Another sincere question for theists... [Archive]

Dr Adequate

12th November 2004, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
How to explain the love of God to someone who is convinced they are in no need of it? I think my own understanding of it hinges on His forgiveness. I don't pretend to have much more than an inkling of God's hate for sin and its effect on our lives, but by times, I get a pretty good appreciation of the wretch that I fundamentally am, and the undeserved grace that not only bears with me, but promises to renovate my self-centred heart. In my case, these renovations have often involved pain. Were I not aware of their intended purpose, I might believe God was not on the job. In fact, in the midst of suffering, I have questioned his care but in its aftermath, I am overwhelmed by the, "plans to prosper, give... hope and a future", that the Christian God says he has, in the Christian Bible.
Ok, you've explained to us how your own sufferings are (a) no more than you deserve (b) good for you anyway, and so evidence of God's awesome, infinite love. Now explain to us which of these excuses for God applies to the sufferings of animals. Is it punishment for being "wretches", or is it part of God's "plans to prosper, give... hope and a future"? Explain to us, also, which of these excuses for God applies to childhood leukaemia. Is the child so fundamentally a "wretch" that she deserves God's tortures, or is this part of the process that "promises to renovate" her "self-centred heart" by killing her in agony before she's even old enough to know what God is, let alone why he's treating her this awful way?

Any other theist may feel free to have a crack at these questions.

Atlas

12th November 2004, 10:29 AM

For me the love perceived by the worshippers of the God of Abraham seems to be a misplaced form of the Stockholm Syndrome. (edit: I just see now that you were alluding to this in your response to Karen, jimmygun.)

They say that Pythagoras was a sun worshipper. I've often thought that, for those who need a deity, the sun would make a good one. I believe I could make a better argument for love from that big gasbag fireball than the less tangible skydaddy.

Atlas

12th November 2004, 10:32 AM

oops - double post

farmermike

12th November 2004, 10:42 AM

Forgot to mention that some of those painful experiences were self-inflicted and that though I "wandered", He didn't. It has been my experience, that God, in his LOVE, can use our mistakes to teach some valuable truths. Whether I'm open to learning them, is another thing.
Where do we get the idea that God is some kind of egomaniac anyway? If that were true, I think he would have done better to have landed on the French Riviera than a stable in Nazareth. Here's a quote(a weakness of mine) that I find kind of relevant:
"Camazotz is One mind. It's IT. And that's why everbody is happy and efficient...Meg shook her head violently, "No!"she shouted. "I know our world isn't perfect, Charles, but it's better than this. This isn't the only alternative! It can't be!
"Nobody suffers here," Charles intoned. "Nobody is ever unhappy."
"But nobody's happy, either," Meg said earnestly. "Maybe if you aren't unhappy sometimes you don't know how to be happy."
Madeleine L'Engle "A Wrinkle In Time" (Being Different)

Marquis de Carabas

12th November 2004, 11:13 AM

"Nobody suffers here," Charles intoned. "Nobody is ever unhappy."
Sounds like heaven, then.

TragicMonkey

12th November 2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
"But nobody's happy, either," Meg said earnestly. "Maybe if you aren't unhappy sometimes you don't know how to be happy."

Ah. Just like we don't appreciate our own good health until we see children born with hideous birth defects. Being able to appreciate that difference makes it all well worthwhile and completely justified as an object-lesson against complacency.

Gestahl

12th November 2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
Forgot to mention that some of those painful experiences were self-inflicted and that though I "wandered", He didn't. It has been my experience, that God, in his LOVE, can use our mistakes to teach some valuable truths. Whether I'm open to learning them, is another thing.

I want to re-write this, because it makes so much more sense to me, and I think can be valuable. Re-writing a passage in terms of something else can often lead to new thinking...

Forgot to mention that most of my painful experiences were self-inflicted, and though I forgot about all the good things in life, they were still in my mind waiting to be thought of again. It has been my experience that I, loving myself, can use my mistakes to teach valuable truths to myself and to others. Whether I want to admit my own mistakes is another thing.

God's love for you is simply a misplaced love you have for yourself. Pride is simply not acknowledging yourself as you are, but how you see yourself. These are not God's retributions and rewards, they are retributions and rewards that you give yourself.

pgwenthold

12th November 2004, 12:18 PM

Batman Jr.

12th November 2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
OH,I know ,I know!!!!! He loved us so much that he sent his only son to die for our sins,and unless we worship and love him back,our sorry asses are toast.Wow I wish I could love my own kids that much.
Yeah, isn't Jesus kind of like the homeless guy that comes to wash your windows on your car and then demands some kind of fee for his unsolicited services? It's not exactly like I requested he die for my sins, so why should I be held responsible for footing the proverbial bill he imposes on us? And, if Jesus really died for our sins, shouldn't he be rotting in Hell right now? Once he was murdered, he just returned to Heaven, and I always thought that to be somewhat of a cop-out considering that he was purported to have taken on the burden of every malfeasance perpetrated in the entirety of human history. :D

Furthermore, we don't even know if Jesus suffered such an excruciating death ask could be divined by one that had observed the torture that had supposedly been inflicted upon him. He was, after all, omnipotent. He could have just conjured up some kind of anesthesia and made it magically appear in his bloodstream or something for all we know. Perhaps he was no less a con-artist than modern-day televangelists.

Dr Adequate

12th November 2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by farmermike's wife
Forgot to mention that some of those painful experiences were self-inflicted and that though I "wandered", He didn't. It has been my experience, that God, in his LOVE, can use our mistakes to teach some valuable truths. Whether I'm open to learning them, is another thing.
Why is your ability to learn from your mistakes evidence that God loves you?

(Rather than, say, that natural selection killed off people who couldn't.)

But this is all rather beside the point anyway. You keep talking about why you think that God loves you. Well he sure as sugar seems to have it in for a lot of other people. We want evidence of universal divine love, not evidence that you think he loves you. I asked you in an earlier post to solve the problem of evil. I'm asking you again. You do that, and I'll become a Christian. But you guys have had two thousand years to come up with an answer, so I'm not holding my breath.

The Riddle of Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

farmermike

12th November 2004, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I want a second opinion. Farmermike, is your wife really a wretch?
I'm forbidden to answer that question on the grounds that I might be spending time in the treehouse.
But seriously,I think the idea is that compared to Jesus who was perfect in every way,even mother Teresa would be considered a wretch.I'd even go so far as to say that Benny Hinn is a wretch also.

Yahweh

12th November 2004, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by jimmygun
I have asked this before on other threads but so far no reply. Can anyone demonstrate the "love" part of God. I honestly do not see a loving entity from the descriptions given about him.

Please don't give me that old saw about God saving two people while he let x number burn to death. That is not indicitive of a love for anything.
He's more "loving" than I would be with all that juicy omnipotence and ego...

EdipisReks

13th November 2004, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
even mother Teresa would be considered a wretch
given that she actively promoted poverty, squalor, disease, and unwanted pregnancy, she certainly was a wretch.

on topic, i find the apologetics posted so far to be absolutely revolting. good thing that there is no rational reason to believe in this "loving" god.

7th sextile

13th November 2004, 02:25 AM

...I'm just a little unhappy about that stable in Nazareth....

pgwenthold

13th November 2004, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
I'm forbidden to answer that question on the grounds that I might be spending time in the treehouse.
But seriously,I think the idea is that compared to Jesus who was perfect in every way,even mother Teresa would be considered a wretch.I'd even go so far as to say that Benny Hinn is a wretch also.

There is a long way from perfect to a wretch.

My wife isn't perfect, but she is anything but a wretch. She is in fact a beautiful person.

This is the part I don't understand about christians, in particular. Why must they be so darn self loathing?

Assuming you don't consider your wife to be a wretch, let her know it. Compliment her, let her know that you think she is a wonderful person. She is the type of person who makes God look good, if you will.

Paedophilic preists are wretches of human beings. I don't think your wife is that bad.

One last thing, a little more harsh: Don't fall for the crap about "I am not even worthy to live, and it is only by God's grace that I am here in the first place." I don't know about you, but I didn't ask to be put here, so don't pretend that this is some special favor that God is doing me. As far as I can tell, I was perfectly content not being alivee (I certainly wasn't suffering). Now, since God threw me into this world, all I can do is make the best of it, and use the gifts he gave me (including the one for critical thought). But I will tell you, I don't see being alive on earth as being all that much of a gift.

thatguywhojuggles

13th November 2004, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Yeah, isn't Jesus kind of like the homeless guy that comes to wash your windows on your car and then demands some kind of fee for his unsolicited services? It's not exactly like I requested he die for my sins, so why should I be held responsible for footing the proverbial bill he imposes on us? And, if Jesus really died for our sins, shouldn't he be rotting in Hell right now? Once he was murdered, he just returned to Heaven, and I always thought that to be somewhat of a cop-out considering that he was purported to have taken on the burden of every malfeasance perpetrated in the entirety of human history. :D

Furthermore, we don't even know if Jesus suffered such an excruciating death ask could be divined by one that had observed the torture that had supposedly been inflicted upon him. He was, after all, omnipotent. He could have just conjured up some kind of anesthesia and made it magically appear in his bloodstream or something for all we know. Perhaps he was no less a con-artist than modern-day televangelists.

Good point. I imagine there have been thousands of people in this world who suffered a lot worse than Jesus did as they died.

The Cats Venm

13th November 2004, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
I'd even go so far as to say that Benny Hinn is a wretch also.

Really? You'd go that far?

;)

Ladewig

14th November 2004, 06:36 AM

I admire Kant and the Categorical Imperative. One of the axioms of the derived morality of the CI is that one should "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."

God kills Jobs sons and daughters in order to win a bet with the devil (Job 1:18-19).

While freeing His choosen people, God hardens Pharaoh's heart, so that Pharaoh would not let the children of Israel go out of his land (Ex 11:10). God then kills the firstborn of all Egyptians from "firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon" (Ex. 12:29-30).

...........................

As for looking around and seeing evidence of God's love, I can't see, or even imagine, what difference having none of God's love in the world would be. Matthew 5:45 says that "He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." If there were no God intervening in the affairs of humans, then the sun would still rise on the evil and good and the rain would still fall on the just and unjust.

People pray for the recovery of sick people, yet these sick people get better at exactly the same rate as sick people who are not prayed for.

............................

Lastly, have you thought of getting your own screen name so we can easily distinguish between you and your spouse?

farmermike

15th November 2004, 11:17 AM

....Karen.....
O.K. then, so the general consensus seems to be that life sucks. Well, that's a starting point because I think God would be in full agreement, that the things we value most and spend our time chasing, are profoundly unsatisfying. Of course, we tend not to like the solution because it positions us in a place of need, which is an affront to our independence. However,we are not above faulting God(if indeed he exists), for neglecting to ramm himself down our throats.
Concerning the problem of evil, I believe it offends God far more than it does me and that as well as being loving and merciful,he is eternal and just. "Let my heart be broken by the things that break God's heart," founder of World Vision.
I refer you to Pascal's Wager and just really encourage you to genuinely seek and knock.
...and oops, the stable was Bethlehem right?
...and thanks but don't worry about my self-esteem, it runs rather too high I'm sure

pgwenthold

15th November 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
....Karen.....
O.K. then, so the general consensus seems to be that life sucks. Well, that's a starting point because I think God would be in full agreement, that the things we value most and spend our time chasing, are profoundly unsatisfying. Of course, we tend not to like the solution because it positions us in a place of need, which is an affront to our independence. However,we are not above faulting God(if indeed he exists), for neglecting to ramm himself down our throats.

I'm sure there's a coherent thought in there somewhere, but I'll be jiggered if I can figure out what it is.

Concerning the problem of evil, I believe it offends God far more than it does me

Then why doesn't he get off his lazy arse and do something about it?

and that as well as being loving and merciful,he is eternal and just. "Let my heart be broken by the things that break God's heart," founder of World Vision.
I refer you to Pascal's Wager and just really encourage you to genuinely seek and knock.

You refer us to Pascal's Wager for what? Can't you do any better than a false dichomety?

Ladewig

15th November 2004, 01:53 PM

Karen,

I didn't quite understand your last post, so I'll back up a couple

Mrs. Farmermike
I am convinced however, on the basis of lots of good evidence (empirical and otherwise) that there is more to this world than meets the eye and that our ultimate purpose on this earth is to pursue it(God); not to stroke his ego but to experience true contentment.

