Let me reiterate something. God, as we have agreed, is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. therefore infinite. We as man can try to rationalize, try to explain God, but that's defeating the purpose of God as an infinite. We cannot put god in a box or under a microscope because God does not need rationalization for he is beyond it.
If you wish to say, believers (Religious or non-religious), acknowledge that there is a God because of our mere existence and the concept that there is something more to us,
What evidence do you have that there is something more to us?
I did not say it was solved, we HAVE STOPPED asking and GUESSING, the various religions and the various schools of thought have these GUESSES THAT THEY STICK TO, I'm not saying who is right, EVEN THOUGH I STUDY JESUS BUT NOT BUDDHA AND HAVE PRESUPPOSED A GOD, or wrong nor who should be believed.
I have fixed your post in lieu of evidence
What force created/made this world? If you believe in the big bang theory, that matter supercompressed by a force birthing the universe, we would ask, who or what put the matter there in the first place and who or what caused the force in the first place?
you are;
a/ presupposing that a force did create the universe
b/ and even if you could propose a cause, what caused that cause?
We can have a concept of what is perfect, what the infinite and the omniscient is, yet we do not have this on our plane of existence. Take a look at the structure of the world, there is some logic and rational into it that science and man can understand, but what brought forth its complexities int he first place? What designed it? Even in evolution, what force of nature dictated that we should get thumbs and giraffe's necks should elongate to reach for trees.
again you are presupposing that there was designer, a creator, a rational, logic. none of this is needed - and here is why. If you say 'but what could make all the complexities of earth" - all i have to say is "what made all the complexities of, the apparently more complex (infinite - that we cannot understand) God"
your answer, answers nothing. "oh but God is infinite" - maybe the universe is too?
really? are you serious? have you even looked at these arguments in detail at all?
I suggest you look up the following youtube channels and start learning;
Aronra
Thunderf00t
CDK007
Potholer54
and then do a youtube search on Ken Miller Creationism - he is a catholic who smashed that silly 'irreducibly complex' thing to pieces.
Believing in God itself is more of a matter of trust. As you said if there is not enough proof of that it is there, it does not mean it does not exist.
and no reason to think that God does exist either
If you wish to not believe in god because you think that there is not enough proof he exists, fine by me, that is your call. For me, there is proof out there and I believe that there is a God.
then share it, share the good news! What is this "proof" - which is the wrong word by the way....
Proof is mathematical term, it is not used in scientific enquiry. Show me your EVIDENCE.
Would you apply the same low standarad of 'proof' (evidence) to anything else? Like say - a court room? what standard of 'proof' do you require? (civil court) "on the balance of probabilities" or criminal court "beyond a reasonable doubt" - heres another hint - christianity would not get past a jury on either standard, and YOU KNOW IT
With this, I'm off. Good luck to you and your endeavors. I enjoyed this little ramble in its own little way.
- DNC
you got crushed. Thats why you are leaving. Good luck.
Does any author give extensive credence to the alternative view point? If you know of one I'd earnestly like to read it for myself. Beyond that, the Case For Faiths entire first chapter is dedicated to the other sides main arguments as presented by a former theist turned atheist, which sparked Strobel to embark on his quest for answers in the first place. So I have no idea where you get that he doesn't allow atheistic rebuttal in the book.
When you write a book or essay, you generally are trying to get your argument across. For credibility you might add dissertations from the opposition, but that is more often than not supposed to be accompanied by an immediate rebuttal of your own explaining why their argument is lesser than yours.
ths point is more that he just accepts the answers he is given. A rebuttle is the chance to counter-argue. He may have given an atheist the initial statements - but no did not give that atheist the chance to rebut his critics - who were given the chance to rebut him. You honestly cant see how if he had have gone to 8 christians - and then one atheist last - that the advantage of going last is overwhleming? and in strobels case 7 - 1.
If a theistic author were to write a book fully dedicated to showcasing counter point after counter point of every little thing they wrote, then they wouldn't be a very convincing author, let alone someone I would trust to be strong enough in the faith to be a reliable literary source on actually keeping the faith.
right, this is the point again - that he wasn't interested in the truth - only in re-enforcing his faith. He decided what was true - then sought eidence - not allowing the evidence to tell him what was true. He put the cart before the horse.
Arguments should stand on their own two feet. regardless of persuasiveness, how convincing they are, and their presentation.
Which leads us to this... why even keep the faith?
have you not ever wondered why you think Faith is a good thing in the first place?
Its circular.
Why is faith good - the bible said so
but u need faith to believe in the bible
The courage to take a stand for something you believe in where others do not. As far as I know, me taking a stand here and showing something means something to me, you saying that means something to you. It's subjective as you say.
What I am saying is that it's meaningless rhetoric - that this dosn't add any strngth to your side of the debate. because you could say the same hollo rhetoric about any position
You are also forgetting, even with great power, god has the choice. He chose to give us free will, thought etc. He could abandon us but he chose not to. He gave, us, insignificant beings, existence, even though he does not need us because he had the choice.
I am not forgettin that - THAT has been my entire point i have been trying to get you to admit - that your lack of undertstanding is god's choice. It's by design that we don't get it - so God shouldn't then be upset when you don't understand him. Because if he didn't want iot that way - he'd change it.
If religion is all about guessing, then why are there people who still believe in this then? Does that mean everyone who believes in religions are fools because they have a certain stand to what they think is truth and have some proof for it even if it isn;t fully defined? Are scientists fools because they go on trying to prove something that they cannot as of this moment?
No, this point dosn't make any sense because you won't find anyone in the religion world that actually agrees with one another. Nobody still believes in anything. Many people, believe and have believed in millions of different versions of thousands of different religions - there is no consistency in religious opinion.
No one is a fool for having a guess at anything - people are only fools if they don't recognise that they are guessing. A scientist may be trying to solve a problem and failing constantly - thats a very different thing because his actions have an end - WHEN HE SOLVES THE PROBLEM. BUt a religious person tries to answer a question - THEY CONSIDERED IT SOLVED ALREADY. This is foolish - because they have no evidence, it is a LIE to say they KNOW any answer.
Over time, scientists agree with each other more and more as the mount of evidence aligns to give an answer - over time, religious opinion becomes more and more disparate and less and less people agree as more factions spread throughout the land.
Because there is no evidence that there is a soul that science cannot fully prove, therefore we must junk even the concept of it in any thought including Science and Philosophy?
Correct - there is NO reason to junk it. I don't, I say "i don't know, and there is no evidence for it". It would only be honest for you to also say "there is no reason to blieve in it either". There is equally no reason to believe it as there is to junk it. Again, I am saying I DONT KNOW which you seem to constantly confuse with me junking things - you are the one that wants to believe something exists - show me why I should believe it????
And no I am not saying I am guessing. I am saying what I think is right like you say what you think is right. Much like how you say, I don't believe in this and this because of this and this and how I believe in this because of this and this.
