is hardly sensible to then get mad when they make a choice. For example, we don't want people to murder other people, so we do everything we can to prevent you from being able to make that choice. If the police have reason to believe you are about to murder someone, they will attempt to stop you and you will be punished for conspiracy to commit murder. Our society says you do not have the freedom to choose to murder someone. A good recent example is the kid who was arrested the other day for plotting to blow up his school. Do you think we should have allowed him the choice?

We made laws, God made laws, we have consequences to those laws, God has consequences to those Laws.  We have police trying to protect us from others... God has his followers all over the world tryign to protect them from the adversary.  

We say you don't have the freedom to choose, yet people still make the choice... God says you are held responsible for every choice you make.  Which is worse?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Of course, we are severely limited in our ability to actually prevent murders ahead of time because we are not omnipotent. God doesn't have that problem. Suppose we were omnipotent and police could prevent murders with 100% accuracy without ever punishing someone who wasn't going to commit a murder. Would you support the police waiting for the murder to happen because we need to allow the murderer to have a choice?!?!? I am a big fan of choice and freedom and argue for all sorts of freedoms in the political forums. Even I do not support the freedom to choose to murder someone.

You're suggesting dictatorship... is that what you want to live in?  If God prevented murder, he would likewise have to prevent all other choices that don't abide by His laws.  Murder is just an example in the ocean of possibilities.  Do you not want freedom to choose?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Obviously they didn't take the threats seriously. Probably because god didn't provide any more evidence of his existence back then than he does today. If some random guy on the street came up to you and told you to come to his boat because God is going to flood the world, would you go with him?

be it that God since has promised he never would again, no.

Beyond Saving wrote:

And you are a Christian. Add in the fact that in those days it was virtually impossible (and extremely dangerous) to travel across the world to get to the boat. They couldn't exactly just hop onto an airplane. If people did try to get to the Ark, most of them would have died during the journey. Perhaps you are familiar with the Oregon Trail? Approximately 10% of the people who attempted it died and most gave up long before they made it to the end. That was less than 200 years ago when we had way more technology, more medical knowledge, food preservation techniques etc. than man had however many thousands of years ago the flood happened. 

so then you're suggesting that if someone from the farthest reaches of Earth had a change of heart and tried to make ti to the ark before the flood, God would not have made sure they made it?  You're forgetting that God would have the ability to prevent those diseases and issues that caused so many to die on the Oregon Trail.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You believe the promise of a being that virtually exterminated humanity? You should read the article Brian linked to here. The relevant point in the article to the discussion here is that the police released the thugs who were torturing the accused witch because they promised to leave her alone. Sure enough, as soon as they were out they set on her again. When the police were called they said, "We can't do anything, they promised to leave her alone." The moral of the story, don't trust people or beings that torture and kill. So why should I trust this promise made by god? Given that he is eternal, a few thousand years of him not breaking the promise is hardly a good reason. A few thousand years is a very short time for him. 

he has never broken a promise and has always held to his word.  He also brought Jesus into the world and allowed Him to die for our sins... that would make that whole process completely pointless.  Think about what you're saying here.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Yeah, the link you had was to a video and the guy had absolutely zero evidence. Just declarations and naked assertions. I'm a big fan of nudity, but I think assertions really should wear something. 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one

Beyond Saving wrote:

I wouldn't "test" a kid by leaving a gun laying around. 

but a gun doesn't yeild to knowledge, only death and pain... your analogy doesn't work.  Also, considering the circumstance, they had no interest in the tree until someone told them how awesome it was.. same with a child.. if someone said how fun it was to shoot off a gun, they'd find a way to get one.... and they do.

Beyond Saving wrote:

How do you know that his choices resulted in better things? If you can't explain why the ideas I propose were worse choices than the ones god made then you have no basis for declaring god's choices were the best possible ones. Perhaps there is some great reason why his choices were the best that I can't know because of my limited perspective. So why doesn't god take a moment and write a book explaining them? Or better yet, come have that conversation with me? Why should I automatically put my faith in him being right about everything? 

God created everything and hasn't been wrong yet.  What more do you need?  Also, likewise I guess then on your take that God's choices were the worst or wrong.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So when humans create an intelligent being do you think it will be moral for us to assume the authority to kill and punish that being for whatever reasons we decide? 

If we gave it specific guidelines and it had the ability to comprehend the consequences of not abiding by those, why not?  We do that to each other.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'll keep you posted. I have been waiting for several decades so far. He better hurry cause I am not going to survive to be an old man. 

why do you say that?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Leviticus 20 and Romans 1. He Leviticus God specifically tells Moses that gays should be killed. In Romans, it doesn't say they must die, but it describes a number of sins and describes those who commit them as "worthy of death", whether that means humans should take an active roll in killing them I guess is a matter of interpretation. 

point and case though, most sin is worthy of death... the idea isn't that we should kill people for them, rather that was supposed to be self reflection.

Beyond Saving wrote:

A scientist can generally supply me with a layman's explanation that makes sense. A chemist could explain to me the basic fundamentals of how C4 works and how it is made without necessarily going in depth enough that I would actually be capable of making C4. I'm not looking to be an expert, I'm just looking for a sensible explanation to give me enough reason to believe that the "experts" are doing something other than talking out of their ass. 

I've been carefully trying to figure out what I can say that would allow you see that with us.  I'm not sure still what it could be for you.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I think we're

caposkia wrote:
I think we're getting terms confused here... they didn't know what evil was, not bad.  bad is very subjective to the individual.  evil is anything that is not of/from God.  (this is considering the context of scripture only, not how we use the term today.)