Would you share this evidence with us?

farmermike

15th November 2004, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Ladewig
Karen,

I didn't quite understand your last post, so I'll back up a couple

Would you share this evidence with us?

I'd be glad to but this really has to be worked through on your own, hence the seek and knock bit, that seemed to leave you non-plussed.
Evidence for some kind of creator:
Knowledge-how did all that primordial ooze manage to successfully organize itself into a functioning single cell?-the logical extension being that a higher intelligence was involved
Consciousness-lots of interesting new findings in this field, indicating the existence of the soul, seperate from the brain
Physics/Astronomy- the minute fine tuning of the universe and our planet in particular/the obvious interventions in our world, compared with the rest of space
and so on and so on etc. etc.
Evidence for the Christian God
History-the enduring and unprecedented legacy of a carpenter from a backwater in Israel
-the early spread of Christianity in a hostile environment
-the testimony of millions
-the personal relationship alluded to in Pascal's Wager which holds that their is nothing to lose in giving God a shot and the sure knowledge that he exists, to be gained
This is not an exhaustive list but it is very nearly an exhausted contributor. I think you get the idea and I suspect it has failed to impress but really the scientific method is not suited to this particular task, although I believe God to be the ultimate scientist.

evildave

15th November 2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by farmermike

Evidence for some kind of creator:
Knowledge-how did all that primordial ooze manage to successfully organize itself into a functioning single cell?-the logical extension being that a higher intelligence was involved

Begs the question: If basic RNA/DNA and organelles, and eventually simple cells could not self-assemble given all the environments (macro and micro) in all the universe over a very, very long period of time, where did this cell's vastly more complex creator come from? At a cellular scale, just the Earth alone has had many trillions of environments with various compositions over its life. Times however many planets (and other environments), in the whole of the universe?

Consciousness-lots of interesting new findings in this field, indicating the existence of the soul, seperate from the brain

Do you have any accessible citations for this? Whose findings for a 'soul' existing without a brain (and how is that 'soul' defined)?

Physics/Astronomy- the minute fine tuning of the universe and our planet in particular/the obvious interventions in our world, compared with the rest of space
and so on and so on etc. etc.

???

Have you actually studied these fields? The universe is a fairly chaotic place. Walk outside and look at that cratered moon and tell me how orderly even this single solar system is. Get a good look at the many meteorite craters on Earth while you're at it.

Evidence for the Christian God
History-the enduring and unprecedented legacy of a carpenter from a backwater in Israel
-the early spread of Christianity in a hostile environment
-the testimony of millions

Islam had a similarly troubled infancy, and similar 'millions' who claim it is the truth. All of the religions that have survived have done so in a 'hostile' environment. Downright darwinian.

-the personal relationship alluded to in Pascal's Wager which holds that their is nothing to lose in giving God a shot and the sure knowledge that he exists, to be gained

"Pascal's Wager" has been demolished in this forum so many ways it's funny. Which god is it safe to believe in? Which church of that god?

Starting with just the two core assumptions, "Afterlife+God", there's only a one in four chance your guess is correct. Throw in the other 'damned to hell if you're wrong' assumptions that so many Christian denominations disagree on, and the chances that your set of assumptions is right becomes vanishingly small. Never mind other possible 'jealous' gods that might exist who would take belief in a 'Jesus' demigod as an offense. Any way you look at it, Pascal's Wager is a sucker bet.

This is not an exhaustive list but it is very nearly an exhausted contributor. I think you get the idea and I suspect it has failed to impress but really the scientific method is not suited to this particular task, although I believe God to be the ultimate scientist.

If you look at 'god' as something of an 'ultimate scientist', then perhaps you might see how 'god' could be an anthropomorphic projection onto natural processes, such as evolution?

KingMerv00

15th November 2004, 10:16 PM

Welcome to the forum Karen.

"I'd be glad to but this really has to be worked through on your own, hence the seek and knock bit, that seemed to leave you non-plussed."

Not to long ago (maybe four months), I DID knock. I truly did. I asked God to reveal himself to me if he did indeed exist. Nothing happened. No euphoria, no flash of light, not even a simple sense of well being. I really am seeking the truth about the universe and I'm sure the majority of the people here are too. We are not running from God. I merely see no evidence to suggest he is there.

"Knowledge-how did all that primordial ooze manage to successfully organize itself into a functioning single cell?-the logical extension being that a higher intelligence was involved"

I have a BS in chemistry, not biology, so forgive any screwups. The "primordial ooze" was composed of simple organic molecules that have been shown through experimentation to form in a low- oxygen environments (the early earth was indeed a low-oxygen environment). These molecules, given enough time, could form into self-replicating compounds that mindlessly copye themselves.

As for the formation of a cell, one popular theory suggests that these reactions took place in little blobs of organic goo (the way oil forms little blobs when poured into water). This is a PROTOCELL. The steps to a true cell would be incredibly small.

For a far better explanation of abiogenesis and the odds of all this happening is found on http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Check out the rest of www.talkorigins.org too. Excellent source.

"Consciousness-lots of interesting new findings in this field, indicating the existence of the soul, seperate from the brain"

Please give me any books or web pages on this topic. I really do find it interesting.

However, from what I have seen so far, the brain and "soul" are the same thing. Brain damage has been shown to cause personality change. For example, google "Phineas Gage" and you will see what I mean.

Also, the idea of a soul and punisment is difficult to pin down too. Let's say I suffer brain damage and become a big, loud-mouthed jerk (moreso) but still maintain control over my actions. In my new form, I will commit more sins than before. Am I responsible for these sins to God? Am I new person entirely? If the accident wasn't my fault, why am I accountable for these actions? The line is very very blurry.

"Physics/Astronomy- the minute fine tuning of the universe and our planet in particular/the obvious interventions in our world, compared with the rest of space
and so on and so on etc. etc. "

Again, any sources would be greatly appreciated.

I'm not sure of any "obvious interventions in our world compared to the rest of space", but I ask you this: If the universe is fine-tuned for life, then why is life such a small part of it?

Also, fine-tuning is relative. Who's to say a different arrangement of universal conditions wouldn't yield life also? This type of tuning is very difficult to prove and has not been done yet.

"Evidence for the Christian God
History-the enduring and unprecedented legacy of a carpenter from a backwater in Israel"

I yield that a man named Jesus probably existed. However, other revolutionaries throughout history have survived obscurity to achieve greatness.

"the early spread of Christianity in a hostile environment"

Many religions survive hostile environments. Islam made it through the Crusades. Atheism made it to modern times too in spite of bitter persecuation. Religion survives like nothing else because it involves our eternal soul.

"the testimony of millions"

According to www.adherents.com there are 2 billion Christians. That means there are around 4.5 billion who are not Christian. No matter what, alot of people are dead wrong. In general, testimonial evidence is very untrustworthy.

"-the personal relationship alluded to in Pascal's Wager which holds that their is nothing to lose in giving God a shot and the sure knowledge that he exists, to be gained"

There is indeed a great deal to be lost by participating in Christianity. Money (tithes), time spend worshiping, earthly enjoyments. Also, if I chose the wrong branch of christianity, eternal punishment may await.

The biggest problem with Pascal's Wager in my opinion is the nature of belief. I can't simply UNBELIEVE what I believe. I can't just choose to pay homage to a god and still be honest with myself.

Again, I welcome you to the forum and hope you post here often.

I'm sure this post is full of type-o's etc. Just pretend I did it to be funny. Forgive me for the format here. I can't seem to get the quotes to work right. Blah.

TeaBag420

15th November 2004, 10:33 PM

"(the early earth was indeed a low-oxygen environment)"? There seems to be quite a lot of oxygen around these days. I wonder where it came from? If only there were someone with a BS in chemistry who could explain how that happened.

Art Vandelay

15th November 2004, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
I was a Christian,but attending a lecture and debate involving a YEC was more or less the straw that broke the camels back.I had to step back and reassemble a belief system,and I couldn't do it. Did this happen before or after you got married?

Other farmermike:
I think my own understanding of it hinges on His forgiveness.Isn't that more indifference than love? After all, I've never punished you for any of your sins. Does that show that I love you? Forgiveness isn't really about doing something for someone, it's about failing to do something against someone.

KingMerv00

15th November 2004, 11:39 PM

H3LL

15th November 2004, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by jimmygun
I have asked this before on other threads but so far no reply. Can anyone demonstrate the "love" part of God. I honestly do not see a loving entity from the descriptions given about him.

There is a perfect example right near the beginning in Eden, which is well described in the quote:

"God loved his apples more than his children."

There you go.

A perfect example of god's love (of apples/fruit).

(Gen. 3:3 KJV)

evildave

15th November 2004, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by TeaBag420
"(the early earth was indeed a low-oxygen environment)"? There seems to be quite a lot of oxygen around these days. I wonder where it came from? If only there were someone with a BS in chemistry who could explain how that happened.

An article that explains it a little better than my first attempt: Oxygen from plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere
The history of the Earth's atmosphere is only poorly understood prior to one billion years ago, but the following presents a plausible sequence of events. This remains an active area of research.

The modern atmosphere is sometimes referred to as its "third atmosphere", in order to distinguish the current chemical composition from two notably different compositions. The original atmosphere was primarily helium and hydrogen; heat (from the still molten crust, and the sun) dissipated this atmosphere.

About 3.5 billion years ago, the surface had cooled enough to form a crust, still heavily populated with volcanoes which released steam, carbon dioxide, and ammonia. This led to the "second atmosphere"; which was, primarily, carbon dioxide and water vapor, with some nitrogen but virtually no oxygen. This second atmosphere had ~100 times as much gas as the current atmosphere. It is generally believed that the greenhouse effect, caused by high levels of carbon dioxide, kept the Earth from freezing.

During the next few billion years, water vapor condensed to form rain and oceans, which began to dissolve carbon dioxide. Approximately 50% of the carbon dioxide would be absorbed into the oceans. Photosynthesizing plants would evolve and convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. Over time, excess carbon became locked in fossil fuels, sedimentary rocks (notably limestone), and animal shells. As oxygen was released, it reacted with ammonia to create nitrogen; in addition, bacteria would also convert ammonia into nitrogen.

As more plants appeared, the levels of oxygen increased significantly (while carbon dioxide levels dropped). At first it combined with various elements (such as iron), but eventually oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere â€” resulting in mass extinctions and further evolution. With the appearance of an ozone layer (a compound of three oxygen atoms) lifeforms were better protected from ultraviolet radiation. This oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere is the "third atmosphere".

KingMerv00

15th November 2004, 11:51 PM

Also, I apologize for including anything at all about my educational background. It is completely irrelevent. All evidence is based on its own merits rather than the identity of the person who presents it.

I put it in there with intention of showing that I know little about biology but instead I think I came off as a boast. I assure you, it was no boast. My lack of confidence in my own knowledge knows no bounds.

Edit: Nice post about the atmosphere evildave. Good stuff.

BobM

16th November 2004, 02:10 PM

I'm not defending any thing here. I'm pretty lazy and skipped most of this thread. (it's late, and I should be going home from work to be with my wife and kids, not posting on an internet forum.) But I wanted to posit this:

All your lamentations about how horrible God is because of all the suffering in the world (undeserved death, hideous birth defects, etc.) could all be rendered meaningless if you just look at it a different way.

When you were a child and your parents sent you to your room for misbehaving (or spanked you, whatever worked in your household) it was devastating to you. Your world was over. You couldn't have candy, or what-not it was you did wrong. But your parents knew that their punishment was temporary and just, and in the long run, you would be better for it.

If our lives truly are eternal, than the mere 100 years we spend here is but a few minutes of our childhood.

pgwenthold

16th November 2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by BobM
When you were a child and your parents sent you to your room for misbehaving (or spanked you, whatever worked in your household) it was devastating to you. Your world was over. You couldn't have candy, or what-not it was you did wrong. But your parents knew that their punishment was temporary and just, and in the long run, you would be better for it.

If our lives truly are eternal, than the mere 100 years we spend here is but a few minutes of our childhood.

Of course, my parents weren't omnipotent nor omniscient and therefore punishment like this was the best way they knew to teach me to be better.

God doesn't have that excuse. Being omnipotent, he has the ability to make me better without punishing me. Therefore, the fact he doesn't indicates that he choses not to. There's a word for that: sadist.

Do you think if your parents could have taught you to be better without punishing you or devastating you they would have done it?