NO NO NO, i am not saying what i think is right - i am saying I DONT KNOW. You are simply guessing, if you weren't you;d be able to provide some evidence as to what you claiming - but you don't havn't, and possibly can't.
They have their evidences, but you chose not to believe it/reject it because of your own beliefs and biases.
if someone shows me evidence of something - I have no choice but to believe it. This is the point.
I don't decide what is true and what isn't - I let the evidence tell me what is true and what isn't - and for anything that there is no evidence i say I DONT KNOW. If there is anything which is a small amount of evidence, but not any conclusive evidence, i use statements such as "on the balance of probablities I think that ....." or "there is no conclusive evidence that x causes y, but there is a correlation between these 2 variables" or other such inteelectually honest statements that acknowledge i dont know what the heck i am talking about enough to draw a conclusion.
You are guessing. If you weren't, you could show me evidence.
All you've managed to do with these silly tangents is assert that the bible can't be taken literally. Congratulations, you've now joined the club of the huge majority of non-fundamentalist Christians. All of your posts are essentially directed to the fundamentalists, because they are the only ones silly enough to believe every word of the bible is literal truth.
Why are you still trying to apply proof to religion? You can't go up to religious people and say "Where's the proof" because religion almost always lies beyond the scientific method. It's juvenile to try and use a scientific-based mindset to 'counter' religion.
As a complete aside, if one were to actually try to argue the bible as literal truth (don't) one could simply assert that God is omnipotent and omniscient, and justify that there is evil/pain/injustice/etc. by asserting that God is a troll .
Does a God, any God, deistic or theistic, exist?
I have no idea. and neither do you.
Does an interventionist God exist, like say the Christian one?
Well now, that IS a scientific question - because if God intervenes with the way the world works, in any way at all that is non-random, then it will be possible to show that this intervention occurred, occurs, will occur again - this is for example how we can say that the "power of prayer" has never been proven, that is not to say it doesn't exist - but we can say that there is no evidence supporting it. Because in double blind scientific studies, prayers have had no impact on results. If something has intervened in a non random way - then cause and effect CAN be investigated.
AS for whether or not the bible is literal truth - I think you have missed the point, I am not saying it is, or that it isn't. what i said was - HOW DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS TRUE, AND WHAT IS NOT TRUE
To conclude that any part of the bible or Koran is metaphor or the 'adaptation of man' is to immediately admit to the possibility that ANY story of these books is metaphor or adaptation. The amount of people that believe in NONE of the historical claims of the bible but still believe in the resurrection is astounding. That could be metaphor too.
for example, BOTH the story of Jesus and Noah's flood are told as if they are historical fact.
You should probably read "The Case For Faith" to resolve any questions you may as to specific questions challenging the existence of God. He talks with many theologians and philosophers to resolve burning questions as to why bad things happen to good people, why God allows suffering in the world, and all the other things that most detractors state are "truths" about why God is evil.
It may not be able to answer every single little grievance in the Bible, but it does address the top 8 issues facing questions about religion today.
And trust me, it's not even close to a blind appeal to authority. They encourage you to do the research as well. But it provides a pretty good foundation for being able to answer Snares inquiries.
Lee Strobel is not a good author. For an excellent dissertation on why you shouldn't waste your time with his apologetic, check here.
because Strobel never puts any rebuttals from skeptics in his works - only ever gives 'believers' the chance of rebuttal - and although present himself as a former atheist and journalist, he is actually only ever presenting one side of the debate. He is lawyer - he is trained to argue a case, not decipher the truth.
Faith is MY GUESS. I listened and these are my GUESSES of what I think is in my faith but since you so insist I should ADMIT THAT I AM GUESSING.
fixed it again
Again, God is perfect, omnipotent etc. but if you think about it, we humans cannot fully comprehend what is perfect or infinite. We only have a limited view of the world and what messages we get from it. You're missing the point that God as the infinite can only communicate in the infinite which we cannot fully comprehend and thus we can try to interpret it in our own way.
maybe you should re-double your efforts to understand what omnipotent means.
If an ALL POWERFUL being wants you to understand something, you will - god has no limitations, omnipotence means NO LIMITATIONS - our limitations cannot prevent god from DOING WHATEVER HE WANTS - if he wanted us to understand, he'd remove our limitations. but he doesn't want us to understand, so he doesn't. How many different ways can i re-state this -omnipotence means the ability to do ANYTHING and that includes making humans understand his message.
God as the infinite can only communicate in the infinite
no, God, as the OMNIPOTENT one can DO ANYTHING he damn well wants. please, please, please think about this more. do anything = DO ANYTHING
Besides, we have things out there, things that have happened that we cannot fully comprehend. Things out there that our limits cannot reach out to yet. You cannot say, if we cannot understand it fully, if we cannot find it, therefore, we should reject it. That's what Philosophy, Science and Religion are trying to do, make sense of whats out there based on their views. I'm not saying who's right, or wrong.
things beyond our present comprehension abilities, are just that, beyond our comprehension - so why speculate, why guess?
Philosophy, religion and science are less closely linked than you think
philosophy is about questions
science is about evidence
religion is about guessing at answers
i am not rejecting anything - i am saying "i don't know" and when people present me with things, I want to know WHY i should believe in them - without evidence, why should I select one alternative from amongst the picks? they are all as equally believable as they are ridiculous. without evidence, how do you distinguish one guess from the next, because.... if they had evidence, they wouldn't be guesses.
I am not saying who is right, and who is wrong - i am saying who is guessing, and who is being honest enough to say they don't know. Heck, i'd accept your guess without argument if you admitted it was a guess. be honest about what it is. its not an interpretation, its not faith, its not any of those politicized words, its a guess.
I'm saying what I want to say, just like how they're making sense of the world through their ways.
right, and any way that dosn't involve evidence - is guessing
Sometimes, it takes more to believe in something that has very little proof, than to discredit something with concrete proof. Sometimes, its faith and the belief that there is more than meets the eye that keeps people running more than tangible things.
What does it take more of? courage? courage for what? the courage to be intellectually dishonest? the courage to make a wild guess? what does that even mean.
I could match it with equally hollow rhetoric about how MUCH (insert random positive quality here) it takes to deal with the reality that we dont know the answer to the god question. It takes more to say "i dont know!"
You know, I always did like that bit of biblical apocrypha about Lilith, the woman that was created before Eve. Basically she was made from the same clay as Adam, but ran afoul of him because she didn't want to be on the bottom during sex (seriously) and so got banished from Eden and wound up with demons and eventually served as a prototypical succubus. Eve being created from Adam's rib in this telling was basically used to explain away treating women as inferior to men—plus I guess it meant god was fine with missionary but not cowgirl.
Again, none of this is in the bible. It's a bit of Jewish folklore from the middle ages, and I think it's kinda nifty.
i hope you are enjoying my diatribes, pontification and rants.