Evil = Bad. Only belief in your or a similar god and its supposed demands can change the perspective of the term evil. As I don't believe in any god, the terms are interchangeable.

caposkia wrote:
I think the good/bad thing was clarified above, but again, if they had no concept that death is something they would not want, then:

1.  God would not have had to warn them with the threat of death and

2.  Satan would not have had to lie to them about death

Except neither of those events happened anyway. Even if god suddenly introduced himself to me and proved to my satisfaction that he was worthy of worship, man still arose through evolution. Humans were not created, let alone created with dirt and a rib in a garden.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:...but once

caposkia wrote:
...but once you do exist, you can be influenced by everything that is and was and also future possibilities. 

Only to the extent I allow, do things influence me. And future possibilities do not influence me at all. I'm not a gambler by nature. I will never allow the possibility of something happening to influence my decisions now. Probabilty maybe, not possibility.
As for the past, more than 99% of all history has been lost. Its ability to influence me is severely limited.

caposkia wrote:
Same here, but this influence discussion goes to before and those things that have influenced you that you have no control over as well.  Despite what you change from childhood, pieces always stick with you and make you who you are.

Maybe I have more control and self awareness than you do, but I am not influenced by things I don't want to influence me. Ever.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Same with

caposkia wrote:
Same with life happening at all from an evolutionary standpoint... and yet non-believers concede that it happened.    In fact, the odds of life were likely 1000 X smaller (I didn't do the math literally, i don't know the odds of my birth under different circumstances)

Not at all. The probability of life forming is 100%. It is the very nature of the universe to allow life to form. Life is a chemical reaction which accelerates entropy, and it is the nature of the universe to accelerate entropy. Life is inevitable. Life is everywhere. What will your descendants say when we've found life on millions of different worlds?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:The

caposkia wrote:

The sacrifices were and are distasteful.. I understand it to be the point that the purpose of the sacrifice was to annul sins that were seen just as distasteful to God... Also, what it was is it wasn't just a sacrifice of a living creature for redemption, but they were property and money.  To sacrifice a perfectly healthy animal was to sacrifice a paycheck or a few years down the line.  

No one I believe was ever "ok" with it, only they believed it had to be done for their betterment and to prove they wanted to repent of the sins in question.  It's much more difficult to do a distasteful thing such as an animal sacrifice than to pray and say.. I'll never do it again.  

So if we can agree that sacrificing animals is immoral, why should we follow the moral edicts of a being that obviously holds a different morality than we do?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Can't blame missionaries for your own choices.. again though, it sounds to me as if you're open to the idea if somehow it can be shown to you in the right way.  You're a lot different than the hypocrites I seem to run into more often than not.

Thank you. I try to be intellectually honest and generally don't participate in discussions/debates for the purpose of "winning". Obviously, I have my personal biases but don't we all. 

 

caposkia wrote:

You have this whole life to make a decision.  Death is not the time from what we understand... live everyday as if it was your last.  Obviously not literally

anyway, It's one thing to literally not see it and try, it's another thing to resist any possibility until it slaps you in the face.. yea, the slap in the face is too late.  Date's over at that point.

But until I receive that slap in the face it is completely impossible for me to know with 100% certainty whether there is a god or not. No one can know, because as humans we are severely limited in our worldview. You are obviously a strong believer and feel that you are certain, but can you say with absolute 100% certainty that your belief is correct?

Let me put it this way: Do you agree that a reasonable person who is open to Christianity could do some research and come to the conclusion that there is no god? Or is coming to that conclusion the equivalent of believing you can fly by flapping your arms? 

If you do agree that a reasonable person could arrive at that conclusion, do you think it is good for God to reject that person when they are finally confronted with irrefutable evidence? 

 

caposkia wrote:

no, you have to accept the history that has come to pass... but what you really have to accept is Jesus Christ.  Most non-believers don't believe becasue all they see is what you listed.  i don't remember Jesus suggesting those.  I know what you're referring to in the OT, but what is the context and the intention?  Do you know the whole story or are you assuming it was just for fun?

I can't think of any context or intention which makes genocide anything other than evil.

 

caposkia wrote:

I don't remember anyone rejoicing over God killing someone... Usually it was a severe consequence for an action that person knew they shouldn't do.  Those who don't know God wouldn't see love, those who know God do see love.  God loves the world, but the world hates Him.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/3582

God often killed people for very minor offenses. He has a real funny way of showing "love". I don't think we use the word the same way.

 

caposkia wrote:

that's one way of looking at it... but then again, numbers speak too.  evidence has been there, but most ignore it.  heresay as they call it.  The difference in your comparisons that I see is that we don't see something and jump to conclusions, rather we research and investigate to conclude.  There's also a thing called reliable sources, but of course any non-beleiver would not find any believer a reliable source of God's work... makes sense right?

A source is only reliable because they have a history of making statements which are supported by actual physical evidence. The reliability of a particular source has no bearing on whether or not there is actual evidence. An unreliable source could make a statement that is supported by evidence and a source viewed as reliable could be wrong. I am not looking for anyone to say anything whether I think they are reliable or not. I am looking for actual evidence.  

 

caposkia wrote:

You're suggesting dictatorship... is that what you want to live in?  If God prevented murder, he would likewise have to prevent all other choices that don't abide by His laws.  Murder is just an example in the ocean of possibilities.  Do you not want freedom to choose?