Atlas

16th November 2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by BobM
I'm not defending any thing here. I'm pretty lazy and skipped most of this thread. (it's late, and I should be going home from work to be with my wife and kids, not posting on an internet forum.) But I wanted to posit this:

All your lamentations about how horrible God is because of all the suffering in the world (undeserved death, hideous birth defects, etc.) could all be rendered meaningless if you just look at it a different way.

When you were a child and your parents sent you to your room for misbehaving (or spanked you, whatever worked in your household) it was devastating to you. Your world was over. You couldn't have candy, or what-not it was you did wrong. But your parents knew that their punishment was temporary and just, and in the long run, you would be better for it.

If our lives truly are eternal, than the mere 100 years we spend here is but a few minutes of our childhood. [/B]
Are you describing a god not of the Islamo-Judeo-Christian personality? You seem to be assuming the parallel is between our life on Earth and a child being sent to his room.

But the punishment that the Islamo-Judeo-Christian god offers to the eternal soul is not temporary, is not designed to correct bad behavior, and in no way are we made "better for it" in the long run as you describe.

farmermike

16th November 2004, 04:58 PM

Karen ...again
Would someone please do the math on what the chances of me finding ultimate truth are, when I rule out the possibility of the "supernatural" from the get go, and check my enquiring mind, at the mere mention of the word science.
The consciousness stuff I referred to in my defence of Christianity comes from chapter 10 of The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel, a layman's guide to the evidence supporting design etc. Don't discount it just because the guy has a particular point of view, not unlike the scientific community at large. Actually the journal Resuscitation Feb. 2001 reports a study you might consider valid. "The Quantitative Study of the Incidence, Features and Aetiology of Near-Death Experience in Cardiac Arrest Surviviors"

-As for Phineas, I don't think the fact that he suffered brain damage is proof that his "soul" ceased to exist. Might not the faulty switchboard have been unable to correctly transmit it? And just as insanity is a valid defence in a court of law, I don't think God would hold you guilty of suffering a particularly devastating mental disorder.

-What else? Oh yeah, the YEC thing with Mike was post marital and I'm not dogmatic on this point. The Bible doesn't say when God created the earth, although interestingly it does say the earth was formed from water, and science could reverse itself on any number of key points in the future, so why get bent out of shape about the timeline?

-And I majored in Journalism at university. (astro-physics was my second choice)Just Kidding!

-And, And, why isn't forgiveness indicitive of love, if I have transgressed and deserve punishment? An illustration I heard once, likened God to the judge who encounters a childhood friend in the courtroom and is obliged to find him guilty but steps from behind the bench and accepts the judgement on himself? But maybe you're asking why God should be constrained by his constants?
Christ the Lion-C.S. Lewis The Silver Chair
"Are you not thirsty?" said the Lion.
"I'm dying of thirst," said Jill.
"Then drink," said the Lion.
"May I -could I-would you mind going away while I do?" said Jill.
The Lion answered this only by a look and a very low growl...
"I daren't come and drink," said Jill.
"Then you will die of thirst," said the Lion.
"Oh dear!" said Jill, coming another step nearer. "I suppose I must go and look for another stream then."
"There is no other stream," said the Lion.

KingMerv00

16th November 2004, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
Karen ...again
Would someone please do the math on what the chances of me finding ultimate truth are, when I rule out the possibility of the "supernatural" from the get go, and check my enquiring mind, at the mere mention of the word science.
The consciousness stuff I referred to in my defence of Christianity comes from chapter 10 of The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel, a layman's guide to the evidence supporting design etc. Don't discount it just because the guy has a particular point of view, not unlike the scientific community at large. Actually the journal Resuscitation Feb. 2001 reports a study you might consider valid. "The Quantitative Study of the Incidence, Features and Aetiology of Near-Death Experience in Cardiac Arrest Surviviors"

-As for Phineas, I don't think the fact that he suffered brain damage is proof that his "soul" ceased to exist. Might not the faulty switchboard have been unable to correctly transmit it? And just as insanity is a valid defence in a court of law, I don't think God would hold you guilty of suffering a particularly devastating mental disorder.

-What else? Oh yeah, the YEC thing with Mike was post marital and I'm not dogmatic on this point. The Bible doesn't say when God created the earth, although interestingly it does say the earth was formed from water, and science could reverse itself on any number of key points in the future, so why get bent out of shape about the timeline?

-And I majored in Journalism at university. (astro-physics was my second choice)Just Kidding!

-And, And, why isn't forgiveness indicitive of love, if I have transgressed and deserve punishment? An illustration I heard once, likened God to the judge who encounters a childhood friend in the courtroom and is obliged to find him guilty but steps from behind the bench and accepts the judgement on himself? But maybe you're asking why God should be constrained by his constants?
Christ the Lion-C.S. Lewis The Silver Chair
"Are you not thirsty?" said the Lion.
"I'm dying of thirst," said Jill.
"Then drink," said the Lion.
"May I -could I-would you mind going away while I do?" said Jill.
The Lion answered this only by a look and a very low growl...
"I daren't come and drink," said Jill.
"Then you will die of thirst," said the Lion.
"Oh dear!" said Jill, coming another step nearer. "I suppose I must go and look for another stream then."
"There is no other stream," said the Lion.

If God exists, he created science. That means he CHOSE to exclude the supernatural from it. Why would he do such a thing? Why does God insist on playing a cosmic game with my soul?

As it is, science does not entirely exclude supernatural effects. The only example I can think at the moment is transubstantiation. If bread COULD turn into flesh that would be detectable fairly easily. This has never been shown to be true. That mean either God doesn't exist or he is INTENTIONALLY hiding his presence? How can a mere mortal like me hope to outsmart a diety?

I think you missed that point about Mr. Gage. If the soul is real, brain damage should have no effect on personality. The soul, our eternal essence, should not be effected by anything short of the hand of God.

Sure science reverses itself every once in a while, but look at what it has accomplished in spite of that. Religion has no such error-correction mechanism. Religion yields to science not the other way around.

Whoops, gotta go. Hope I get I get a chance to respond to the rest of this later.

pgwenthold

17th November 2004, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by farmermike

-And I majored in Journalism at university.

You're joking, right? Was this at the Larry King School of Journalism? Because I have to say, and I don't mean to derail this thread or offend, that you are one of the most incoherent writers I have ever encountered on internet discussion forums, and I've been around a long time (before it was web based (and I still like newsgroups)).

farmermike

17th November 2004, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
You're joking, right? Was this at the Larry King School of Journalism? Because I have to say, and I don't mean to derail this thread or offend, that you are one of the most incoherent writers I have ever encountered on internet discussion forums, and I've been around a long time (before it was web based (and I still like newsgroups)).

Karen
My apologies if I'm firing on too many cylinders for you but I attempt to address a variety of missives in my responses, sans benefit of quotes. Alas, you're probably right that I have a tendancy not to fully develop my arguments and I must say, you guys are nothing if not thorough.

jimmygun

17th November 2004, 08:42 AM

-And, And, why isn't forgiveness indicitive of love, if I have transgressed and deserve punishment?

Forgiveness can be an indicative of love if the punishment fits the crime. Is the love of a parent sufficient grounds to have a three-year-old's hand held to a burner to teach him to stay away from stoves? Does a loving parent kill their child because he has spilled his milk on the rug? Does a loving parent allow someone to fly a fully loaded airplane into an office building and kill some three thousand people simply because they or someone takes a liberal view on homosexuality?

Punishment is not an act of love, it is an act of necessity.

Although many have put forward ideas here, I still fail to see anything that would point to a loving god.

Atlas

17th November 2004, 11:03 AM

Karen (Mrs. FarmerMike),

You have surprised me with your comeback posts. You stride in here like a Christian into the Lion's Den. I hope you'll choose to register and join the fray in your own right. You seem willing and able to hold your own. I'm sure with your views you'll recieve a welcome and embrace akin to your World Wrestling Federation broadcast.

I'm a tiny bit sympathetic to your position. I've walked the path you are on. For me accepting a deity was alot easier if I catagorized the God of Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed along with the pantheon he was jealous of. That is, the desert god is just as defective as the Norse, Roman and Greek gods and any other personified or iconized god you can name.

As to the question of all loving... I think one can assume the Islamo-Judeo-Christian god is all loving in the same way the Iraqi people think of Saddam as all loving. The pictures of him walking the streets among the people are quite heart warming and the torture chambers seem tame to descriptions of hell and eternal damnation. It's really a definition thing. Saddam fed his people and gave them everything they had. Sure, some were ungrateful when their daughters were raped and stuff but it's the same complaints against God you hear from people whose children are dying from cancer. Small minded people who don't understand love, in my opinion.

You have accepted Pascal's wager at face value and made the only wise decision among the four presented. It's been pointed out already that folks hereabouts don't put too much stock in Pascal's wager. A faulty set of assumptions sets up the reader and offers poor choices. Still, there is no apparent harm in choosing Pascal's life of joyful hope. There's no apparent harm in selecting an apple with a worm in it either. But for folks here, both are tough to swallow.

Still, I don't think your choice is unsafe. It's kind of like a flat Earth whose dangerous edge dooms all who venture close. If you close your eyes to science and Nature's reality you can still enjoy the safety of your familiar home ground. Familiar home ground is a good place to be. It does have a few drawbacks but it's a place where one finds strength.

Perhaps you'll long for an adventure sometime and explore the ideas presented on these threads in more depth. I hope so. I've found it to be a good community with only a few soreheads. Some have steered their vessels too close to the edge and are blithely calling to others - "This way... This way". I think they're easy to spot. You've probably already made up your mind about me. But in my defense, I'm really more of a "Not that way, you fool!" type of guy. Not perfect... but I'm working on it.

BobM

17th November 2004, 12:42 PM

Are you describing a god not of the Islamo-Judeo-Christian personality? You seem to be assuming the parallel is between our life on Earth and a child being sent to his room.

But the punishment that the Islamo-Judeo-Christian god offers to the eternal soul is not temporary, is not designed to correct bad behavior, and in no way are we made "better for it" in the long run as you describe.
*sigh* I can never manage these discussions because people won't focus. My metaphor is not for hell. It is a metaphor for our time on earth. Atheists are always saying "look at the suffering here on earth, how can a loving God do that?"

If we are eternal beings, the suffering that we endure on earth will soon be forgotten as an adult forgets his childhood.

Regarding Hell? It's not a requirement in my theology. That the pope or Paul Robertson believe that you'll suffer forever is meaningless to me.

Regarding the omniscient/omnipotent angle: excatly. My parents aren't omni~, and neither are you. You think you have a better way, but you can't know. I'm not sure what else I can say about that. The whole omni~ thing comes down to this for me: either you trust that God is doing what is best, or you don't. He's not going to disappear in a puff of logic because our limited minds can't figure out what he's up to.

Iacchus

17th November 2004, 01:14 PM

So, strictly from an evolutionary standpoint, is suffering a good thing or a bad thing? It seems to fit the bill for the purposes of existent life doesn't it? So, if we were to modify that a bit and say God created life through the process of evolution, what difference would it make? Or, is it just offering us the opportunity to gripe and complain a bit? ;) It almost sounds like some of us want vindication for the whole thing.

Atlas

17th November 2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by BobM
*sigh* I can never manage these discussions because people won't focus. My metaphor is not for hell. It is a metaphor for our time on earth. Atheists are always saying "look at the suffering here on earth, how can a loving God do that?"

If we are eternal beings, the suffering that we endure on earth will soon be forgotten as an adult forgets his childhood.

Regarding Hell? It's not a requirement in my theology. That the pope or Paul Robertson believe that you'll suffer forever is meaningless to me. Sorry BobM, if I appear to be unable to focus.

You appeared during a discussion I had generally accepted to be about the Judeo-Christian deity. Obviously yours is not the God of Jesus. No hell, huh. Sorry I jumped to that conclusion.

You said... All your lamentations about how horrible God is because of all the suffering in the world (undeserved death, hideous birth defects, etc.) could all be rendered meaningless if you just look at it a different way.

What theology are you representing where hideous birth defects are the equivalent of sending a child to his room. It sounds like reincarnation. But you end your post with If our lives truly are eternal, than the mere 100 years we spend here is but a few minutes of our childhood.

Do those God smites get bigger rewards or does everybody get the same? Your belief sounds different than most others. I'd like to hear about it. If you get a moment please expound, I'll try to stay focussed.

Atlas

17th November 2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, strictly from an evolutionary standpoint, is suffering a good thing or a bad thing? It seems to fit the bill for the purposes of existent life doesn't it? So, if we were to modify that a bit and say God created life through the process of evolution, what difference would it make? Or, is it just offering us the opportunity to gripe and complain a bit? ;) It almost sounds like some of us want vindication for the whole thing. I'm not sure I understand the thrust of this post, Iacchus.