No. I meant he knows better than me and I'll ask him your questions. And I'll direct what I find to this thread to you. In fact, I should thank you for wanting me to ask questions and try and set things straight for myself at the very least.
best thing you've said.
From what I can garner: we as humans are flawed and interpret things differently. It's not God's fault we interpret things differently form what he's trying to say. Since you agree that this God we are talking about is omnipotent, omniscient and all that, therefore he should his message should be perfect but we humans, the interpreters aren't.
no. this makes no sense - no matter how imperfect we are, as an omnipotent, omniscient being God would be able to get his message across IF HE ACTUALLY WANTED TO> the fact we don't get it, means he dosn't want us too. everything that happens is the choice of god (if he is omni this and that etc) Only what he wants to happen, happens, because if he dosn't want it to happen - it wouldn't - he is all powerful.
You yourself say it's subjective reality. How sure are you that we're talking about the one same God? The one same thing? We may have similarities in a reality, but that doesn't mean every thing in that said reality is the same. By the way I see it, to you God is some absolute wanker, for me he is some strange being we have yet to 100% comprehend. This is my interpretation, but does it mean I'm right about you? I don't think so. Does that mean I'm wrong or right after all? I don't think so either.
no. i believe the observable reality is an objective reality. All that is not observable, is not verifiable, repeatable etc, and therefore comes under "i don't know and neither do you". If we cant test it, we cant repeat it, we cant verify it, then it can only be classified as not understood, and not yet known. Once we can verify things in a rational manner, then we are no longer guessing. until then thats all you are doing.
Let me spell out the difference between me... and people of 'faith' - when i don't have any evidence, i say "i don't know" - when people of faith (you) don't have any evidence, you say "I'll guess, um, God feels about right, I happened to be born in a Christian country and not China, i'll throw my lot in with jesus"
The only thing I want to straighten out is what my faith says about these misconceptions and ideas. At least to give a right limelight to it.
listen to yourself.... you are presupposing that what i am saying about your faith is a misconception, BEFORE checking on what your faith says about them. why not check their voracity for yourself? what evidence do you have that suggests your faith is not the misconception itself - and furthermore, after spouting all this 'it's up for interpretation' stuff - how can you say one interpretation (mine) is a misconception, and another (that of your theology teacher, or anyone else) is better?
And this is what I believe in and what I think is true for me. If you want to insult my ideas, fine by me, I'm staying with what I know and I'll get some more clarifications from someone who has studied more extensively.
you don't know it, its a guess - if you knew it, you could provide some repeatable, verifiable, demonstrable.... you know whats coming..... evidence
but glad to see you say "whats true for me" - Hilariously ironic how a Christian can believe in subjective reality.
and just so you know, disagreeing with your ideas, and disagreeing with you substituting a flowery fluffy positive sounding word like "interpretation" where "guess" would be more honest word usage - is not insulting your ideas. Its disagreeing with you, and calling you on your 'marketing'
How it's taught here is differently.
yep, something that is apparently 'the truth' is taught differently everywhere. Unlike gravity, chemistry, geology, plate tectonics, meteorology, science in general - which due to the fact it is reliable, demonstrable, verifiable etc is taught roughly the same everywhere.
God himself is very odd, omnipotent yet he chose to be human. Odd, yes, but for us Christians, it happened. His message is "perfect" in a sense, but us being imperfect beings, of our own biases and our own mental limitations, interpret it differently. He chose these people, his messages were given, history happened, we now have the various religions throughout the world.
why is his message perfect? cos he said so? cos no one has ever disagreed with him? because he sends those that do disagree with him to hell? In what sense is it perfect?
can you please provide some evidence and inarguable reasoning as to why God's message is perfect? instead of why his message is garbled, unclear, inconsistent drivel?
Also, if God did design us to be sinners, does that mean God and we are inherently evil? I don't think so. Since God did create us with mental capacity, and mental freedom, we chose to go against what he has revealed/taught through Jesus, the prophets and everyone else. We chose to do something against his teachings.
No, it makes God inherently evil - we are born having done nothing wrong, babies are innocent. yet already sinners in God's eyes. Humans are deserving of eternal punishment just for being....... well.... born at all - according to your mate God.
You chose to deny what's set out, it's not going to be much of my problem of what happens after. If you wish to do so, fine by me. I'm just giving my two cents and wish to straighten things out with what many, if not, a lot of what non-belivers think about the Christian faith and the monotheistic God.
nothing has been set out - there is no evidence of anything. You won't be able to straighten anything out with anyone - by your own concession, its 'perfect' in a sense in its current, garbled, unclear, inconsistent drivel state. Its not supposed to be straightened out, by design, apparently.
Can you give some evidence that you're interpretation is the 'straightened out' version? No, you cant.
Long ago, God decided he needed a mate, so he clicked his fingers and turned some clay into a man. Then God decided his mate needed a friend, so he stole one of his mates’ ribs and made a woman. Why God created two genders when he never intended them to want sex, we’ll never know. But then, despite God being all knowing and all present these two feisty little humans got time away to break the ice with a talking snake, and do the only thing that would offend God……… eat fruit from a tree. So God goes all gangster film and says “Your dead to me boy, get out of my garden”.
…And because of that fateful day, we are all born guilty, and we are all considered unworthy, we are all through no fault of our own born deserving eternal punishment. We will too… we’ll all die and go to hell, in whatever way amuses god and temporarily satiates his infinite sadism.
Christians love a good allegory or a good metaphor, so lets try one. You go out and a build a toy car, but you build it badly and it doesn’t do what it was built for. It doesn’t roll. So you say unto your car; you were created to roll for me, but alas! You do not roll well! And my justice will be to destroy you! So you smash the car, forever, and condemn all other cars to follow in its footsteps to smashdom.
It's the whole model of God:humans :: Humans:toys.
If you can’t see that God smashes people like cars when we fail to live up to his absurd standards, the same standards that are in most instances impossible to fulfil, then you are blind of evil. Because that is one of the most frigged up ideas I have ever heard.
Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein combined couldn't even begin to dream about being as evil as the God you apparently worship.
Lets combine all these evil jerks in a melting pot and create the ultimo genocidal maniac, let’s call him Saddam Adolf Stalin von Evilf***er (the SASvE). Now let’s say this ******** SASvE gets a hold of a cloning laboratory and starts making a brand new race of people that have one purpose, and one purpose only, to believe in and love Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot. Yet he leaves no evidence of it ever existing, except telling one old man while hiding behind a hedge he set on fire. Anyways, SASvE buggers off for a few thousand years and comes back… he finds everybody worshipping a bronze goat, not the teapot… SASvE Screams in rage “How dare you jerks not do what I want, you’re not the type of people I wanted when I created you, so you’re all gonna be sent off to hell!!! I don’t care if you’re sentient beings who survive and prosper on rational thought!! If you don’t believe the old guy I spoke to from the burning hedge, you’re punished for all eternity!! You’re lucky I ever screwed up your creation in the first place!”