No, dictatorship describes how laws are made, not how they are enforced. God is a dictator in that he creates the laws and determines the punishment without regard to anyone else's opinion. He holds absolute power benevolent or not. I do not think people should have the freedom to choose murder. Most people agree with me, which is why we have laws that allow us to prosecute people for conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder. Don't you agree those are good laws? Don't you agree that when those laws are enforced and prevent a murder that is a good thing? Don't you agree that if we could enforce those laws perfectly so that every murderer was arrested before they commit the murder the world would be a better place? 

A bit of a side question here, you have brought up how important it is for God to allow us the freedom to choose. What about in heaven? Do we still have the freedom to choose? Or does God take a much more active role in preventing crimes there? 

caposkia wrote:

so then you're suggesting that if someone from the farthest reaches of Earth had a change of heart and tried to make ti to the ark before the flood, God would not have made sure they made it?  You're forgetting that God would have the ability to prevent those diseases and issues that caused so many to die on the Oregon Trail.

God has not demonstrated a willingness to prevent his faithful believers from getting diseases aside from a handful that Jesus healed directly, why should I believe he would have acted any differently back then? 

 

caposkia wrote:

he has never broken a promise and has always held to his word.  He also brought Jesus into the world and allowed Him to die for our sins... that would make that whole process completely pointless.  Think about what you're saying here.

Much of what God has done appears to be pointless. What is the point of flooding the entire world to kill all the humans when he could have simply killed them all with a simple thought? Or perhaps create a virus that only killed humans? The whole have Noah build an Ark and fit in two of every animal in the world seems like a very inefficient method to achieve the goal. If there is a god, I think it is extremely obvious that he is not particularly worried about efficiency and does not always have an explicit point; or at least not a point that we would understand. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Yeah, the link you had was to a video and the guy had absolutely zero evidence. Just declarations and naked assertions. I'm a big fan of nudity, but I think assertions really should wear something. 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one

Yeah, that guy. He is a nut. I thought you were not a YEC'er. Do you believe the world is only 7,000 years old? Because that kind of belief requires a willful blindness towards the mountains of evidence we have. It is the equivalent of believing that the world is flat. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I wouldn't "test" a kid by leaving a gun laying around. 

but a gun doesn't yeild to knowledge, only death and pain... your analogy doesn't work.  Also, considering the circumstance, they had no interest in the tree until someone told them how awesome it was.. same with a child.. if someone said how fun it was to shoot off a gun, they'd find a way to get one.... and they do.

When I was a kid I knew shooting a gun was fun. I often went shooting with my father. It was also impossible for me to access the guns when he was not around. God could have easily done the same thing. He chose not to. 

 

caposkia wrote:

God created everything and hasn't been wrong yet.  What more do you need?  Also, likewise I guess then on your take that God's choices were the worst or wrong.

You made the claim earlier that God regretted his choice, so obviously he was wrong at least once. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So when humans create an intelligent being do you think it will be moral for us to assume the authority to kill and punish that being for whatever reasons we decide? 

If we gave it specific guidelines and it had the ability to comprehend the consequences of not abiding by those, why not?  We do that to each other.

I believe laws should only be enforced with the consent of the governed and that all people should be free to leave a legal jurisdiction if they do not like the laws of that jurisdiction. If we created intelligent beings and they decided not to join our society and create their own with their own laws, I believe the moral thing to do would be to allow them to do so. We have seen in our own history that one society attempting to impose their laws on another inevitably leads to violence, while allowing a group of people to leave the original governing body leads to peace. Consider the difference between the American Revolution compared to the peaceful separations of Canada and Australia from England. Which way do you think is preferable?

I have caught flack on here before for supporting the rights of states to secede from the US. I think groups of people should have the freedom to come and go from whatever governing body they currently belong to and should be allowed to leave peacefully.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'll keep you posted. I have been waiting for several decades so far. He better hurry cause I am not going to survive to be an old man. 

why do you say that?

I have a lung disease that will cause me significant and most likely lethal problems when I reach my 60's. Short of being able to get a lung transplant I will only be able to manage the symptoms with heavy steroid use, which leads to its own problems. Currently lung transplants are extremely risky. I am hopeful that some medical advances will be made, but I also accept the reality that my odds of making it to my 80's and 90's are very low.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Leviticus 20 and Romans 1. He Leviticus God specifically tells Moses that gays should be killed. In Romans, it doesn't say they must die, but it describes a number of sins and describes those who commit them as "worthy of death", whether that means humans should take an active roll in killing them I guess is a matter of interpretation. 

point and case though, most sin is worthy of death... the idea isn't that we should kill people for them, rather that was supposed to be self reflection.

That is a rather depressing view of the world. I think very few people deserve death. I certainly don't think that people who engage in homosexual relations are worthy of death. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

A scientist can generally supply me with a layman's explanation that makes sense. A chemist could explain to me the basic fundamentals of how C4 works and how it is made without necessarily going in depth enough that I would actually be capable of making C4. I'm not looking to be an expert, I'm just looking for a sensible explanation to give me enough reason to believe that the "experts" are doing something other than talking out of their ass. 

I've been carefully trying to figure out what I can say that would allow you see that with us.  I'm not sure still what it could be for you.

You are not alone. Many people have tried in the past and failed, but let me know if you think of anything. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Evil = Bad.

Vastet wrote:
Evil = Bad. Only belief in your or a similar god and its supposed demands can change the perspective of the term evil. As I don't believe in any god, the terms are interchangeable.