As far as evolution goes, and I'm thinking you mean natural selection, that which aids survival is a good thing. So where the suffering leads to a fitter member of a species I suppose it could be considered good. If the fish pool dries out and the fish suffer and die I suppose you could say that survival of the fittest found no fit members. Was their suffering a bad thing? Who knows? They certainly were unable to communicate whether they felt good, bad, or ugly about it. I suspect the latter but good and bad seem like such human measurements.

How did this relate to the thread topic of a loving deity? Were you trying to get us to see that evolution does not love us? Sorry if I seem dense today... apparently I'm having trouble staying focussed.

Iacchus

17th November 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Atlas

How did this relate to the thread topic of a loving deity? Were you trying to get us to see that evolution does not love us? Sorry if I seem dense today... apparently I'm having trouble staying focussed. Basically what I'm saying is that we're stuck with what we've got. So which is it? A good thing or a bad thing? And if it's neither, then why I do I continue to hear about the wonders and glories of evolution? Whereas if God did in fact create us through such glorious means, why shouldn't our wonder and admiration be directed towards Him? Or, does it actually change things because we do suffer and experience pain?

pgwenthold

17th November 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by BobM
Regarding the omniscient/omnipotent angle: excatly. My parents aren't omni~, and neither are you. You think you have a better way, but you can't know. I'm not sure what else I can say about that. The whole omni~ thing comes down to this for me: either you trust that God is doing what is best, or you don't. He's not going to disappear in a puff of logic because our limited minds can't figure out what he's up to.

Why should I believe that God is doing what is best? If I have to trust it to be true, then I guess I should take it that you can't provide any justification for it.

Man, that is the whole _point_ of this thread. Can you provide any reason to think that God is doing what is best? When you do, I'll add it right to the list of reasons to believe God loves us...

It's pretty simple: if God is omnipotent, then he can make us better without subjecting us to punishment. This is pretty much true by the definition of omnipotent.

Therefore, the fact that he doesn't indicates that either he can't (and therefore is not omnipotent) or doesn't want to, which pretty much flies in the face of him being all so loving (third option: he doesn't know about it, but that means he isn't omniscient).

Back to your parents example, I never claim to be as loving as god is supposed to be, but I do know that if I had the ability to make my children better without hurting them, I would do it. If I am this benevolent, then why shouldn't I expect it from God?

Atlas

17th November 2004, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Basically what I'm saying is that we're stuck with what we've got. So which is it? A good thing or a bad thing? And if it's neither, then why I do I continue to hear about the wonders and glories of evolution? Whereas if God did in fact create us through such glorious means, why shouldn't our wonder and admiration be directed towards Him? Or, does it actually change things because we do suffer and experience pain? I was hoping you'd be more direct in addressing how it relates to a loving deity.

But I'm confused by the post in another way. I read your words with my own definitions of good and bad as purely subjective human assessments. But God's love and evolution to my mind would be more objective reality. Anyway, the notions are apples and oranges for me.

I do think it is normal for humans to express wonder and admiration at the myriad expressions of nature... even nature's god. But the personification of the deity with traits of love, jealosy and petty angers that would lead to human torments is god of thunder fear talk. It's not much different than sacrificing to the rain gods or tempting the garden fairies. Many gods explains things just as well as any reference to Him. No gods seems to as well. It's harder to personify the love of no gods however.

I realize that is convoluted. I'm trying to aim at what I think you mean but I'm not quite sure I'm doing so well at it.

Iacchus

17th November 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Atlas

I was hoping you'd be more direct in addressing how it relates to a loving deity.

But I'm confused by the post in another way. I read your words with my own definitions of good and bad as purely subjective human assessments. But God's love and evolution to my mind would be more objective reality. Anyway, the notions are apples and oranges for me. Yes, maybe this is what I'm trying to say, is that we get the subjective belly-aching out of the way, and appreciate the wonders of creation for what it is.

Atlas

17th November 2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, maybe this is what I'm trying to say, is that we get the subjective belly-aching out of the way, and appreciate the wonders of creation for what it is. I take your meaning this time.

I'm a big fan of appreciation. I think the gods are inventions arising out of human appreciation. That is, from our first awareness we begin to appreciate what is. For me there is a relation between appreciation and the gods like the old chicken and egg question.

For me, the appreciation of good, of power, of awesomeness, and of the contrasts and associations we make... as in how the sunshine recedes and we witness a storm on the mountain descending... from this type of appreciation arises our gods and their human traits.

Iacchus

18th November 2004, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Atlas

For me, the appreciation of good, of power, of awesomeness, and of the contrasts and associations we make... as in how the sunshine recedes and we witness a storm on the mountain descending... from this type of appreciation arises our gods and their human traits. Yes, we have to ascribe these things to something, because it's hard to image that they came about of their own accord. Or else why would they have so much awe and influence over us? And, at least that aspect of it is real.

farmermike

18th November 2004, 08:55 AM

It concerns me, whenver I attempt to present God in a nutshell, especially to a variously hostile audience, that I not invent some kind of non-threatening, fuzzy-wuzzy, easily marketable illusion. Selling Christianity would be a whole lot easier, minus the Old Testament and no doubt, great chunks of the New. Either God's never heard of "presentation", or He's not running for election here.
Can we agree that if there is a God, he has an acquired right as creator, to make the rules, even if his standards of conduct are impossibly high for us to attain on our own? And would it not be loving of Him, in recognition of that fact, to substiute his own righteousness as a means of making up the difference?
******************************************
Suffering remains an enigma. Like why did God choose to burden himself with us, live like us, be rejected by us and be nailed to a
cross by us?
From our perspective, cookies and ice-cream all round would seem to be a better way to go but maybe that's a dead end. At any rate, that same brutally honest God of the Old Testament, promises to uphold me through the trials of life, and I do take comfort in that.
One of my favourite tunes at church goes; "He knows my name. He knows my every thought. He sees each tear that falls and He hears me when I call."

jimmygun

19th November 2004, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
It concerns me, whenver I attempt to present God in a nutshell, especially to a variously hostile audience, that I not invent some kind of non-threatening, fuzzy-wuzzy, easily marketable illusion. Selling Christianity would be a whole lot easier, minus the Old Testament and no doubt, great chunks of the New. Either God's never heard of "presentation", or He's not running for election here.
Can we agree that if there is a God, he has an acquired right as creator, to make the rules, even if his standards of conduct are impossibly high for us to attain on our own? And would it not be loving of Him, in recognition of that fact, to substiute his own righteousness as a means of making up the difference?
******************************************
Suffering remains an enigma. Like why did God choose to burden himself with us, live like us, be rejected by us and be nailed to a
cross by us?
From our perspective, cookies and ice-cream all round would seem to be a better way to go but maybe that's a dead end. At any rate, that same brutally honest God of the Old Testament, promises to uphold me through the trials of life, and I do take comfort in that.
One of my favourite tunes at church goes; "He knows my name. He knows my every thought. He sees each tear that falls and He hears me when I call."

jimmygun

19th November 2004, 03:26 AM

Somehow only the quote made my reply. I will answer later.

Ossai

19th November 2004, 05:41 AM

Farmermike â€“ Karen
Can we agree that if there is a God, he has an acquired right as creator, to make the rules, even if his standards of conduct are impossibly high for us to attain on our own? How impossibly high, from reading the bible, godâ€™s morality and actions are seriously lacking. God promotes and/or orders everything from slavery to genocide.

And would it not be loving of Him, in recognition of that fact, to substiute his own righteousness as a means of making up the difference? What difference? Iâ€™ve been following this thread and I still havenâ€™t seen a reason god should be considered good that didnâ€™t involve circular reasoning.

An illustration I heard once, likened God to the judge who encounters a childhood friend in the courtroom and is obliged to find him guilty but steps from behind the bench and accepts the judgement on himself? When is god going to step up to the plate? Jesus certainly didnâ€™t take the punishment onto himself, one lousy death and a crummy weekend verses the millions that preceded him and the billions that came after that never heard of him.
Then you get into the whole â€˜what is hellâ€™ question. Is it a place of eternal torment and pain or is it separation from god.
If you say place then three days verses eternity â€“ not even close.
If you say separation from god â€“ how could Jesus be separate from god when Jesus is god?

Ossai

Ossai

19th November 2004, 06:05 AM

I know I posted too close together, but this thought hit me as I hit â€˜postâ€™.

Farmermike â€“ Karen
From our perspective, cookies and ice-cream all round would seem to be a better way to go but maybe that's a dead end. At any rate, that same brutally honest God of the Old Testament, promises to uphold me through the trials of life, and I do take comfort in that.
One of my favourite tunes at church goes; "He knows my name. He knows my every thought. He sees each tear that falls and He hears me when I call."

What brings you comfort isnâ€™t forgiveness per say, but the idea of a parental figure that you can turn to in times of need. The punishment and forgiveness are merely acts of [to use Doctor Xâ€™s phrase] Big Daddy.

Big Daddy the father figure â€“ ready to deal the punishment or protection
Junior â€“ older brother â€“ willing to step in and take your punishment from Big Daddy or offer comfort when you need it
Spooky â€“ mother figure in the background, always there but easily forgotten and informs Big Daddy of all your transgressions

Or to put it another way
You â€“ Beaver
Big Daddy â€“ Ward
Junior â€“ Wally
Spooky â€“ June

Ossai

jimmygun

19th November 2004, 06:48 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by farmermike
It concerns me, whenver I attempt to present God in a nutshell, especially to a variously hostile audience, that I not invent some kind of non-threatening, fuzzy-wuzzy, easily marketable illusion. Selling Christianity would be a whole lot easier, minus the Old Testament and no doubt, great chunks of the New. Either God's never heard of "presentation", or He's not running for election here.
Can we agree that if there is a God, he has an acquired right as creator, to make the rules, even if his standards of conduct are impossibly high for us to attain on our own? And would it not be loving of Him, in recognition of that fact, to substiute his own righteousness as a means of making up the difference?
******************************************
Suffering remains an enigma. Like why did God choose to burden himself with us, live like us, be rejected by us and be nailed to a
cross by us?
From our perspective, cookies and ice-cream all round would seem to be a better way to go but maybe that's a dead end. At any rate, that same brutally honest God of the Old Testament, promises to uphold me through the trials of life, and I do take comfort in that.
One of my favourite tunes at church goes; "He knows my name. He knows my every thought. He sees each tear that falls and He hears me when I call."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all I don't think there is a hostility here (probably due to my refraining to dish out my usual sarcasm).

Secondly you speak of God's impossibly high standards that man cannot reach. The god of the Christian bible has high standards but they involve genocide, murder, you name it. Man certainly has tried to attain such lofty standards but comes up miserably short compared to the wrath of God.

Thirdly the belief that God works in mysterious ways and we cannot fathom his intent is simply an excuse to allow the misery here on earth to continue. Allah' will, God's will, thy will be done etc.

One plus in man's corner is the acts of kindness, generosity, sacrifice and nobility that some of us have clearly demonstrated in spite of the horrors that go on in the world. Just look to the international aid that rushes to the fore when there are natural calamities. Again I will ask...where is the love of God. I simply do not see anything loving that could be attributed to him alone.

As Jerry Maguire says..."SHOW ME THE LOVE!"

Art Vandelay

19th November 2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by BobM
All your lamentations about how horrible God is because of all the suffering in the world (undeserved death, hideous birth defects, etc.) could all be rendered meaningless if you just look at it a different way.
The question of this thread is not to explain the presence of suffering, but to prove the existence of divine love.

If our lives truly are eternal, than the mere 100 years we spend here is but a few minutes of our childhood. So child abuse is okay, because it doesn't last forever?

KarenWould someone please do the math on what the chances of me finding ultimate truth are, when I rule out the possibility of the "supernatural" from the get go, and check my enquiring mind, at the mere mention of the word science.
Translation: I've been told that materialists have ruled out the supernatural and have checked their enquiring minds, and I have completely checked my enquiring mind when it comes to questioning this claim. Irony? What irony?