Now I know that sounds screwed up, so thankfully Jebus came along to set the record straight. Right?
Ok, so God says, “I’ve got a brilliant Idea!” and he sends down himself I guess, but sort of his son too, I’m not really sure… but yeah, he sends down Jebus. The basic Idea is that if we believe that if God inflicted upon himself human pain, then somehow we can be forgiven… So he sacrifices himself/son, to... himself… and somehow that makes us forgiven of our sins… but only if we believe in him. screw it, Ok, even trying to explain this dumb concept I have confused myself, yay for human sacrifice making it all ok. But on with the story.
Next God says, I am going to make believing in things without evidence, virtuous! Faith will be the ultimate virtue. I am going to do the following things to make my son Jebus completely unbelievable, so that I know who TRULY loves me!
- Jebus will only come once
- Jebus will be born in an obscure part of the world
- Jebus will contradict himself frequently to require interpretation
- Jebus’ story will be similar to many others throughout history so as to make him factually indistinguishable from people that get locked up in mental homes
- Jebus will not fulfil the most obvious prophecies I told the old guy from the hedge (anybody seen any lions lying down with lambs lately? Any nations beating their swords into ploughshares)
And under the following circumstances………well, then hmmm;
- You were born before Jebus, off to hell with you!
- You we’re born somewhere that you’ll never hear about him, off to hell sucker
- If you don’t immediately believe his ideas despite them proving ridiculous, and foreign to you, off to hell with you!
- If you can’t distinguish Jebus from all his similar competitors, off to hell with you!
So if you want God to forgive you, for him not being able to create you how he wanted to create you, then you’ll need to believe that he sent some dude down, then that dude was dead, then not dead, then floated off to heaven.
You also have to believe that even though the whole resurrection and other Jebus miracles set a precedent - that it is within God’s idea of acceptable things to do, to do things that prove his own existence - that asking for proof now is irrational and unacceptable… If you can’t swallow all the previous ridiculous conditions, off to hell with you!
Well baptise me Jebus blue, and call me Bartholomew. Sign me the heck up!
In my opinion the Main Character in this story is fundamentally Evil and devoid of responsibility and accountability. Which interestingly enough is exactly what religiotards tell me, “If you don’t believe in God, where do you get your morals from?”… Well let me say two things to that;
1 – Are you telling me the reason you don’t screw little kids is ‘God told me not to’, ‘cause if that’s true, then you are far more screwed up than me
2 – Where does god get his morals? Or is it just his right to do whatever the hell he likes ‘cause he made everything? Is it his right to treat sentient beings like toy cars? "might makes right"?
Anyways, let’s see how Jebus fits in with SASvE, his army of Teapot lovers and Bronze goat worshippers. Now not only to they have to love the teapot, they have to believe that the Teapot, 2000 years ago poured some of it’s very own tea into Israel, and that it has since Evaporated leaving no trace, but that you must worship the tea, as well as the teapot, but not separately, ‘cause they are the same… and don’t forget the Holy Ghost Tea Bag that somehow completes the trinity. But remember SASvE’s last name is Evil***er, so he has about 20 stories just like this one for you to pick from… So if you don’t believe this whole pointless, nonsense story that the point of which doesn’t even make sense. Then our buddy SASvE will smash you of to hell.
SASvE doesn’t need any evidence; he just left some old scribbling written around in a dead language, and clearly that’s all you should need.
Is the post-Jebus Saddam Adolf Stalin von Evilf***r a whole lot nicer than he was before? I'd say he's worse: he's added a new level of capriciousness and cruelty…
Now let me just pre-empt an argument that annoys the hell out of me, that some of the stories in the bible I have referenced above are ‘Metaphors’.
To conclude that any part of the bible or Koran is metaphor or the 'adaptation of man' is to immediately admit to the possibility that ANY story of these books is metaphor or adaptation. The amount of people that believe in NONE of the historical claims of the bible but still believe in the resurrection is astounding. That could be metaphor too.
If you are willing to believe in any of the bibles claims, you should probably believe in all of them. I'll present two scenarios; I don’t see how they are different.
a. "Tom is late for work everyday. He is always telling me lies about why he is late. But on one Friday and Monday (Easter Reference) each year I decide to believe his excuses"
b. "Every story in this book is shown by extensive research and science to be false, but I choose to continue to believe in the one where our saviour becomes a zombie"
AND! Don’t anyone give me that Pascal’s wager rubbish. Simply put, if you believe in god out of fear and gamble, not out of love, under the 'rules' of the major religions you'd actually fail to get into Heaven. Do you actually think you can trick an “omnipotent” being? LOL
Don't you know your imaginary friend can read minds?
Not only is there that retardation, but Pascal's wager also makes the assumption that God rewards belief first and foremost, and not good actions or reasoning. Which is just insulting IMO.
Have fun flaming me. But if you're a Christian, you have to forgive me. Oh unless of course I blaspheme
Mark 3:29 in the Holy Bible, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." Jesus will forgive you for just about anything, but he won't forgive you for denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Ever. Because apparently, for God, sticks and stones just aren’t true, names really do hurt him.
Well guys, time to royally screw myself " I, Snare, deny the father, the son and the Holy Spirit, oh... and ahhh……… i hope Jesus gets forced to do unspeakable things to a curling iron"
I'm saying the so called all omnipotent being is communicating but we're getting it differently. See Moses, Mohammad, Buddha and all the other mystics around the world. I'm sure they're getting signals, we're getting signals from this omnipotent being, but we get it differently.
or, they are all nuts. but no, you are "sure" that these people are getting signals. lol got any evidence? anything to be "sure" about that makes that a better answer than "i don't know and neither do you". If god is omnipotent we are receiving the message exactly as intended - if he wanted it any other way he would change it. So why would God deliberately want a misleading, unclear, garbled, inconsistent message?
And he had a choice, he CHOSE to. Did you also forget that? He chose to be human. He chose to try and communicate to us. He chose to send Jesus, and the prophets and what have you because he wanted to. It makes sense that it's easier to communicate to someone when you have an interpreter and an actual face to talk to.
no, what would make sense would be directly talking to someone yourself if you were able to communicate with them
"He chose to try and communicate to us." - yes, he chose to poorly communicate it to us in a way that, what is it you said, "we're not getting it" - even though he has the power to communicate it in a way we would get it. cos you know, he is omnipotent
If he did predict everything, knowing us. Why did he create us in the first place, knowing we would screw ourselves ten times over the course of history, knowing all the crap we will do, seeing the atrocities big and small? Some say its chance. Some say, and I believe, he chose to create us because he wanted to. God sent the prophets, and all these men, so he could give man a chance to go back and talk to him, he's jsut waiting and it's our choice to embrace anyone or none at all.
if he actually wanted you to talk to him, he'd just talk to you. The idea that he created you just to have you screw up is what makes the monotheistic religions so sinister. You are created sick and commanded to be well. The idea of original sin, born deserving hell, is absurd.