Look up the origin of the term.

Beyond that, if it's interchangeable, then you've confirmed its subjectivity.  

Vastet wrote:

 Except neither of those events happened anyway. Even if god suddenly introduced himself to me and proved to my satisfaction that he was worthy of worship, man still arose through evolution. Humans were not created, let alone created with dirt and a rib in a garden.

You've confirmed through research that these things never officially happened?  Can I see your research?  What sources?

I'm not trying to accuse you of trying to escape, but you have to admit, your denial of these events ever happening makes the conversation we were having completely pointless.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Only to the

Vastet wrote:
Only to the extent I allow, do things influence me. And future possibilities do not influence me at all. I'm not a gambler by nature. I will never allow the possibility of something happening to influence my decisions now. Probabilty maybe, not possibility. As for the past, more than 99% of all history has been lost. Its ability to influence me is severely limited.

What you say is true, only to the extent you allow, however, how much of that allowance is conscious.  Though you allow it you may not be aware... you can only consciously disallow something to influence you really.  

Consider this.  If you live in America, I'm willing to bet you without conscious choice act much more like an American than anyone from any other country.  Maybe you can view that as conscious, but how much of it really was conscious and how much of it was subconscious but yet still allowed by you.  Of course you have the ability to change any of that at any time, but to say that it's to the extent that you allow implies you made a conscious decision regarding all influences in your life which is psychologically impossible.  

Also, let's take into consideration the 1% of historical influence... if we just take the history of humanity from our estimated beginning as homosapiens, your severely limited influence is 2000 years worth.  That doesn't sound very limited to me.  Logically more than just human history has influenced you to this point.  

Vastet wrote:
 Maybe I have more control and self awareness than you do, but I am not influenced by things I don't want to influence me. Ever.

You can deny influence all you want, but again, you are only able to choose what you are conscious of.  It is not psychologically possible for you to be aware of all possible influence on your life past, present and future and you can only disallow and/or change that which you are conscious of.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Not at all.

Vastet wrote:
Not at all. The probability of life forming is 100%. It is the very nature of the universe to allow life to form. Life is a chemical reaction which accelerates entropy, and it is the nature of the universe to accelerate entropy. Life is inevitable. Life is everywhere. What will your descendants say when we've found life on millions of different worlds?

The only way of a 100% probability of life forming in our universe is in retrospect, because it's happened, so of course at this point it is 100%.  But considering the reality of our universe and the conditions that needed to take place in order for life to not only be possible, but to actually form into intelligence are likely closer to .01% in 4 Billion years.  

In the case of humans, the number of evolutionary steps needed in order for life to happen is 4 each having 10% or less chance of happening individually let alone in the right sequence together according to: http://www.science20.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets .  

I heard a probability number of 10 to the power of 64... I don't remember the source.  all in all, most agree that life was very possible in our universe, but also very unlikely by chance.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:So if we

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if we can agree that sacrificing animals is immoral, why should we follow the moral edicts of a being that obviously holds a different morality than we do?

Considering sin, this being doesn't hold a different morality, or if He does, then it is us that has a lower morality, not God.  God asks for animal sacrifices.  We have justified rape, abuse, neglect among other things.... and yes, to commit those acts repeatedly suggests a form of justification in the persons mind.  

I consider that you likely haven't done any of those, but what have you justified in your mind that might be considered immoral by some?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Thank you. I try to be intellectually honest and generally don't participate in discussions/debates for the purpose of "winning". Obviously, I have my personal biases but don't we all. 

Of course we do, however it's different for us to have personal bias and still have an open mind vs. refusing any possibility of opposing bias being more accurate like some can be.  I try to keep my mind open to the possibility that my bias is flawed.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

But until I receive that slap in the face it is completely impossible for me to know with 100% certainty whether there is a god or not. No one can know, because as humans we are severely limited in our worldview. You are obviously a strong believer and feel that you are certain, but can you say with absolute 100% certainty that your belief is correct?

I see your followup below, but I find it beneficial to answer both separately, I hope you see my reasoning in my answers.

I am 100% certain that God exists.  As far as my belief is concerned, I do question my own ability to fully understand everything I should understand concerning my following, but I try to continue to learn and grow in it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Let me put it this way: Do you agree that a reasonable person who is open to Christianity could do some research and come to the conclusion that there is no god? Or is coming to that conclusion the equivalent of believing you can fly by flapping your arms? 

I believe a reasonable person that is open to Christianity could do some research and come to the conclusion that there is no god.  I also believe that it is just as likely for that same reasonable person to do some research and come to the conclusion that there is a god.  

I believe such because there are books written about both cases happening.  There are many factors involved in each.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

If you do agree that a reasonable person could arrive at that conclusion, do you think it is good for God to reject that person when they are finally confronted with irrefutable evidence? 

The Bible states in Romans 1:18-19; "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness because that which is known about God is evident within them"  (emphasis mine)

Like I said, many factors are involved in how that reasonable person will conclude based on the research they do.  These verses imply that God's wrath is against those who intentionally suppress the truth that they know and understand.  Considering that, if a reasonable person has honestly sought research and has concluded that there is no god considering the factors that could have affected that conclusion, they are not suppressing the truth, rather it is likely that someone else is and that person would be held accountable.   The Bible has many verses about how we are accountable for the salvation of others based on how we present Gods word.  In other words, if we suppress what we know to be true, the blood of those who do not come to God who could have through our testimony are on our hands.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I can't think of any context or intention which makes genocide anything other than evil.