Creationists are like a lawyer faced with overwhelming evidence against his client who realizes that there's no way he can argue the facts, and so tries to create "reasonable doubt" out of thin air. "You don't know magical sky pixies didn't do it. You just ruled out the possibility from the beginning, without any evidence. Don't be closeminded like the DA; consider all possibilities, no matter how silly or unproductive they are. And don't listen to the overwhelming testimony of expert witnesses; their methods could be flawed, and they quite possibly are engaged in a massive conspiracy to frame my client. And every single one of them, in cross examination, stated that they had not even considered the magical sky pixies theory. How can you trust such biased witnesses? DNA? Could have been planted by the pixies. Clothes soaked in blood? Could have been planted by pixies. Videotape showing my client killing the victim? Who knows what pixies are capable of?"

I guess it's not surprising that one of their most prominent advocates is not a scientist, but a lawyer. The job of a scientist is to take the evidence and get a conclusion; the job of a lawyer is to take a conclusion and find the evidence.

-And, And, why isn't forgiveness indicitive of love, if I have transgressed and deserve punishment?
I didn't say that it isn't indicative, just that it doesn't establish it. "Indicative" is a rather weak claim; it just means that there is reason to think that it might be.

An illustration I heard once, likened God to the judge who encounters a childhood friend in the courtroom and is obliged to find him guilty but steps from behind the bench and accepts the judgement on himself?
Makes me wonder where all these Christian allegories come from. In what country is punishment transferable? Anyway, taking punishment is quite different from forgiving. And the taking punishment argument doesn't wash, because it was God that imposed the punishment to begin with.

But maybe you're asking why God should be constrained by his constants?
It sure seems like a cop-out to say that God is omnipotent, and then, when faced with a question as to why God does not do something, to say "He can't", especially when the reason why He "can't" reeks of anthropomorphization.

farmermike

20th November 2004, 01:55 PM

Why did I think I could run something off in 5 minutes? I could quote from the Bible I suppose,(kidding) all the verses about God's yearning after us. Would that demonstrate love? Bottom line, I think the fact that God allows us the freedom to either seek or ignore Him, is loving- although admittedly dangerous for us. If God has indeed "loved us with an everlasting love," than I suppose it is painful to see that love repeatedly tossed back in his lap.
Is love love, if it is mandatory? Personally, I think the fact that my husband has a choice to love me or not, makes his affection more credible.
************************
I think the Old Testament establishes God as God- something that took the Isrealites( and myself) a long time to learn. It clearly portrays the very real consequences of ignoring his pre-eminance;fierce and uncomprimising. But co-existant with that, if you believe the Bible, is His love, patience, forgiveness and all the other qualities we like to advertise.
When you speak to me about the Greek Gods etc., wondering why God hasn't revealed himself, I say take out your history books and really deal with God the Son(i.e. Jesus).
Then, I say talk to Him for yourself. I obviously don't have God in a test tube, to put and end to the debate, but if, as I believe, He created us, then His desire and ability to communicate with us doesn't pose a problem. And I have never had a bright light or voice speak to me either,(King Mervoo) but I have at the lowest points in my life, when my education, status, wahtever, counted for nothing, known that He was present with me. You can call that an anthropomorphic projection, if you like(EvilDave) but I don't have that option.
I know we seem to be talking two different languages and I'm sure I've raised more objections than I've addressed but I guess that's the nature of the hunt. Over and out.

Cosmo

20th November 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
When you speak to me about the Greek Gods etc., wondering why God hasn't revealed himself, I say take out your history books and really deal with God the Son(i.e. Jesus).

Interesting. I've never seen Jesus in any history book I've ever read. Which books are you reading?

Originally posted by farmermike
Then, I say talk to Him for yourself.

How does one go about doing this? Does he have a phone number?

Originally posted by farmermike
I obviously don't have God in a test tube, to put and end to the debate, but if, as I believe, He created us, then His desire and ability to communicate with us doesn't pose a problem.

Then surely you can elaborate on methods used to communicate with him.

Originally posted by farmermike
And I have never had a bright light or voice speak to me either,(King Mervoo) but I have at the lowest points in my life, when my education, status, wahtever, counted for nothing, known that He was present with me.

How do you know this? What gave you the idea that he was there? How do you know it wasn't Satan tricking you?

farmermike

20th November 2004, 03:46 PM

Just wanted to clarify my point about is love worth anything if its mandatory. I meant to reference the question, "If God loves me, why didn't he brand me with a capital G at birth, so that I wouldn't have to wonder if he was there or not. " The Bible is clear that he wants our love and I think our choice is implicit in that.
************************************
How do you talk to God? How do you breathe? I think you assume the position that you're not omniscient and that you honestly want to know if He's there and then pour out your heart. As far as what history books, the historical accuracy of the Bible is beyond compare. That would be my first choice. Of course there are other, secular rerferences to him. And remember, a lot of what you read was written by fishermen, not fairies.

Cosmo

20th November 2004, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
The Bible is clear that he wants our love and I think our choice is implicit in that.

You're evading the point. How do you know the bible is true?

Originally posted by farmermike
How do you talk to God? How do you breathe?

I expand my lungs and inhale air. I then contract my lungs and exhale air. You didn't answer the question.

Originally posted by farmermike
I think you assume the position that you're not omniscient

I never said I was.

Originally posted by farmermike
and that you honestly want to know if He's there and then pour out your heart.

I sure would like to know if he's there. You're still not answering the question - how does one "pour out your heart"?

Originally posted by farmermike
As far as what history books, the historical accuracy of the Bible is beyond compare.

You can do better than that. What books are you looking at? I've not seen a single solid proof for the existence of Jesus, let alone God. Unfortunately, arguments such as these do not exist.

Originally posted by farmermike
That would be my first choice. Of course there are other, secular rerferences to him.

Yes, and they're just as inaccurate as the religious references to him.

Originally posted by farmermike
And remember, a lot of what you read was written by fishermen, not fairies.

Are you saying that something I've read was written by fairies?

Ossai

21st November 2004, 12:04 AM

Farmermike â€“ Karen
As far as what history books, the historical accuracy of the Bible is beyond compare. In itâ€™s inaccuracies, maybe. The bible is not a historical record. There are no independent historical references to Jesus of which Iâ€™m aware.

That would be my first choice. Of course there are other, secular rerferences to him. References please.

How do you talk to God? How do you breathe? I think you assume the position that you're not omniscient and that you honestly want to know if He's there and then pour out your heart. Tried it, nothing happened (a bit of history I was raised Southern Baptist which includes all the revivals, the putting down of science, the circular reference, the hypocrisy, etc â€“ now if your answer is â€˜no true christianâ€™ that works as well. Iâ€™ve got a number of friends raised catholic, and methodist, and church of christ, and later day saints - all of it, SSDD, same ***** different day.)

Just wanted to clarify my point about is love worth anything if its mandatory. I meant to reference the question, "If God loves me, why didn't he brand me with a capital G at birth, so that I wouldn't have to wonder if he was there or not. " The Bible is clear that he wants our love and I think our choice is implicit in that. How do you love something for which there is no evidence?

Ossai

farmermike

22nd November 2004, 10:47 AM

[How do you love something for which there is no evidence?

Ossai [/B][/QUOTE]

I think therefore I am. I yearn therefore God is. Man cannot live by bread alone.....
********************************************
Malcolm Mugggeridge Jesus Rediscovered
"I increasingly see us in our human condition as manacled and in a dark cell. The chains are our mortal hopes and desires; the dark cell is our ego, in whose obscurity and tiny dimensions we are confined. Christ tells us how to escape, striking off the chains of desire, and putting a window in the dark cell through which we may joyously survey the wide vistas of eternity and the bright radiance of God's universal love. No view of life, as I am well aware, could be more diametrically opposed to the prevailing one today, especially as purveyed in our mass-communication media, dedicated as they are to the couter-proposition, that we can live by bread alone, and the more the better. Yet I am more convinced than I am in my own existence that the view of life Christ came into the world to preach, and died to sanctify, remains as true and as valid as ever, and that all who care to, young or old, healthy and infirm wise and foolish,...may live thereby, finding in our troubled, confused world, as in all other circumstances and at all other times, an elightenment and a serenity not otherwise available."

And why are you so quick to dismiss the #1 all-time bestseller
which purports to be the word of God who you purport to be interested in knowing?

Skeptical Greg

22nd November 2004, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by farmermike

... And why are you so quick to dismiss the #1 all-time bestseller
which purports to be the word of God who you purport to be interested in knowing?

And why are you so quick to regurgitate the " All time best seller. " propaganda.. Yes, millions of copies have been printed, but relatively few people actually seek out a bible in a book store, and shell out the list price. The overwheming majority of Bible sales, can be attributed to bulk purchases by religious groups, who then pass them out for free. Very few of them get read. That puts the Bible right up there with fliers from Chinese restaurants.

As for why I dismiss it. I did bother to read it.

Atlas

22nd November 2004, 12:58 PM

I keep returning to human feeling as the source or driver of humanity's belief in it's gods.

When we live in an unenlightened time when the world is sending it's worst to smite us or when we are powerful enough to smite others we view ourselves as cursed or blessed. Smiting is what a deity should be about, after all what is the use of power without the ability to smite one's enemies. No doubt if you have a lot of enemies, your god will as well.

In an enlightened time when we have the alternative perspectives of science alongside religious perspectives we have more options.

Getting ill can be interpreted by germ theory and we no longer need to be bled to let the demons run out onto the ground.

But such knowledge remains imperfect because it does not explain all our feelings and "illnesses".

I've wondered about the transformation of a smiting god into a loving god. That is, what makes an unchanging god change?

Isn't god the answer to whatever a people look for and cannot find for themselves? When we are weak and being preyed upon we look for a god who will smite our enemy. When we are strong and can handle that business ourselves we look to god to fill in what is still missing in our lives.

That is, once we move past food, warmth, and shelter in our hierarchy of needs we reach in the fullness of time moments of profound alienation. In those moments the concepts of forgiveness and love are realized for their human value. When we are overcome by feelings of shame and guilt we search for a way out. And it's not being alone that is the most difficult for us, it's the feeling of being unloved.

Christians recognize that lowest of the low feeling, of being filled with shame and guilt, of feeling trapped and unloved... they call it rock bottom. Here is where conversion comes.

One either lives in the feeling of desolation or chooses to feel differently, to feel loved, to feel healed. It's a flat earth to round earth type conversion... nothing changes but everything changes.

By accepting a heretofore unreal concept of god as real, as solid, and as positively defined - specifically for your ills - you can psychologically escape your condition where a moment ago you could not. If you happen to reach conversion in a congregation of the faithful you will also receive an overwhelming outpouring of felt affection for which you are unprepared. Shame, guilt, and unlovedness are disappeared and your are filled with warm, safe, loved feelings.

To me, this is how the politically correct god of today comes into being and has replaced the harsh deity of yesteryear. We have our needs and if we can find a psychological mechanism to ameliorate that condition, we have found god.

Ossai

22nd November 2004, 04:09 PM

Farmermike â€“ Karen
And why are you so quick to dismiss the #1 all-time bestseller
which purports to be the word of God who you purport to be interested in knowing?
I read it.
And the rest of that is nothing more than an appeal to popularity.

Youâ€™re quoting apologetics now? Why bother when the foundation of your religion is so unstable to begin with?

Have you ever actually read the bible, cover to cover, not selected passages?
When you do, take notes. Itâ€™s easy to find contradictions and inaccuracies.

Ossai

KingMerv00

22nd November 2004, 09:50 PM

Sorry, been gone for awhile from this thread.

Karen, I've noticed you've shifted your stance since the beginning of this post. At first, you attempted to prove the existence of God through concrete means. Now you are appealing to an internal method of proof by using metaphors and analogies. I suggest the reason for this shift is because there ARE not physical proofs of God.

If you wish to assert that your emotions reveal an objective reality about the universe, I think you will run into the same problem.

Edit: This might be an urban legend but isn't the Bible also the most stolen book of all time?

Skeptical Greg

23rd November 2004, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by farmermike

I think therefore I am. I yearn therefore God is. Man cannot live by bread alone.....
********************************************
Malcolm Mugggeridge Jesus Rediscovered
"I increasingly see us in our human condition as manacled and in a dark cell. The chains are our mortal hopes and desires; the dark cell is our ego, in whose obscurity and tiny dimensions we are confined.

What a sad philosophy.. I can understand why such a person needs an imaginary friend to help them get by.

farmermike

23rd November 2004, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
What a sad philosophy.. I can understand why such a person needs an imaginary friend to help them get by.

What's even sadder is that you seem determined to skirt its resonance.