Again, it's open to interpretation. You can say that winning the lottery after you begged to win can be a miracle. Yet, people have prayed hard enough to wish their loved ones to be cured of cancer but the next day dies. Can you decide whether God or some other divine being has intervened or not? You can't fully say so, its interpretation. One can think it's just fate, karma, luck, what have you.
congratulations, you are making my point, this is why the correct answer is "i don't know, and neither do you" - not, "we are all entitled to our own ludicrous guesses
This is my GUESS. This is my thoughts about your ideas, the other side to the coin. Just my GUESSs and what I think about things you have said here. It's your choice to believe what you want. I'm jsut GUESSING and REGURGITATING THE GUESSES I LIKED MOST FROM Theology and Philosophy classes.
You know, when America first started our founding fathers had slaves. Women had specific "sexist" roles where they were prohibited from owning land or having equal rights to men, and non-white people were only accountable for 3/5's of a person. And most of these legislation's were explicitly outlined in the Constitution as O.K.
However, there is a big difference between these two documents, and one that you are missing from this debate.
The constitution is a "living document" subject to change with the times and the will of the people.
The Bible is not subject to change, yet it is open to interpretation. What one man sees as a literal translation another man sees as an obscure metaphor for an entirely different concept.
Such as slavery. You read slavery and see horrible persecution of minorities. A guy like Mystery will read slavery and see indentured servants paying off a debt but otherwise being treated like the labor force of today. Being paid a living wage to do a service for our master (boss or work place).
Interpretation is everything to the Bible. Which is also an inherent problem with the document. Because everyone and their mother has a different idea as to what the Bible says. Which is why you have 100's of denominations and some people like myself with so wildly varying beliefs that we don't subscribe to any organized system at all.
My point is, being angry at the Bibles lack of denouncing of slavery is like being angry at our founding fathers for not denouncing slavery in the Constitution. It's like being mad at any ancient civilization for not becoming as enlightened to human rights as we have over the past 100 years. With you are free to be, but it's not exclusive to just the Bible. EVERYONE before the 20th century didn't have an issue with slavery.
you are like so close, so close to getting it - the difference is that only holy books claim to be the unalterable, infallible word of God. That have eternal punishment riding on the outcome. If the bible, the quran or the Hindu Bhagavad Gita were just 'general advice' books, or 'living documents' like the american constitution - I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.......
........but while instead they claim to be the representation of the all mighty, claiming to be 'the truth and the way' and all that, then I have some serious issues with it.
All the inherent problems you have with the document are exactly right - so start disregarding it.
you are more moral than the god of the bible.
you are smarter than the men who wrote it
you don't need them
Your life has enormous value, for and of itself, you don't need a glorious conclusion to give it purpose. It's purpose is happening right now. The joy of asking and contemplating the big questions could be one facet of whatever purpose you choose for yourself. no one can prescribe one
And i promise you this, if anyone, ever, shows me some reliable, verifiable, repeatable reason for believing in god, i'll do so. Until then, the only rational answer to this one is
Again, Jesus did not write the Bible. Remember, people wrote the Bible, heck a lot of stuff came after he died so who knows what is there. If he did intervene in anything we did our world would be extremely different. God's language, so to speak, is different from ours. We cannot fully comprehend this superior being and whatever messages we pick up from him, is comprehended differently, seeing the different religions around the world, why people have different ideas of the divine because they pick up the signals differently.
Two, when Jesus became human, he stepped down, so to speak, and humbled himself into human form, therefore he cannot have these god-like properties in human form, nor the very least, his miracles can be taken into a different context altogether.
i don't think you have quite thought through the meaning of "omnipotent and omniscience" - here is a hint.
even if he gave up those powers to create a human version of himself while simultaneously still being god above..... before he became human, became jesus - he would have been able to PERFECTLY predict the outcome of everything that was about to happen. Get it? Omniscient - "KNOWS EVERYTHING" - is this ringing in your head yet?
Omnipotent - has the power, therefore the dominion, therefore the RESONISIBILITY of all things that happen. because anything and everything happens only if he allows it to... understood?
Intervention? are you mental?
I am pretty sure he dosn't have a problem with 'intervention' - otherwise he wouldn't have
a/ sent jesus in the first place
b/ talked to moses and a miriad of other people before him
c/ encourage everyone to pray to him, as if it will influence the future.
God is pro-intervention
God's language is different from ours? oh really? so an OMNIPOTENT BEING cant communicate with his own creations?
this is hysterical. you are saying things that an ALL POWERFUL being can and cant, will and wont do.
I don't think it's an arguement in the first place. I see a poster confirming his own experiences, not shoving it down someone's throat.
Regarding your first paragraph, why must a credible moral guide specifically and explicitly outline anything?
Also, Jesus didn't write the bible...
because (from what i am *told*) Jesus is god, and god is omnipotent and omniscient - that makes him RESPONSIBLE for it. His omniscience ensures that he knows the book will be used as a moral guide, simply as it will be considered his word. and his omnipotence ensures
Basically, if god didnt want what is in the bible said IT WOULDNT BE IN THE BIBLE because he is ultimately responsible as an omniscient and omnipotent being.
oh, and your two passages: lets just put their surrounding passages with them to put them in context, shall we?
You'll see below thatyeah, sure exodus 21:16 shouldn't steal a man to sell him, but that the same passae, exodus 21:7 says you can sell your daughter - and the very next line exodus 21:17 says you should be put to death for cursing your mother and father. So how the hell should i take any of this seriously? if you think 21:16 is a good defense, can I not claim 21:7 and 21:17 as a good offense?
Exodus 21
1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
or lets look At the other one you quoted; seems to have nothing to do with slavery
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
I want to sell MTGO tickets to MTGOtraders.
Please tell me your experiences of this in the past, and how you've gone about it.
regards,
Snare
right. So we agree everything is god's choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
then you say. But god is above rationalisation! Um, LOL, this is just an argument from ignorance, so we learn nothing from it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
What evidence do you have that there is something more to us?
I have fixed your post in lieu of evidence
you are;
a/ presupposing that a force did create the universe
b/ and even if you could propose a cause, what caused that cause?
this is an infinite regress and tells us nothing
again you are presupposing that there was designer, a creator, a rational, logic. none of this is needed - and here is why. If you say 'but what could make all the complexities of earth" - all i have to say is "what made all the complexities of, the apparently more complex (infinite - that we cannot understand) God"
your answer, answers nothing. "oh but God is infinite" - maybe the universe is too?
i dont know, neither do you
really? are you serious? have you even looked at these arguments in detail at all?
I suggest you look up the following youtube channels and start learning;
Aronra
Thunderf00t
CDK007
Potholer54
and then do a youtube search on Ken Miller Creationism - he is a catholic who smashed that silly 'irreducibly complex' thing to pieces.
and no reason to think that God does exist either
then share it, share the good news! What is this "proof" - which is the wrong word by the way....