What if that race's intention was to eliminate all other followings/races?  Is it evil to commit genocide of that one people group or allow that one people group to commit genocide a number of times themselves?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/3582

God often killed people for very minor offenses. He has a real funny way of showing "love". I don't think we use the word the same way.

Context is everything.  Let's just take the first 3 in your link as an example of the alleged "minor offenses"

Lot's wife for looking backGen.19:26BT11
Er who was "wicked in the sight of the Lord"Gen.38:7BT12
Onan for spilling his seed

 

Lots wife:  Context, the town was being destroyed.  Considering the language and how it was translated, she likely did more than just glance back over her shoulder.  Per the origin of the writing, the "looking back" likely meant she went back for something.  The consequence of getting turned into a pillar of salt is the same that anyone would get when sticking around during a volcano that is destroying your town.  There are geological evidences of such results.   consider also the pillar of salt is from perspective.  This was a natural consequence, the difference here is God warned them that it would happen if they "looked back"   

Er being wicked:  What did he do?  It does not say... are you positive it was only minor offenses?  If by reading you're assuming he was very young, it doesn't suggest that and in no way implies an age. 

Onan for spilling his seed:  by making that choice in the context of the story his spilling of his seed changed major events of the future.  Hardly minor though the act was small.  e.g. he prevented a pregnancy.

Consider it's a minor act on my part to pull a trigger on a gun.  So simple a 2 year old can do it... however, its a big deal if the minor act happens to take someone's life or if a 2 year old does it.  Though if I pull a trigger on a gun at a shooting range, no one would think twice about it.  Context is key.

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

A source is only reliable because they have a history of making statements which are supported by actual physical evidence. The reliability of a particular source has no bearing on whether or not there is actual evidence. An unreliable source could make a statement that is supported by evidence and a source viewed as reliable could be wrong. I am not looking for anyone to say anything whether I think they are reliable or not. I am looking for actual evidence.  

is physical evidence your only source of actual evidence?  If so then any thought process besides your own technically does not exist.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, dictatorship describes how laws are made, not how they are enforced. God is a dictator in that he creates the laws and determines the punishment without regard to anyone else's opinion. He holds absolute power benevolent or not. I do not think people should have the freedom to choose murder. Most people agree with me, which is why we have laws that allow us to prosecute people for conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder. Don't you agree those are good laws? Don't you agree that when those laws are enforced and prevent a murder that is a good thing? Don't you agree that if we could enforce those laws perfectly so that every murderer was arrested before they commit the murder the world would be a better place? 

I don't know.  consider that if that law was enforced to the point that all murders were prevented, then all other laws would be enforced likewise... how many fines would you have piled up for exceeding the speedlimit, stealing, tax fraud be it that we find money on the ground, get some from selling products on ebay, etc and don't claim any of it  unless it's officially a business.  and so on.  Is that a better life?    

Basically you're suggesting absolutely no freedom.  God has severe consequences for breaking His laws just as we do, but instead of making us terrified of stepping out of line, he allows us to do even the worst of acts.  If that person doesn't learn from them, many others do.  consider the big events like 9-11 and the Boston Marathon Bombings, we learn to be united and stand against such acts.   We could tangent on how 1 murder affects the masses, but it'd be way off topic.

Beyond Saving wrote:

A bit of a side question here, you have brought up how important it is for God to allow us the freedom to choose. What about in heaven? Do we still have the freedom to choose? Or does God take a much more active role in preventing crimes there?   

Consider the lack of crimes committed in a group of followers here on Earth, does God need to take a more active role in heaven?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

God has not demonstrated a willingness to prevent his faithful believers from getting diseases aside from a handful that Jesus healed directly, why should I believe he would have acted any differently back then? 

In such situations, He always has.    Believers get diseases, but it does not prevent their salvation or end their bloodline necessarily.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Much of what God has done appears to be pointless. What is the point of flooding the entire world to kill all the humans when he could have simply killed them all with a simple thought? Or perhaps create a virus that only killed humans? The whole have Noah build an Ark and fit in two of every animal in the world seems like a very inefficient method to achieve the goal. If there is a god, I think it is extremely obvious that he is not particularly worried about efficiency and does not always have an explicit point; or at least not a point that we would understand. 

You're looking at the moment only.  God also knew the story of the event would be told for thousands of generations to come... God chose to have this as the means of humanities second chance.  it also shows that his original intention was to literally destroy everything.  It's an example of the faith Noah had for God and an example for us to strive for.  It shows the extent to which God's true followers will go for Him.  

God always has multiple reasons for the choices He makes.  Sure there were other ways, but it wouldn't have had the same impact generations later.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, that guy. He is a nut. I thought you were not a YEC'er. Do you believe the world is only 7,000 years old? Because that kind of belief requires a willful blindness towards the mountains of evidence we have. It is the equivalent of believing that the world is flat. 

I was focusing on the geological evidences, not what the guy believes.  I thought you were about physical evidences not belief.  I am not a YEC.

Beyond Saving wrote:

When I was a kid I knew shooting a gun was fun. I often went shooting with my father. It was also impossible for me to access the guns when he was not around. God could have easily done the same thing. He chose not to. 