******************************
And can we please drop the imaginary friend crap that seems to be such a popular comeback. As I tried to point out in one of my earlier posts, had I invented God I would have left out all the scarey, demanding parts that you guys seem to have such a hard time reconciling.
**************
Atlas, you should be a big fan of God's fierce and uncomprimising side. Because God is often sold as the Bid Daddy in the sky, does not change the often uncomfortable truths about his nature as presented by Him in the Bible.
******************************
Also, might I add that when I had come to the end of myself, as mentioned earlier, and knew that God was present with me, it was not a particularly pleasant feeling- it was almost a dread. I knew that the God I had paid largely lip service to, was real and that he owed me nothing.
**************************
As for the quality of my evidence changing, what evidence would you consider appropriate to the task? I already admitted I didn't have Him on hand in a test tube. God is spirit. How would you quantify that? In fact I would suggest that you too are spirit(soul) with temporal body. And the question was, why do I yearn if there is nothing to yearn for?
********************
My point about the Bible is that while I have oft heard the refrain,"Why doesn't God show Himself?", you refuse to consider the evidence of a book that claims to be His word. If I wanted to know about chemistry, I'd take out a chemistry book. If I wanted to know about God, why wouldn't I read the Bible? Because Randy's good buddies had apparently already debunked it?
****************************
Sorry for the confrontational tone. I'm really not here to match wits but hopefully to point out that you grossly underestimate Christianity, and that for all its warts and flaws, it remains a beacon of hope that I think meets the burden of proof. "Faith is the resting of the mind on the sufficiency of the evidence."
This whole exercise is just further proof to me that the Bible's characterization of humanity's innate rebellion against God, is right on the money.
" The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, becuase he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else......God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps
reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being. As some of your own poets have said, "We are his offspring." Acts 17:24-25,27-28 (and I know you consider it pitiful that I resort to quoting scripture, as if that proved anything)

Skeptical Greg

23rd November 2004, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by farmermike

Sorry for the confrontational tone. I'm really not here to match wits but hopefully to point out that you grossly underestimate Christianity, and that for all its warts and flaws, it remains a beacon of hope that I think meets the burden of proof.

No need to apologize.. Got to go with what you have.

And what would you think might cause us to underestimate Christianity? Surely not all those warts and flaws?

Surely after two thousand years, we should expect more than a beacon of hope from the just and loving creator of the universe.

I , personally, have a higher standard of love and friendship than that.

Ossai

23rd November 2004, 07:50 AM

farmermike
What's even sadder is that you seem determined to skirt the Koranâ€™s resonance.

And can we please drop the imaginary friend crap that seems to be such a popular comeback. As I tried to point out in one of my earlier posts, had I invented God I would have left out all the scarey, demanding parts that you guys seem to have such a hard time reconciling. Itâ€™s not our god, so weâ€™re not trying to reconcile the inconsistencies, just pointing them out.

Atlas, you should be a big fan of God's fierce and uncomprimising side. Because God is often sold as the Bid Daddy in the sky, does not change the often uncomfortable truths about his nature as presented by Him in the Bible. So, you have no problem worshiping a genocidal maniac?

Also, might I add that when I had come to the end of myself, as mentioned earlier, and knew that God was present with me, it was not a particularly pleasant feeling- it was almost a dread. I knew that the God I had paid largely lip service to, was real and that he owed me nothing. Fear not love, interesting.

As for the quality of my evidence changing, what evidence would you consider appropriate to the task? Oh, showing up and proving he was god would be a good start. Since god is omni-, he could really tailor make any evidence required by anyone.

God is spirit. How would you quantify that? What is spirit?
In fact I would suggest that you too are spirit(soul) with temporal body. Evidence? And the question was, why do I yearn if there is nothing to yearn for? Fear.

My point about the Bible is that while I have oft heard the refrain,"Why doesn't God show Himself?", you refuse to consider the evidence of a book that claims to be His word. Exactly what parts of the bible are supposed to be evidence? How can you tell those bits from the bits that arenâ€™t evidence? What if the evidence bits contradict each other or what we already know about how the world works?

I'm really not here to match wits but hopefully to point out that you grossly underestimate Christianity, One of the largest religions in the world, that has caused and been used as an excuse for some of the most horrible atrocities perpetrated, and you expect me to underestimate it! Fear it â€“ Yes, fear itâ€™s adherents and the lengths to which theyâ€™ll go to ensure their â€˜one true religionâ€™ is dominate â€“ Yes, underestimate it â€“ No.

and that for all its warts and flaws, it remains a beacon of hope that I think meets the burden of proof. "Faith is the resting of the mind on the sufficiency of the evidence."
Faith is belief without evidence, technically according to the dictionary :
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Making up your own definitions doesnâ€™t work.

God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, Except those specifically created not to find him, IE damned before birth. And those others, god doesnâ€™t want to find him, IT those sends delusions.
And, according to some sects, everyone, except 144,000 selected to go to heaven.

Ossai

Skeptical Greg

23rd November 2004, 08:20 AM

:clap:

sackett

23rd November 2004, 08:36 AM

What makes Christianity so different from any other cult? If you encountered a religion like Christianity somewhere up the Amazon, or in backwoods New Guinea, you'd be able to examine it objectively and describe it dispassionately. How would your description differ from any other body of anthropological observations?

It's been suggested that all religions can be considered "contact religions," i.e., collections of beliefs arising from impacts between cultures. I don't know about the overall viability of that idea, but you could make a case for Christianity being a kind of cargo cult (and Cargo is the very type and emblem of a contact religion), dummied up to appeal to the millions of disfranchised people in the late Hellenistic and Roman worlds. Certainly it offers comfort for present hardships (mansions in the sky someday) and, interestingly, payback for all those high and mighty oppressors who do evil to the poor, poor faithful.

The Cargo prophet says, "Baimbai village gavman come plenny too muss! Woh! Olim witepellah go baggerimup pinis!" (Soon the Village Government will surely come! Aye verily! All the whites will die!) The apocalyptic parts of Cargo may be borrowed from Christianity - or they may not be. Perhaps this stuff arises naturally in the hearts of the religious when they feel abused. Then they devise an imaginary friend, that is, their god, who loves them right enough, but who is furiously vengeful toward those dirty, unrighteous SOBs who refuse to believe in Him. Hence many people's puzzlement over what's so loving about a god who promises ghastly and everlasting agonies if you don't buy the line.

Oh well. That galloping sound you hear is me riding my favorite hobby horse yet again: There is no descriptive way you can distinguish a false from a true religion.

(Edited to make another try at htmlling italics, and to make my point more obscure.

Skeptical Greg

23rd November 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by sackett

......................................

Oh well. That galloping sound you hear is me riding my favorite hobby horse yet again: There is no descriptive way you can distinguish a false from a true religion.

But God could clear it up right away if he chose to..

In any other scenario the most devoutly religious would choose to believe, that the alchemist cannot turn lead into gold, not that he chose not to.

Religion shares the same part of the brain that enables the most horribly abused children to still love and worship those that abuse them.

My horse is faster than your horse.. ( beats coconuts together faster.... )

bluess

23rd November 2004, 11:32 AM

Karen (or Mrs. Farmermike):

Thanks for your discourse.

My question - Have you explored the sacred texts of other religions?

If you have, what is about the Bible that so attracted you?

If not, do you think that such exploration could benefit your religious practice?

Lithrael

23rd November 2004, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
********************
My point about the Bible is that while I have oft heard the refrain,"Why doesn't God show Himself?", you refuse to consider the evidence of a book that claims to be His word. If I wanted to know about chemistry, I'd take out a chemistry book. If I wanted to know about God, why wouldn't I read the Bible? Because Randy's good buddies had apparently already debunked it?
****************************

This probably goes without saying, I guess, since nobody else said it... But you don't have to trust the chemistry book. With humanly attainable amounts of study and resources, you can check and measure the stuff it says for yourself, and see it work. And this will be true of any book people here would consider as evidence.

Skeptical Greg

23rd November 2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Lithrael
This probably goes without saying, I guess, since nobody else said it... But you don't have to trust the chemistry book. With humanly attainable amounts of study and resources, you can check and measure the stuff it says for yourself, and see it work. And this will be true of any book people here would consider as evidence. Good point. Wish I'd thought of that..

Kitty Chan

23rd November 2004, 05:56 PM

Heres a thought / question

its said that the bible is not trustworthy. A chemistry book was brought up. Now early chemistry books are not trustworthy anymore but perhaps newer ones are because the writers have found out new ideas and experiments.

But I notice that the bible has changed very little since the first one. Why its said the Word of God does not change.

Why hasnt the bible been rewritten (not that some have tried) and all the bad parts taken out (like said earlier)? If it was truly a human creation it should be on one more revision and past new and improved.

And it should be up for a prequel about now.
:)

KingMerv00

23rd November 2004, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Heres a thought / question

its said that the bible is not trustworthy. A chemistry book was brought up. Now early chemistry books are not trustworthy anymore but perhaps newer ones are because the writers have found out new ideas and experiments.

But I notice that the bible has changed very little since the first one. Why its said the Word of God does not change.

Why hasnt the bible been rewritten (not that some have tried) and all the bad parts taken out (like said earlier)? If it was truly a human creation it should be on one more revision and past new and improved.

And it should be up for a prequel about now.
:)

I think I understand what you are saying here. Since the Bible has not changed, it must be the word of God.

Why? Other religions haven't changed. Are they the word of God too?

Atlas

23rd November 2004, 07:54 PM

I think it would be very hard to walk back from a book of the Bible that for more than 50 generations has been called the living word of God and say, "You know what? This one isn't but all the rest are, as far as we know... We are going to leave it out, but here's something from Pat Robertson that we like so hey, here ya go... the Bible II, new and improved."

There might be another reason too. Nobody owns the rights. Somebody will complain and then you'll have 2 Bibles. And after 10 or so revisions it's going to lose its primacy.

(2 Bibles? Well, the Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible so it's not like revising through subtraction would be unheard of. But you almost need a Reformation to get anything done. )

Kitty Chan

23rd November 2004, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I think I understand what you are saying here. Since the Bible has not changed, it must be the word of God.

Why? Other religions haven't changed. Are they the word of God too?

That was sorta where I was rolling. Im under the impression the Koran is the same without revisions. The Torah for sure. I wonder what it would shake out to be? Which ones have changed. If I get a moment I may surf out belief net or if anyone else wants they could.

One thing for sure is a respect from the readers and keepers of the texts.

Kitty Chan

23rd November 2004, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
I think it would be very hard to walk back from a book of the Bible that for more than 50 generations has been called the living word of God and say, "You know what? This one isn't but all the rest are, as far as we know... We are going to leave it out, but here's something from Pat Robertson that we like so hey, here ya go... the Bible II, new and improved."

There might be another reason too. Nobody owns the rights. Somebody will complain and then you'll have 2 Bibles. And after 10 or so revisions it's going to lose its primacy.

(2 Bibles? Well, the Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible so it's not like revising through subtraction would be unheard of. But you almost need a Reformation to get anything done. )

Good observation on the living Word of God and leaving Pat Robertson out of the decisions would be a good thing ;)

(oops Kitty let that slip I agree and disagree with the guy)

Thats another good one about the rights I guess God :) Yes, some groups have written their own versions mostly to the disagreement of the rest. I think in christian circles with everyone naturally having a opinion (ie ole Pat) its best to leave one original to base all else from.

The bible II I guess has been attempted by the catholics, mormans, jehovahs, 7th day I think aside from whatever "smaller" groups out there. And the bible has had bits and pieces borrowed from many other groups. It is amazing that it has remained, gotta be all that faithful believers ;)

Ossai

24th November 2004, 06:00 AM

The bible II, the book of Mormon? Do I hear any disagreement?

Oh, wait. The bible II would be the revised protestant version. Which would meant the book of Mormon would at best be the bible III.

Ossai

edited for that mad god spelling

farmermike

24th November 2004, 07:12 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diogenes
[B]No need to apologize.. Got to go with what you have.

And what would you think might cause us to underestimate Christianity? Surely not all those warts and flaws?

The warts and flaws that I had in mind were courtesy of humanity's attempts to wield Christianity as a weapon, nothing intrinsic unto its foundational premise that God so loved the world...

Skeptical Greg

24th November 2004, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
The warts and flaws that I had in mind were courtesy of humanity's attempts to wield Christianity as a weapon, nothing intrinsic unto its foundational premise that God so loved the world...

Ahhh. God so loved the world, that he decided to drown everyone and start all over again..