Proof is mathematical term, it is not used in scientific enquiry. Show me your EVIDENCE.
Would you apply the same low standarad of 'proof' (evidence) to anything else? Like say - a court room? what standard of 'proof' do you require? (civil court) "on the balance of probabilities" or criminal court "beyond a reasonable doubt" - heres another hint - christianity would not get past a jury on either standard, and YOU KNOW IT
you got crushed. Thats why you are leaving. Good luck.
ths point is more that he just accepts the answers he is given. A rebuttle is the chance to counter-argue. He may have given an atheist the initial statements - but no did not give that atheist the chance to rebut his critics - who were given the chance to rebut him. You honestly cant see how if he had have gone to 8 christians - and then one atheist last - that the advantage of going last is overwhleming? and in strobels case 7 - 1.
right, this is the point again - that he wasn't interested in the truth - only in re-enforcing his faith. He decided what was true - then sought eidence - not allowing the evidence to tell him what was true. He put the cart before the horse.
Arguments should stand on their own two feet. regardless of persuasiveness, how convincing they are, and their presentation.
Which leads us to this... why even keep the faith?
have you not ever wondered why you think Faith is a good thing in the first place?
Its circular.
Why is faith good - the bible said so
but u need faith to believe in the bible
What I am saying is that it's meaningless rhetoric - that this dosn't add any strngth to your side of the debate. because you could say the same hollo rhetoric about any position
I am not forgettin that - THAT has been my entire point i have been trying to get you to admit - that your lack of undertstanding is god's choice. It's by design that we don't get it - so God shouldn't then be upset when you don't understand him. Because if he didn't want iot that way - he'd change it.
No, this point dosn't make any sense because you won't find anyone in the religion world that actually agrees with one another. Nobody still believes in anything. Many people, believe and have believed in millions of different versions of thousands of different religions - there is no consistency in religious opinion.
No one is a fool for having a guess at anything - people are only fools if they don't recognise that they are guessing. A scientist may be trying to solve a problem and failing constantly - thats a very different thing because his actions have an end - WHEN HE SOLVES THE PROBLEM. BUt a religious person tries to answer a question - THEY CONSIDERED IT SOLVED ALREADY. This is foolish - because they have no evidence, it is a LIE to say they KNOW any answer.
Over time, scientists agree with each other more and more as the mount of evidence aligns to give an answer - over time, religious opinion becomes more and more disparate and less and less people agree as more factions spread throughout the land.
Correct - there is NO reason to junk it. I don't, I say "i don't know, and there is no evidence for it". It would only be honest for you to also say "there is no reason to blieve in it either". There is equally no reason to believe it as there is to junk it. Again, I am saying I DONT KNOW which you seem to constantly confuse with me junking things - you are the one that wants to believe something exists - show me why I should believe it????
NO NO NO, i am not saying what i think is right - i am saying I DONT KNOW. You are simply guessing, if you weren't you;d be able to provide some evidence as to what you claiming - but you don't havn't, and possibly can't.
if someone shows me evidence of something - I have no choice but to believe it. This is the point.
I recomend you watch this video on the scientific method
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14
I don't decide what is true and what isn't - I let the evidence tell me what is true and what isn't - and for anything that there is no evidence i say I DONT KNOW. If there is anything which is a small amount of evidence, but not any conclusive evidence, i use statements such as "on the balance of probablities I think that ....." or "there is no conclusive evidence that x causes y, but there is a correlation between these 2 variables" or other such inteelectually honest statements that acknowledge i dont know what the heck i am talking about enough to draw a conclusion.
You are guessing. If you weren't, you could show me evidence.
Does a God, any God, deistic or theistic, exist?
I have no idea. and neither do you.
Does an interventionist God exist, like say the Christian one?
Well now, that IS a scientific question - because if God intervenes with the way the world works, in any way at all that is non-random, then it will be possible to show that this intervention occurred, occurs, will occur again - this is for example how we can say that the "power of prayer" has never been proven, that is not to say it doesn't exist - but we can say that there is no evidence supporting it. Because in double blind scientific studies, prayers have had no impact on results. If something has intervened in a non random way - then cause and effect CAN be investigated.
AS for whether or not the bible is literal truth - I think you have missed the point, I am not saying it is, or that it isn't. what i said was - HOW DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS TRUE, AND WHAT IS NOT TRUE
for example, BOTH the story of Jesus and Noah's flood are told as if they are historical fact.
Lee Strobel is not a good author. For an excellent dissertation on why you shouldn't waste your time with his apologetic, check here.
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/
because Strobel never puts any rebuttals from skeptics in his works - only ever gives 'believers' the chance of rebuttal - and although present himself as a former atheist and journalist, he is actually only ever presenting one side of the debate. He is lawyer - he is trained to argue a case, not decipher the truth.
fixed it again
maybe you should re-double your efforts to understand what omnipotent means.
If an ALL POWERFUL being wants you to understand something, you will - god has no limitations, omnipotence means NO LIMITATIONS - our limitations cannot prevent god from DOING WHATEVER HE WANTS - if he wanted us to understand, he'd remove our limitations. but he doesn't want us to understand, so he doesn't. How many different ways can i re-state this -omnipotence means the ability to do ANYTHING and that includes making humans understand his message.
no, God, as the OMNIPOTENT one can DO ANYTHING he damn well wants. please, please, please think about this more. do anything = DO ANYTHING
things beyond our present comprehension abilities, are just that, beyond our comprehension - so why speculate, why guess?
Philosophy, religion and science are less closely linked than you think
philosophy is about questions
science is about evidence
religion is about guessing at answers
i am not rejecting anything - i am saying "i don't know" and when people present me with things, I want to know WHY i should believe in them - without evidence, why should I select one alternative from amongst the picks? they are all as equally believable as they are ridiculous. without evidence, how do you distinguish one guess from the next, because.... if they had evidence, they wouldn't be guesses.
I am not saying who is right, and who is wrong - i am saying who is guessing, and who is being honest enough to say they don't know. Heck, i'd accept your guess without argument if you admitted it was a guess. be honest about what it is. its not an interpretation, its not faith, its not any of those politicized words, its a guess.
right, and any way that dosn't involve evidence - is guessing
this is just hollow rhetoric? where did you get it from http://www.answersingenesis.org/
What does it take more of? courage? courage for what? the courage to be intellectually dishonest? the courage to make a wild guess? what does that even mean.
I could match it with equally hollow rhetoric about how MUCH (insert random positive quality here) it takes to deal with the reality that we dont know the answer to the god question. It takes more to say "i dont know!"
i hope you are enjoying my diatribes, pontification and rants.
best thing you've said.
no. this makes no sense - no matter how imperfect we are, as an omnipotent, omniscient being God would be able to get his message across IF HE ACTUALLY WANTED TO> the fact we don't get it, means he dosn't want us too. everything that happens is the choice of god (if he is omni this and that etc) Only what he wants to happen, happens, because if he dosn't want it to happen - it wouldn't - he is all powerful.
no. i believe the observable reality is an objective reality. All that is not observable, is not verifiable, repeatable etc, and therefore comes under "i don't know and neither do you". If we cant test it, we cant repeat it, we cant verify it, then it can only be classified as not understood, and not yet known. Once we can verify things in a rational manner, then we are no longer guessing. until then thats all you are doing.