Again, we understand that there was a purpose behind that that is not explained in scripture.  We can only speculate as to what it was, but I understand there is a reason for it not to be locked up.  It likely could have been a test to see if they were worthy of obtaining it appropriately or not.  Maybe that tree wasn't the actual goal, only a test and if they passed, then they'd be getting something completely different.  We can speculate all day and try to determine whether it was right or not, but when it comes down to it, we have no clue as to the intention and purpose for things as they were in the garden.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

You made the claim earlier that God regretted his choice, so obviously he was wrong at least once. 

regretting a choice and being wrong are 2 different things.   I may regret spending extra time with my son in a random given moment because later I'll have less time to get the work done that I need to do before tomorrow thus I'll get less sleep and be exhausted tomorrow, but does it then make it wrong for me to spend extra time with my son?

Point is regretting a choice and being wrong are 2 different things. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I believe laws should only be enforced with the consent of the governed and that all people should be free to leave a legal jurisdiction if they do not like the laws of that jurisdiction. If we created intelligent beings and they decided not to join our society and create their own with their own laws, I believe the moral thing to do would be to allow them to do so. We have seen in our own history that one society attempting to impose their laws on another inevitably leads to violence, while allowing a group of people to leave the original governing body leads to peace. Consider the difference between the American Revolution compared to the peaceful separations of Canada and Australia from England. Which way do you think is preferable?

I have caught flack on here before for supporting the rights of states to secede from the US. I think groups of people should have the freedom to come and go from whatever governing body they currently belong to and should be allowed to leave peacefully.

What you say makes sense... until those choices affect others under the current jurisdiction.  What if that society decided to go on their own and create their own laws, some of which validate destruction of all forests on Earth.  it's their own law... should we allow them to do so?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have a lung disease that will cause me significant and most likely lethal problems when I reach my 60's. Short of being able to get a lung transplant I will only be able to manage the symptoms with heavy steroid use, which leads to its own problems. Currently lung transplants are extremely risky. I am hopeful that some medical advances will be made, but I also accept the reality that my odds of making it to my 80's and 90's are very low.  

I'm sorry to hear that.  Considering your circumstances, you are a strong person and I admire you for your strength with this difficulty.  

Also understanding that, I understand that God is fully aware of your condition and that if you're open to God's word, He will work in your life.  Being open to it doesn't mean you accept it or believe it yet, only that you're willing to consider it if He were to bring it to your attention.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is a rather depressing view of the world. I think very few people deserve death. I certainly don't think that people who engage in homosexual relations are worthy of death. 

except that it goes against the progression of the creation.  Considering the great increase of homosexual relationships within the past 100 years speaking strictly scientifically, if the progression continues in the same magnitude, the end of humanity as we know it is much closer than we think.  

Consider that each man and woman that is born to continue a steady population around the world would need to have 2 children.  We know that some families today have many more, many have only 2 or less, or none at all.

If Homosexuality continues on the progression it has, consider from 1990 to 2000 the homosexual population increased in the U.S. by 13% give or take, eventually the human population will start to decline... as each decade passes if the progression doesn't slow down, the population will decrease more and more dramatically until there is a point where the population may not be able to sustain itself.  

I know there are factors that we can discuss that could possibly save the population, but considering that possibility, the choice of homosexual relations isn't so innocent anymore.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are not alone. Many people have tried in the past and failed, but let me know if you think of anything. 

I will continue talking to you if you're willing.  If anything I say sparks something for you, you let me know Eye-wink


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Considering

caposkia wrote:

Considering sin, this being doesn't hold a different morality, or if He does, then it is us that has a lower morality, not God.  God asks for animal sacrifices.  

How do you know that God's morality is better than ours? 

 

caposkia wrote:

We have justified rape, abuse, neglect among other things.... and yes, to commit those acts repeatedly suggests a form of justification in the persons mind.

I haven't. There are many humans who don't share my morality. Christians often attempt to justify the supposed actions of their god. You have spent a fair amount of time justifying the murder of most humans in the world during the flood. How is that different than the humans who have rationalized murder, slavery and all other sorts of horrors in the past? 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

I consider that you likely haven't done any of those, but what have you justified in your mind that might be considered immoral by some?

In the last couple of days: gambling, over indulgence in alcohol, extramarital sex, cussing, a few insults etc. Just the usual.  

 

caposkia wrote:

I believe a reasonable person that is open to Christianity could do some research and come to the conclusion that there is no god.  I also believe that it is just as likely for that same reasonable person to do some research and come to the conclusion that there is a god.  

I believe such because there are books written about both cases happening.  There are many factors involved in each.  

Fair enough.

 

caposkia wrote:

The Bible states in Romans 1:18-19; "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness because that which is known about God is evident within them"  (emphasis mine)

Like I said, many factors are involved in how that reasonable person will conclude based on the research they do.  These verses imply that God's wrath is against those who intentionally suppress the truth that they know and understand.  Considering that, if a reasonable person has honestly sought research and has concluded that there is no god considering the factors that could have affected that conclusion, they are not suppressing the truth, rather it is likely that someone else is and that person would be held accountable.   The Bible has many verses about how we are accountable for the salvation of others based on how we present Gods word.  In other words, if we suppress what we know to be true, the blood of those who do not come to God who could have through our testimony are on our hands.

Yet those of us who don't believe when we die are screwed. Is it supposed to make me feel better that someone else might go there with me because they somehow knew and suppressed it? I think the whole idea is rather absurd. I doubt there is a single person in the world who knows that god exists and seeks to suppress that knowledge. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I can't think of any context or intention which makes genocide anything other than evil.

What if that race's intention was to eliminate all other followings/races?  Is it evil to commit genocide of that one people group or allow that one people group to commit genocide a number of times themselves?  