Why do people so easily accept the Idea that God had to have someone killed in order to redeem everyone else, when it would be a simple matter ( when you are God ) to just forgive everyone who repents? ( assuming repentence is necessary )

farmermike

24th November 2004, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Ossai
farmermike

Oh, showing up and proving he was god would be a good start. Since god is omni-, he could really tailor make any evidence required by anyone.

And then you would have no choice but to acknowledge/love him and that wouldn't count for beans.
Ossai

Skeptical Greg

24th November 2004, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
And then you would have no choice but to acknowledge/love him and that wouldn't count for beans.

It wouldn't? Why would God revealing itself invalidate free will?

Besides, what kind of choice is " love me or die " ( without any evidence of my existance, no less )?

P.S. Why did you address only this one point of Ossai's commentary? What about the ' resonance of the Koran ' etc.?

farmermike

24th November 2004, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by bluess
Karen (or Mrs. Farmermike):

Thanks for your discourse.

My question - Have you explored the sacred texts of other religions?

If you have, what is about the Bible that so attracted you?

If not, do you think that such exploration could benefit your religious practice?

No. What I tried to express at the outset was that I'm a pretty hands on kind of person and not naturally given to contemplating the mysteries of the universe. My substandard aprreciation of world religion however, would lead me to believe that they contain elements of the truth but nothing like the real time/space- objectively verifiable life and death of Jesus Christ. Like C.S. Lewis said, when he was an atheist he had to believe that the majority of humanity had always been dead wrong about what mattered to them most but upon becoming a Christian he was able to take a more liberal view.
And yes, I do hope to become better versed in this area.

Skeptical Greg

24th November 2004, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
..... real time/space- objectively verifiable life and death of Jesus Christ

Evidence?

Jessica Blue

24th November 2004, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
But I notice that the bible has changed very little since the first one.I'm surprised God Himself hasn't updated it, since so many of it's moralities and directives are stagnating in a past *socio-historical* context.

Funny that a book which purports to contain the divine revelations of God for infinite generations of mankind to hold sacred should contain such barbaric, era-specific guidance that no-one but the most mouth-frothing, fist thumping rabid fundamentalist could possibly accept it. Why would a handbook of divine moralities be subject to a past context? Shouldn't Gods book be eternally relevant and morally perfect?

pgwenthold

24th November 2004, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
It wouldn't? Why would God revealing itself invalidate free will?

Besides, what kind of choice is " love me or die " ( without any evidence of my existance, no less )?

This is back to the old question of whether someone with a gun pointed to their head actually has "free will."

Besides, her point is laughable nonsense, anyway. I have material evidence that my dog exists. Doesn't seem to invalidate free will.

Moreover, even if we did know that Yahweh did exist, there is still the question of whether he is worthy of adoration or contempt. Personally, I'm not convinced that you could do better with an honest straightshooter like Satan then with the sadistic SOB who claims to be a loving God (note that even when Satan tempted Jesus in the desert, he never lied to him, and in the end, the only defense Jesus could come with is that it is wrong to tempt God)

Skeptical Greg

24th November 2004, 09:06 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by farmermike
But I notice that the bible has changed very little since the first one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

( Missed this one.. Thanks jessica )

Farmermike,

What are you referring to as the ' First ' Bible ?

Atlas

24th November 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Ossai
The bible II, the book of Mormon? Do I hear any disagreement?

Oh, wait. The bible II would be the revised protestant version. Which would meant the book of Mormon would at best be the bible III. I've never read the Book of Mormon but I have heard it discussed on a South Park episode - so it's not like I'm completely ignorant.

I think that adding new books for the new revelations is the way to go. Sooner or later people will get the idea that they are just being gullible to believe the myth and not the meaning.

(O who am I kidding. They can see god in a toasted cheese sandwich and not feel stupid.)

The meaning of a toasted cheese sandwich is food for the belly NOT food for the soul.

Has anyone marketed JESUS wine? Perhaps science can help us turn water into wine and we can market it under the name of JESUS. I wonder if it would help to have a rabbi come in and bless it as kosher. On the label we could add a tag line... "Drink it or go to Hell." That way folks would know we mean business.

Skeptical Greg

24th November 2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Atlas

Has anyone marketed JESUS wine? Perhaps science can help us turn water into wine and we can market it under the name of JESUS.

Isn't that how it works already.?. ( water and other ingredients is turned into wine )

Really, it just needs to be marketed as such..

There is nothing untrue about proclaiming:

" Miracle Wine " ( used to be water )

Slap a ' Jesus' label on it, and watch the money roll in..

Ossai

24th November 2004, 10:13 AM

Farmermike - Karen

Oh, showing up and proving he was god would be a good start. Since god is omni-, he could really tailor make any evidence required by anyone.

And then you would have no choice but to acknowledge/love him and that wouldn't count for beans.
Why? Does god proving he exists suddenly remove free will?

When you die and ascend to heaven to bask in the glory of god, do you lose your free will and become nothing more than an automaton?

My substandard appreciation of world religion however, would lead me to believe that they contain elements of the truth but nothing like the real time/space- objectively verifiable life and death of Buda.

By the way, there is no objectively verifiable life and death of Jesus. If you have or know of any Iâ€™m sure the Vatican and every other religious group would pay handsomely for it.

Ossai

Atlas

24th November 2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
Atlas, you should be a big fan of God's fierce and uncomprimising side. Because God is often sold as the Bid Daddy in the sky, does not change the often uncomfortable truths about his nature as presented by Him in the Bible. Karen,

I commend you. It can't be easy returning the hard questions this group sends to you. You might very much like an excursion into comparative religion. I can recommend Buddhism from personal experience. I really thought the contrasts with Christianity were illuminating. It struck a chord in me that there was a people who never knew original sin and hence never had a need for a savior. It was really an expanding experience in a lot of ways and it left me with a deeper appreciation of the teachings of Jesus because I had been exposed to an alternative.

Even as a Christian I had little appreciation for the God of the old testament. I was always more interested in peace and light and interested in how to lead a good life than in having God smite my enemies or hearing how He has done others.

Jesus had some good things to say on the subject... at least the way my parish priest explained it. I think that was the best. Not reading the Bible and having a good guy explain how God loved me. And why I should be on His side. It made a lot of sense in grade school.

I drifted away and back. The thought of God in your life has some allure. Taking responsibility for my own thoughts does too and a battle raged. Learning something of Buddhism helped and then in college, I took a few philosophy courses and some theater classes and I had a real awakening.

I don't probably have to explain the philosophy reference but perhaps I should clarify what I mean by theater. I took mostly acting from the department, that is, no set design, lighting, or costume stuff - just acting. I was in several plays besides and I was amazed that actors can really feel real emotions if that is the style they adhere to. Some actors don't, they merely get their exterior to look like the interior is experiencing a feeling, but many actors search their experience and dredge up fear and love and anger and really feel them and their exterior accurately portrays the interior feeling.

But there was more. People like a good story. Even if they've seen it before. They will take part in a performance as an audience and hope to be moved by the experience. I remember a moment on stage when with a silent gesture I had the audience's total focus. I felt a rush, it's hard to explain. But I knew they felt it too.

Church services are to a large part theater. If you can get a preacher with a little fire and the ability to crack a tear at his own telling of the joyful and sorrowful mysteries of your faith, you can't not believe the guy. He can play you like a fiddle.

And that ain't all bad. It can be a little dangerous. You might be listening to Jim Jones. But you might be listening to someone who really makes you want to live well, love much, and help others.

There is nothing wrong there. It can be dishonest if you know you are deluding yourself. I don't think you know that. But I came to know it. There was nothing to that old testament god that had anything to teach along the lines of live well, love much, and help others. I kept to the new testament when I studied. That shrank down to the gospels and then I focused more on what the Holy Spirit was telling me. Skip the Bible. What do my experiences in the world and my meditations tell me is true.

That's a dangerous drift for someone like you. But everybody has their own way. I drifted out of Christianity for the last time taking with it a desire to continue to live right, to live well, to love well too.

That's what is important. It's not whether you get that from God or not. It's whether you live well or not. These IslamoFascist terrorists know God but it is that old testament god that isn't about love or living well. Our jails are full of Christians; embezzlers, wife beaters, you name it. All the religion and none of the wisdom.

If you find wisdom and love and joy and truth in Jesus, I'm all for you. There are cracks in that structure that you can explore if you are fearless. It's not for everybody. You've mentioned Pascal's wager and if you think that is well structured then you're doing the right thing.

Hang around these boards though and take part in some discussions where you're not on the defensive and you'll witness some great alternative thought that is very enriching stuff. Not an excess of it but it's here, it really is.

You should register yourself and untie Mike so he can play too. There is plenty of room.

pgwenthold

24th November 2004, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
You should register yourself and untie Mike so he can play too. There is plenty of room.

Did you ever think that maybe Mike is having more fun being tied up?

Atlas

24th November 2004, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Did you ever think that maybe Mike is having more fun being tied up? I've never been a farmer and I really don't know what goes on in all those little white houses so far away from the neighbors that they can't hear your screams.

Mike and Karen don't see perfectly eye to eye on this Christianity stuff. I'm just worried that Mike has been tied up for a Spanish Inquisition.

Skeptical Greg

24th November 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Mike and Karen don't see perfectly eye to eye on this Christianity stuff. I'm just worried that Mike has been tied up for a Spanish Inquisition.
Is that any better/worse than a French Inquisition? Danish?

Atlas

24th November 2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Is that any better/worse than a French Inquisition? Danish? MMMmmmm, Danish!

[/Homer Simpson]

farmermike

24th November 2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Did you ever think that maybe Mike is having more fun being tied up?
I'm being spiritually hog tied and waiting for the smoke to clear

Atlas

24th November 2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
I'm being spiritually hog tied and waiting for the smoke to clear MMMmmmm, smoked hog!

[/Homer Simpson]

Kitty Chan

24th November 2004, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
Like C.S. Lewis said, when he was an atheist he had to believe that the majority of humanity had always been dead wrong about what mattered to them most but upon becoming a Christian he was able to take a more liberal view.

Karen thanks for reminding me of this I had forgotton. Im not sure if liberal view is all. I know what I believed before God as well as what I believe now.

Atlas (and Karen)

I know your talking to Karen but dont forget that drama is only for the first time audience. The seasoned goers notice the details and deeper meanings. There are those who run off after the performance ends. But they miss the encore because there was more to see. (but they are in the cars taking off, rushing back to the ordinary)

The seasoned goers who stay continue to come back not only for the performance but the experience, growth and extraordinary. The first timers do not always catch the vision of what is there.

:)

Atlas

25th November 2004, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Atlas (and Karen)

I know your talking to Karen but dont forget that drama is only for the first time audience. The seasoned goers notice the details and deeper meanings. There are those who run off after the performance ends. But they miss the encore because there was more to see. (but they are in the cars taking off, rushing back to the ordinary)

The seasoned goers who stay continue to come back not only for the performance but the experience, growth and extraordinary. The first timers do not always catch the vision of what is there.
:) Hi Kitty,

I agree with that. Where I am going with the whole idea though is an inquiry into the nature of the experience. While the theater and the church service can both have an intellectual component it is primarily a felt experience. Or rather the spiritual experience is a deeply felt experience.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter what the show is. If it's a good one it will elicit a glowing response in you it's audience. Once that happens you'll want to come back and see the show again whether it's Islam, Hinduism or Christianity. The dialog is the dogma.

What you are really after is the feeling. You've found a show that offers it. Now you have to pay the admission. You suspend your disbelief and listen to the pitch all in the hopes of regaining that hopeful, safe, loving closeness. All religions offer it. In that sense all religions are true. They elicit the magic feeling. The one you know is God in your heart. Later you find you've bought in hook, line and sinker and are defending a holy book that paints your own wonder loving feeling (God) as a megalomaniacal jealous monster, threatening your loved ones with torture forever.

The feeling is true. All cultures down through time know it. The books are not. They require you to give up a corner of your intellect to believe the lie and then ask for more. Don't even teach your children evolution. Some religions don't let you dance. Some you must cover yourselves head to toe.

The living God is the feeling inside you. Not the words from the book. Get that message straight or you struggle in the law, the talk, the rules, the inconsistencies and you miss the joy that can be yours. The books are fear based. In the end they are an evil Santa who has hijacked the Christmas story. To me, they are a dark filter that prevent you from gazing directly at the light.

farmermike

25th November 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by farmermike
But I notice that the bible has changed very little since the first one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

( Missed this one.. Thanks jessica )

Farmermike,

What are you referring to as the ' First ' Bible ?