Let me spell out the difference between me... and people of 'faith' - when i don't have any evidence, i say "i don't know" - when people of faith (you) don't have any evidence, you say "I'll guess, um, God feels about right, I happened to be born in a Christian country and not China, i'll throw my lot in with jesus"
listen to yourself.... you are presupposing that what i am saying about your faith is a misconception, BEFORE checking on what your faith says about them. why not check their voracity for yourself? what evidence do you have that suggests your faith is not the misconception itself - and furthermore, after spouting all this 'it's up for interpretation' stuff - how can you say one interpretation (mine) is a misconception, and another (that of your theology teacher, or anyone else) is better?
you are contradicting yourself repeatedly.
so? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
you don't know it, its a guess - if you knew it, you could provide some repeatable, verifiable, demonstrable.... you know whats coming..... evidence
but glad to see you say "whats true for me" - Hilariously ironic how a Christian can believe in subjective reality.
and just so you know, disagreeing with your ideas, and disagreeing with you substituting a flowery fluffy positive sounding word like "interpretation" where "guess" would be more honest word usage - is not insulting your ideas. Its disagreeing with you, and calling you on your 'marketing'
yep, something that is apparently 'the truth' is taught differently everywhere. Unlike gravity, chemistry, geology, plate tectonics, meteorology, science in general - which due to the fact it is reliable, demonstrable, verifiable etc is taught roughly the same everywhere.
why is his message perfect? cos he said so? cos no one has ever disagreed with him? because he sends those that do disagree with him to hell? In what sense is it perfect?
can you please provide some evidence and inarguable reasoning as to why God's message is perfect? instead of why his message is garbled, unclear, inconsistent drivel?
No, it makes God inherently evil - we are born having done nothing wrong, babies are innocent. yet already sinners in God's eyes. Humans are deserving of eternal punishment just for being....... well.... born at all - according to your mate God.
nothing has been set out - there is no evidence of anything. You won't be able to straighten anything out with anyone - by your own concession, its 'perfect' in a sense in its current, garbled, unclear, inconsistent drivel state. Its not supposed to be straightened out, by design, apparently.
Can you give some evidence that you're interpretation is the 'straightened out' version? No, you cant.
so how can you straighten it out for anyone else?
I don't know and neither do you.
Long ago, God decided he needed a mate, so he clicked his fingers and turned some clay into a man. Then God decided his mate needed a friend, so he stole one of his mates’ ribs and made a woman. Why God created two genders when he never intended them to want sex, we’ll never know. But then, despite God being all knowing and all present these two feisty little humans got time away to break the ice with a talking snake, and do the only thing that would offend God……… eat fruit from a tree. So God goes all gangster film and says “Your dead to me boy, get out of my garden”.
…And because of that fateful day, we are all born guilty, and we are all considered unworthy, we are all through no fault of our own born deserving eternal punishment. We will too… we’ll all die and go to hell, in whatever way amuses god and temporarily satiates his infinite sadism.
Christians love a good allegory or a good metaphor, so lets try one. You go out and a build a toy car, but you build it badly and it doesn’t do what it was built for. It doesn’t roll. So you say unto your car; you were created to roll for me, but alas! You do not roll well! And my justice will be to destroy you! So you smash the car, forever, and condemn all other cars to follow in its footsteps to smashdom.
It's the whole model of God:humans :: Humans:toys.
If you can’t see that God smashes people like cars when we fail to live up to his absurd standards, the same standards that are in most instances impossible to fulfil, then you are blind of evil. Because that is one of the most frigged up ideas I have ever heard.
Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein combined couldn't even begin to dream about being as evil as the God you apparently worship.
Lets combine all these evil jerks in a melting pot and create the ultimo genocidal maniac, let’s call him Saddam Adolf Stalin von Evilf***er (the SASvE). Now let’s say this ******** SASvE gets a hold of a cloning laboratory and starts making a brand new race of people that have one purpose, and one purpose only, to believe in and love Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot. Yet he leaves no evidence of it ever existing, except telling one old man while hiding behind a hedge he set on fire. Anyways, SASvE buggers off for a few thousand years and comes back… he finds everybody worshipping a bronze goat, not the teapot… SASvE Screams in rage “How dare you jerks not do what I want, you’re not the type of people I wanted when I created you, so you’re all gonna be sent off to hell!!! I don’t care if you’re sentient beings who survive and prosper on rational thought!! If you don’t believe the old guy I spoke to from the burning hedge, you’re punished for all eternity!! You’re lucky I ever screwed up your creation in the first place!”
Now I know that sounds screwed up, so thankfully Jebus came along to set the record straight. Right?
Ok, so God says, “I’ve got a brilliant Idea!” and he sends down himself I guess, but sort of his son too, I’m not really sure… but yeah, he sends down Jebus. The basic Idea is that if we believe that if God inflicted upon himself human pain, then somehow we can be forgiven… So he sacrifices himself/son, to... himself… and somehow that makes us forgiven of our sins… but only if we believe in him. screw it, Ok, even trying to explain this dumb concept I have confused myself, yay for human sacrifice making it all ok. But on with the story.
Next God says, I am going to make believing in things without evidence, virtuous! Faith will be the ultimate virtue. I am going to do the following things to make my son Jebus completely unbelievable, so that I know who TRULY loves me!
- Jebus will only come once
- Jebus will be born in an obscure part of the world
- Jebus will contradict himself frequently to require interpretation
- Jebus’ story will be similar to many others throughout history so as to make him factually indistinguishable from people that get locked up in mental homes
- Jebus will not fulfil the most obvious prophecies I told the old guy from the hedge (anybody seen any lions lying down with lambs lately? Any nations beating their swords into ploughshares)
And under the following circumstances………well, then hmmm;
- You were born before Jebus, off to hell with you!
- You we’re born somewhere that you’ll never hear about him, off to hell sucker
- If you don’t immediately believe his ideas despite them proving ridiculous, and foreign to you, off to hell with you!
- If you can’t distinguish Jebus from all his similar competitors, off to hell with you!
So if you want God to forgive you, for him not being able to create you how he wanted to create you, then you’ll need to believe that he sent some dude down, then that dude was dead, then not dead, then floated off to heaven.
You also have to believe that even though the whole resurrection and other Jebus miracles set a precedent - that it is within God’s idea of acceptable things to do, to do things that prove his own existence - that asking for proof now is irrational and unacceptable… If you can’t swallow all the previous ridiculous conditions, off to hell with you!
Well baptise me Jebus blue, and call me Bartholomew. Sign me the heck up!