Races don't have intentions. Individual people do. It is evil to commit genocide on any group. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/3582

God often killed people for very minor offenses. He has a real funny way of showing "love". I don't think we use the word the same way.

Context is everything.  Let's just take the first 3 in your link as an example of the alleged "minor offenses"

Lot's wife for looking backGen.19:26BT11
Er who was "wicked in the sight of the Lord"Gen.38:7BT12
Onan for spilling his seed

 

Lots wife:  Context, the town was being destroyed.  Considering the language and how it was translated, she likely did more than just glance back over her shoulder.  Per the origin of the writing, the "looking back" likely meant she went back for something.  The consequence of getting turned into a pillar of salt is the same that anyone would get when sticking around during a volcano that is destroying your town.  There are geological evidences of such results.   consider also the pillar of salt is from perspective.  This was a natural consequence, the difference here is God warned them that it would happen if they "looked back"   

Er being wicked:  What did he do?  It does not say... are you positive it was only minor offenses?  If by reading you're assuming he was very young, it doesn't suggest that and in no way implies an age. 

Onan for spilling his seed:  by making that choice in the context of the story his spilling of his seed changed major events of the future.  Hardly minor though the act was small.  e.g. he prevented a pregnancy.

Consider it's a minor act on my part to pull a trigger on a gun.  So simple a 2 year old can do it... however, its a big deal if the minor act happens to take someone's life or if a 2 year old does it.  Though if I pull a trigger on a gun at a shooting range, no one would think twice about it.  Context is key.

I didn't say all of them were for minor reasons, just many. 

Lots wife: Yeah, he killed her while killing a bunch of other people. I don't see how that makes his actions more justified. And once again you use the "he warned them" defense. I do not see how warning someone you are going to kill them necessarily translates into the killing being justified.

Er: Who knows

Onan: Seriously? Even if spilling his seed had terrible consequences for the future, Onan had no way to know. Don't you think that when determining the consequences for an action that intent should be factored in?

There is a huge difference between someone who takes a gun and intentionally shoots someone and someone who is involved in an accident with a gun but had no intention to cause harm. If a 2 year old pulled that trigger, obviously they had no intention to cause harm- I would not support punishing the 2 year old at all, would you?

And what context could possibly justify sending bears to tear 42 children into pieces because they.... made fun of a man for having a bald head. The context is that the God of the old testament killed a lot of people directly and also commanded his followers to kill a lot of people including children and infants. He also ordered his followers to implement the death penalty for all sorts of offenses. To top it all off, these people were killed in some very brutal ways.    

 

caposkia wrote:

is physical evidence your only source of actual evidence?  If so then any thought process besides your own technically does not exist.  

Yes it is. And your second sentence does not follow as a consequence. Other people's thought processes exist, but a thought process is not evidence, it is merely the formation of an opinion or belief. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I don't know.  consider that if that law was enforced to the point that all murders were prevented, then all other laws would be enforced likewise...

Not necessarily. You could certainly have a system where a law such as murder is perfectly enforced while other laws are not. But, I would say that if you are going to have a law it should be enforced as perfectly as we are capable of enforcing it. 

 

caposkia wrote:

how many fines would you have piled up for exceeding the speedlimit, stealing, tax fraud be it that we find money on the ground, get some from selling products on ebay, etc and don't claim any of it  unless it's officially a business.  and so on.  Is that a better life?

A few years ago the town I used to live in put in red light cameras that created near perfect enforcement of red light laws. I got caught by one because it was 3 AM and I made a right hand turn onto an empty street and it was one of those no turn on red intersections. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. Some day we will have fully automated cars that will drive themselves and perfectly obey all traffic laws and essentially remove our ability to choose to run a red light or speed. Will that be an improvement? Yes.

Would it be good if we could catch every single thief? Yes. Would it be good if no one could commit tax fraud? Yes. If there is a law that you would say should not be perfectly enforced, then I suggest that we should eliminate or modify that law.

One of my largest irritations with our current laws are our laws on drugs. They are selectively enforced. As a well dressed white man I can smoke a joint in front of a cop and expect no repercussions. If I was poor or black, I would be arrested for doing the same thing. That is wrong. Either everyone who breaks the law should be punished, or we should eliminate the law. That particular law I support eliminating.

 

caposkia wrote:
  

Basically you're suggesting absolutely no freedom.  

No, I am suggesting that laws should be enforced. If the enforcement of a law is tyrannical, then the law itself is tyrannical and should be abolished. I don't think selective or random tyranny is any better than broadly applied tyranny. In some ways it is worse because when on lone person is punished by an unjust law they have no power to protect themselves or change anything. If a tyrannical law is enforced against a large group of people there is more likely to be a lot of people fighting against it. If you can think of any law where you would say "no, I don't think things would be better if that crime had been prevented" then I suggest that the law should be changed and the crime should not be a crime. In other words, we should say as a society that you are free to choose. Currently, we have thousands of laws that I believe fall in that category and should be repealed giving people the freedom to choose without the risk of being selectively punished.

Now on the flip side of the coin, there is the reality that we cannot perfectly enforce laws and any attempt to do so would severely limit freedom. But we are talking academically under the assumption that we could somehow have omnipotent powers to perfectly enforce the law without infringing on privacy rights or coercion on people who are innocent. 

caposkia wrote:
 

God has severe consequences for breaking His laws just as we do, but instead of making us terrified of stepping out of line, he allows us to do even the worst of acts.  If that person doesn't learn from them, many others do.  consider the big events like 9-11 and the Boston Marathon Bombings, we learn to be united and stand against such acts.   We could tangent on how 1 murder affects the masses, but it'd be way off topic.

