If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?
Offline 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline 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
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.
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.
- Login to post comments
:
Thanks for a moment. If you have the time to look at my last couple of posts. Dana, Included this time, I hope ?
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}:
Important:
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 ?
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!! :~
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. --
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.
...because Jesus is all that is needed
just because you're not getting the message doesn't mean it's not the best way to communicate with you.
...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.
...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.
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.
except that He's proven it time and time again... but anyway
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?
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.
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.
Humans weren't violent... not until they ate the fruit, which they were capable of doing, but knew they shouldn't.
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.
I see where you're falling short... you're asking people. Why don't you try asking God? People don't possess God.
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.
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
Not if your God wants everyone to be saved he isn't.
That sounds so completely contradictory.
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.
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.
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.
????? Read that sentence a few times.
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.
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.
How has he proven anything? He hasn't even proven his existence!
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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.
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?
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
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.