In my opinion the Main Character in this story is fundamentally Evil and devoid of responsibility and accountability. Which interestingly enough is exactly what religiotards tell me, “If you don’t believe in God, where do you get your morals from?”… Well let me say two things to that;
1 – Are you telling me the reason you don’t screw little kids is ‘God told me not to’, ‘cause if that’s true, then you are far more screwed up than me
2 – Where does god get his morals? Or is it just his right to do whatever the hell he likes ‘cause he made everything? Is it his right to treat sentient beings like toy cars? "might makes right"?
Anyways, let’s see how Jebus fits in with SASvE, his army of Teapot lovers and Bronze goat worshippers. Now not only to they have to love the teapot, they have to believe that the Teapot, 2000 years ago poured some of it’s very own tea into Israel, and that it has since Evaporated leaving no trace, but that you must worship the tea, as well as the teapot, but not separately, ‘cause they are the same… and don’t forget the Holy Ghost Tea Bag that somehow completes the trinity. But remember SASvE’s last name is Evil***er, so he has about 20 stories just like this one for you to pick from… So if you don’t believe this whole pointless, nonsense story that the point of which doesn’t even make sense. Then our buddy SASvE will smash you of to hell.
SASvE doesn’t need any evidence; he just left some old scribbling written around in a dead language, and clearly that’s all you should need.
Is the post-Jebus Saddam Adolf Stalin von Evilf***r a whole lot nicer than he was before? I'd say he's worse: he's added a new level of capriciousness and cruelty…
Now let me just pre-empt an argument that annoys the hell out of me, that some of the stories in the bible I have referenced above are ‘Metaphors’.
To conclude that any part of the bible or Koran is metaphor or the 'adaptation of man' is to immediately admit to the possibility that ANY story of these books is metaphor or adaptation. The amount of people that believe in NONE of the historical claims of the bible but still believe in the resurrection is astounding. That could be metaphor too.
If you are willing to believe in any of the bibles claims, you should probably believe in all of them. I'll present two scenarios; I don’t see how they are different.
a. "Tom is late for work everyday. He is always telling me lies about why he is late. But on one Friday and Monday (Easter Reference) each year I decide to believe his excuses"
b. "Every story in this book is shown by extensive research and science to be false, but I choose to continue to believe in the one where our saviour becomes a zombie"
AND! Don’t anyone give me that Pascal’s wager rubbish. Simply put, if you believe in god out of fear and gamble, not out of love, under the 'rules' of the major religions you'd actually fail to get into Heaven. Do you actually think you can trick an “omnipotent” being? LOL
Don't you know your imaginary friend can read minds?
Not only is there that retardation, but Pascal's wager also makes the assumption that God rewards belief first and foremost, and not good actions or reasoning. Which is just insulting IMO.
Have fun flaming me. But if you're a Christian, you have to forgive me. Oh unless of course I blaspheme
Mark 3:29 in the Holy Bible, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." Jesus will forgive you for just about anything, but he won't forgive you for denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Ever. Because apparently, for God, sticks and stones just aren’t true, names really do hurt him.
Well guys, time to royally screw myself " I, Snare, deny the father, the son and the Holy Spirit, oh... and ahhh……… i hope Jesus gets forced to do unspeakable things to a curling iron"
or, they are all nuts. but no, you are "sure" that these people are getting signals. lol got any evidence? anything to be "sure" about that makes that a better answer than "i don't know and neither do you". If god is omnipotent we are receiving the message exactly as intended - if he wanted it any other way he would change it. So why would God deliberately want a misleading, unclear, garbled, inconsistent message?
no, what would make sense would be directly talking to someone yourself if you were able to communicate with them
"He chose to try and communicate to us." - yes, he chose to poorly communicate it to us in a way that, what is it you said, "we're not getting it" - even though he has the power to communicate it in a way we would get it. cos you know, he is omnipotent
if he actually wanted you to talk to him, he'd just talk to you. The idea that he created you just to have you screw up is what makes the monotheistic religions so sinister. You are created sick and commanded to be well. The idea of original sin, born deserving hell, is absurd.
congratulations, you are making my point, this is why the correct answer is "i don't know, and neither do you" - not, "we are all entitled to our own ludicrous guesses
Fixed you post.
you are like so close, so close to getting it - the difference is that only holy books claim to be the unalterable, infallible word of God. That have eternal punishment riding on the outcome. If the bible, the quran or the Hindu Bhagavad Gita were just 'general advice' books, or 'living documents' like the american constitution - I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.......
........but while instead they claim to be the representation of the all mighty, claiming to be 'the truth and the way' and all that, then I have some serious issues with it.
All the inherent problems you have with the document are exactly right - so start disregarding it.
you are more moral than the god of the bible.
you are smarter than the men who wrote it
you don't need them
Your life has enormous value, for and of itself, you don't need a glorious conclusion to give it purpose. It's purpose is happening right now. The joy of asking and contemplating the big questions could be one facet of whatever purpose you choose for yourself. no one can prescribe one
And i promise you this, if anyone, ever, shows me some reliable, verifiable, repeatable reason for believing in god, i'll do so. Until then, the only rational answer to this one is
"i dont know, and neither do you" - quote me
i don't think you have quite thought through the meaning of "omnipotent and omniscience" - here is a hint.
even if he gave up those powers to create a human version of himself while simultaneously still being god above..... before he became human, became jesus - he would have been able to PERFECTLY predict the outcome of everything that was about to happen. Get it? Omniscient - "KNOWS EVERYTHING" - is this ringing in your head yet?
Omnipotent - has the power, therefore the dominion, therefore the RESONISIBILITY of all things that happen. because anything and everything happens only if he allows it to... understood?
Intervention? are you mental?
I am pretty sure he dosn't have a problem with 'intervention' - otherwise he wouldn't have
a/ sent jesus in the first place
b/ talked to moses and a miriad of other people before him
c/ encourage everyone to pray to him, as if it will influence the future.
God is pro-intervention
God's language is different from ours? oh really? so an OMNIPOTENT BEING cant communicate with his own creations?
this is hysterical. you are saying things that an ALL POWERFUL being can and cant, will and wont do.
FML
because (from what i am *told*) Jesus is god, and god is omnipotent and omniscient - that makes him RESPONSIBLE for it. His omniscience ensures that he knows the book will be used as a moral guide, simply as it will be considered his word. and his omnipotence ensures
Basically, if god didnt want what is in the bible said IT WOULDNT BE IN THE BIBLE because he is ultimately responsible as an omniscient and omnipotent being.
You'll see below thatyeah, sure exodus 21:16 shouldn't steal a man to sell him, but that the same passae, exodus 21:7 says you can sell your daughter - and the very next line exodus 21:17 says you should be put to death for cursing your mother and father. So how the hell should i take any of this seriously? if you think 21:16 is a good defense, can I not claim 21:7 and 21:17 as a good offense?
or lets look At the other one you quoted; seems to have nothing to do with slavery