I think the world would be a much better place if both of those acts had been prevented. If I was in a position to prevent either act and somehow had knowledge of what was going to happen I would have tried to prevent them.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

A bit of a side question here, you have brought up how important it is for God to allow us the freedom to choose. What about in heaven? Do we still have the freedom to choose? Or does God take a much more active role in preventing crimes there?

 

Consider the lack of crimes committed in a group of followers here on Earth, does God need to take a more active role in heaven?  

Are you saying that followers of God never do anything wrong or harmful? Must not be a single person in the world who follows God then because I do not know anyone who at some point has done something that harms someone else. People are emotional and fallible beings and whenever you have a group of them together they will make poor decisions no matter how good they are as people. I think even good people can be driven to commit bad crimes.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

God has not demonstrated a willingness to prevent his faithful believers from getting diseases aside from a handful that Jesus healed directly, why should I believe he would have acted any differently back then? 

In such situations, He always has.    Believers get diseases, but it does not prevent their salvation or end their bloodline necessarily.  

Sure, they might still find salvation, whatever that may be, but clearly God is not necessarily going to protect their bloodline or protect their lives on Earth. So the original point, I do not believe that if someone before the flood started walking across the world to get to the Ark would have received any protection from god and most likely would have died during the journey.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, that guy. He is a nut. I thought you were not a YEC'er. Do you believe the world is only 7,000 years old? Because that kind of belief requires a willful blindness towards the mountains of evidence we have. It is the equivalent of believing that the world is flat. 

I was focusing on the geological evidences, not what the guy believes.  I thought you were about physical evidences not belief.  I am not a YEC.

His whole argument is that the entire field of geology is completely wrong. If you believe he is right, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is ~7000 years old. His "evidence" of the flood relies on that. If the world is more than 7000 years old, then he has no evidence of the flood. His "evidence" relies on the entire science of geology to be completely wrong, as well as every other science that deals with the age of the universe. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

When I was a kid I knew shooting a gun was fun. I often went shooting with my father. It was also impossible for me to access the guns when he was not around. God could have easily done the same thing. He chose not to. 

Again, we understand that there was a purpose behind that that is not explained in scripture.  We can only speculate as to what it was, but I understand there is a reason for it not to be locked up.  It likely could have been a test to see if they were worthy of obtaining it appropriately or not.  Maybe that tree wasn't the actual goal, only a test and if they passed, then they'd be getting something completely different.  We can speculate all day and try to determine whether it was right or not, but when it comes down to it, we have no clue as to the intention and purpose for things as they were in the garden.

Perhaps god should try writing a second book. If he wrote one that made sense, it would go a long way towards convincing people of his existence.

 

caposkia wrote:

regretting a choice and being wrong are 2 different things.   I may regret spending extra time with my son in a random given moment because later I'll have less time to get the work done that I need to do before tomorrow thus I'll get less sleep and be exhausted tomorrow, but does it then make it wrong for me to spend extra time with my son?

Point is regretting a choice and being wrong are 2 different things.

I disagree. If after you make the choice to spend time with your son and you later regret that choice, you are regretting it because with hindsight you believe that choosing the other option would have been better. When confronted with two or more options you chose one in the moment and later on decided that a different option would have been better, therefore, you now believe that you made the wrong choice. If after making the choice to spend time with your son, you continue to believe that your choice was better than the alternative, why would you regret making that choice? 

 

caposkia wrote:

What you say makes sense... until those choices affect others under the current jurisdiction.  What if that society decided to go on their own and create their own laws, some of which validate destruction of all forests on Earth.  it's their own law... should we allow them to do so?

We deal with them the same way we deal with any other foreign power. Hopefully, we would be able to resolve our differences peacefully. If not, perhaps it might lead to war. I don't think we would automatically have any higher moral standing just because we created the species or any more right to kill them than they have to kill us. Conflict happens because we live in an imperfect world. I certainly wouldn't support mass genocide. In very rare cases I might support a war to protect a vital interest for my own society, but only to the extent necessary to protect that particular interest. I would not and do not support attempting to control another society after our specific interest has been protected. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is a rather depressing view of the world. I think very few people deserve death. I certainly don't think that people who engage in homosexual relations are worthy of death. 

except that it goes against the progression of the creation.  Considering the great increase of homosexual relationships within the past 100 years speaking strictly scientifically, if the progression continues in the same magnitude, the end of humanity as we know it is much closer than we think.  

Consider that each man and woman that is born to continue a steady population around the world would need to have 2 children.  We know that some families today have many more, many have only 2 or less, or none at all.

If Homosexuality continues on the progression it has, consider from 1990 to 2000 the homosexual population increased in the U.S. by 13% give or take, eventually the human population will start to decline... as each decade passes if the progression doesn't slow down, the population will decrease more and more dramatically until there is a point where the population may not be able to sustain itself.  

I know there are factors that we can discuss that could possibly save the population, but considering that possibility, the choice of homosexual relations isn't so innocent anymore.  

There isn't some magical increase in homosexuals, there are simply more of them that are willing to admit it in public. The funny thing is that when homosexuals are treated like diseased social outcasts is that many people don't admit to being gay. The idea that somehow heterosexuals are going to disappear is ridiculous. Birthrates have far more to do with how wealthy a country is, how educated and the available medical technology than it does with how socially acceptable homosexuality is.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X