Don't know how that got attributed to me, was it Kitty?

farmermike

25th November 2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Ahhh. God so loved the world, that he decided to drown everyone and start all over again..

Why do people so easily accept the Idea that God had to have someone killed in order to redeem everyone else, when it would be a simple matter ( when you are God ) to just forgive everyone who repents? ( assuming repentence is necessary )

For God so hated sin and its sideffects, that he paid the cosmic penalty due us, (assuming the wages of sin really is death). As for the flood, I don't think from the account, that God took any pleasure in it and the very fact that it hasn't been edited out, speaks to me of the Bible's authenticity. I think the intervening years of human history have more than proved (and no doubt tried) his goodwill and boundless patience.
****************************
Was it Atlas who suggested I give Budhism a go because I would find nothing challenging or offensive to my self-determination in it? Something more along the lines of what I would come up with on my own?
***************************
Ah yes- the evidence, bearing in mind that histroy does not lend itself to the scientific method
O.K. ........Old Testament prophesies detailing some very specific attributes of the Messiah, which were born out hundreds of years later in the person of Jesus Christ
-historical references in the Bible re the larger ancient world, that originally were considered false but that archaeology has since affirmed
-Paul- a Jew of the Jews- perscecuted Christians but left his high position at great personal cost, after a life-altering encounter with God, to spread the gospel
-the disciples who feared for their lives in the wake of the crucificxion but later went to their deaths proclaiming the resurrection
-the enduring relevance and resonance of scripture, despite having been addressed to a particular time and place
-the unparalled force for good that Christianity has proven to be, down through the ages and which seems to go completely unnoticed around here. I've seen a lot about the abuses bandied about, but curiously nothing of its acheivements. Were not nearly all the early western instituions of higher learning courtesy of Christianity? Who was it who said, "I want to know the mind of God"; poor deluded victim of his times.
******************************************
And fianlly,as inspiring as church can be, it can also be a drudge when the focus slips from God to the guy in the seat beside you. I wouldn't worry about letting your gaurd down in the tide of emotion.

KingMerv00

25th November 2004, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
For God so hated sin and its sideffects, that he paid the cosmic penalty due us, (assuming the wages of sin really is death). As for the flood, I don't think from the account, that God took any pleasure in it and the very fact that it hasn't been edited out, speaks to me of the Bible's authenticity. I think the intervening years of human history have more than proved (and no doubt tried) his goodwill and boundless patience.
****************************
Was it Atlas who suggested I give Budhism a go because I would find nothing challenging or offensive to my self-determination in it? Something more along the lines of what I would come up with on my own?
***************************
Ah yes- the evidence, bearing in mind that histroy does not lend itself to the scientific method
O.K. ........Old Testament prophesies detailing some very specific attributes of the Messiah, which were born out hundreds of years later in the person of Jesus Christ
-historical references in the Bible re the larger ancient world, that originally were considered false but that archaeology has since affirmed
-Paul- a Jew of the Jews- perscecuted Christians but left his high position at great personal cost, after a life-altering encounter with God, to spread the gospel
-the disciples who feared for their lives in the wake of the crucificxion but later went to their deaths proclaiming the resurrection
-the enduring relevance and resonance of scripture, despite having been addressed to a particular time and place
-the unparalled force for good that Christianity has proven to be, down through the ages and which seems to go completely unnoticed around here. I've seen a lot about the abuses bandied about, but curiously nothing of its acheivements. Were not nearly all the early western instituions of higher learning courtesy of Christianity? Who was it who said, "I want to know the mind of God"; poor deluded victim of his times.
******************************************
And fianlly,as inspiring as church can be, it can also be a drudge when the focus slips from God to the guy in the seat beside you. I wouldn't worry about letting your gaurd down in the tide of emotion.

I don't see why Jesus had to die for our sins to be forgiven. God could have done that in an infinite number of painless ways.

The Flood is irrelevent. It is not supported by the evidence and it is philosophically contradictory. If you'd like, I will elaborate on this topic.

History often lends itself well to the scientific method. Thomas Jefferson having children through his slaves for example.

The prophecies are circular. They predict events which are referenced later in the same book. This is not allowed. You can't predict something and then declare it fulfilled without outside sources. Also, you assume the Bible is infallible and not edited at a later date to make it seem more credible.

Christianity has been the source of alot of happiness and beautiful art. This does not improve its veracity.

farmermike

28th November 2004, 06:08 AM

O.K.- When someone lands on this planet, claiming to be God and is sufficiently convincing to change the course of human history, I'm gonna give that a closer look and some creedence to match.

Atlas

28th November 2004, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
... Was it Atlas who suggested I give Budhism a go because I would find nothing challenging or offensive to my self-determination in it? Something more along the lines of what I would come up with on my own? ... Yes, Karen that was me who recommended Buddhism. Did I misinterpret this exchange you had with bluess? Originally posted by bluess
Karen (or Mrs. Farmermike):

Thanks for your discourse.

My question - Have you explored the sacred texts of other religions?

If you have, what is about the Bible that so attracted you?

If not, do you think that such exploration could benefit your religious practice? Originally posted by farmermike
No. What I tried to express at the outset was that I'm a pretty hands on kind of person and not naturally given to contemplating the mysteries of the universe. My substandard aprreciation of world religion however, would lead me to believe that they contain elements of the truth but nothing like the real time/space- objectively verifiable life and death of Jesus Christ. Like C.S. Lewis said, when he was an atheist he had to believe that the majority of humanity had always been dead wrong about what mattered to them most but upon becoming a Christian he was able to take a more liberal view.
And yes, I do hope to become better versed in this area. I thought you were saying, according to the last line in your post, that you'd like to be better versed in the ideas forming the basis of other religions.

It was in that spirit that I recommended Buddhism. Not "give it a go" in the sense of abandoning Christianity. (Although, in total, I do think it is a better spiritual philosophy than Christianity.) I just think that it illuminates the Christain faith in it's contrasts. It does not threaten Christian beliefs. I only recommended it because I thought you were saying you were open to understanding the fundamentals of other religions and for me, the only one with anything substantial to add is Buddhism. Islam adds nothing - same God. Hinduism adds nothing until you get past the many gods issue. It does have a lot to say about the spiritual experience though that you won't find easily in Christianity.

Again, I only made the recommendation because of your post to bluess where you seemed open to it.

KingMerv00

28th November 2004, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
O.K.- When someone lands on this planet, claiming to be God and is sufficiently convincing to change the course of human history, I'm gonna give that a closer look and some creedence to match.

All the Popes

Julius Caesar

John Frum

The British Monarchs

Jesus

All of the Pharohs of Ancient Egypt

Chinese Rulers under than Mandate of Heaven

Wovoka of the Paiute Tribe

Charles Manson

This list could go on forever if I wanted to get really deep into research. Do you know what these people all have in common? They all changed people's lives and claimed either to be a god, taking direct orders from a god, or handpicked by the gods to rule mankind. Actually, John Frum is a little different but people THOUGHT he was magical. Basically the same.

Jesus only takes up one slot of many.

Kitty Chan

28th November 2004, 10:31 AM

King Merv

I would have to look it up but I think the difference is Jesus said He was the only God.

Whereas the others heard from or were a god amoung many. Manson said he was Jesus come back didnt he? The popes are Gods reps on earth.

I could be wrong but its what I remember. :)

KingMerv00

28th November 2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
King Merv

I would have to look it up but I think the difference is Jesus said He was the only God.

Whereas the others heard from or were a god amoung many. Manson said he was Jesus come back didnt he? The popes are Gods reps on earth.

I could be wrong but its what I remember. :)

I don't see how this matters. Ok, Jesus said he was the only God. Good for him. Why is he right and the others wrong?

If I recall correctly, Mansons followers claimed he breathed life back into a dead bird. Pretty good resume for the second coming of God if you ask me.

Kitty Chan

28th November 2004, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I don't see how this matters. Ok, Jesus said he was the only God. Good for him. Why is he right and the others wrong?

If I recall correctly, Mansons followers claimed he breathed life back into a dead bird. Pretty good resume for the second coming of God if you ask me.

the original statement was:

Originally posted by farmermike
O.K.- When someone lands on this planet, claiming to be God and is sufficiently convincing to change the course of human history, I'm gonna give that a closer look and some creedence to match.

You suggested the list that fit that statement

I gave a observation of the list that still only Jesus said He was God the others did not. Nothing to do with whos right or wrong just who claimed what.

And Im curious how could you say that breathing life into a dead bird is a good resume for a second coming?

I would compare the healings of Jesus and say He wins on that comparison.

But the problem with the statement of being a good resume for a second coming is that is breathing life into a dead bird has nothing to do with the second coming.
:)

farmermike

28th November 2004, 11:11 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KingMerv00
[B]I don't see how this matters. Ok, Jesus said he was the only God. Good for him. Why is he right and the others wrong?

You don't see how it matters, if God lived and walked among us? How else do you explain the unprecedented effect of a "nobody's" life on humanity? None of the British monarchs, Roman Emporers or Egyptian Pharoahs come close in comparison. What happened back there? To me, it suggests that the miracles attributed to him in the Bible, must have been pretty convincing- not to mention the subjective personal relationship bit, that he advertised. Things that make you go hmm.

Ossai

28th November 2004, 02:51 PM

Farmermike - Karen
As for the flood, I don't think from the account, that God took any pleasure in it and the very fact that it hasn't been edited out, speaks to me of the Bible's authenticity. There was no global flood, I can point you to sites Talk Origins (www.talkorigins.org) , geology (fissile record, erosion), zoology (evolution, basic carnivorous animal behavior), physics (air temperature, water, buoyancy), etc that basically prove the biblical flood story nothing but that, a story.

Old Testament prophesies detailing some very specific attributes of the Messiah, which were born out hundreds of years later in the person of Jesus Christ Actually the old testament prophesies were not fulfilled by Jesus. The bits that people assume are prophecies are nothing more than de-contextualized passages. Read the actual prophecies in Genesis â€“ they havenâ€™t been fulfilled.

historical references in the Bible re the larger ancient world, that originally were considered false but that archaeology has since affirmed
Two points to make on this.
1 Just because a book has some accurate historical data does not make the book historically accurate.
2 You just contradicted yourself Ah yes- the evidence, bearing in mind that histroy does not lend itself to the scientific method

So history and science donâ€™t mix or work unless they back your preconceived ideas and then only at a cursory glance.

the enduring relevance and resonance of scripture, despite having been addressed to a particular time and place Youâ€™ve completely lost me on this one. What enduring relevance and resonance? Almost every Christian sect has their own take on certain passages, which are sometimes quiet different. Just contrast the Jehovahâ€™s witness and the Orthodox Catholic Church. So how is a passage enduring when each new sect or generation has a new take on it?

-Paul- a Jew of the Jews- perscecuted Christians but left his high position at great personal cost, after a life-altering encounter with God, to spread the gospel
-the disciples who feared for their lives in the wake of the crucificxion but later went to their deaths proclaiming the resurrection Nothing too unusual here actually.
By your statement would the deaths of other fanatical believers change your mind and make you consider another religion? Would someone who knowingly faced death for their religious beliefs convince you to worship Allah?

Ossai

KingMerv00

28th November 2004, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
the original statement was:

Originally posted by farmermike
O.K.- When someone lands on this planet, claiming to be God and is sufficiently convincing to change the course of human history, I'm gonna give that a closer look and some creedence to match.

You suggested the list that fit that statement

I gave a observation of the list that still only Jesus said He was God the others did not. Nothing to do with whos right or wrong just who claimed what.

And Im curious how could you say that breathing life into a dead bird is a good resume for a second coming?

I would compare the healings of Jesus and say He wins on that comparison.

But the problem with the statement of being a good resume for a second coming is that is breathing life into a dead bird has nothing to do with the second coming.
:)

Actually I never said the list fit the statement exactly. I actually thought the original statement was way to restrictive because it places extra importance on Jesus rather than any of the other "saviors" and "chosens ones".

Why should claiming to be God give you more attention than being sent by God to do his bidding? Your response to my list shows how many Christians have completely lost any sense of objectivity.

My point about Charles Manson healing a bird was lost in the mix. There was am an was on earth who could seemingly perform miracles only 40 years ago. Imagine how much more amazing his powers could be in another 2000.

KingMerv00

28th November 2004, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KingMerv00
[B]I don't see how this matters. Ok, Jesus said he was the only God. Good for him. Why is he right and the others wrong?

You don't see how it matters, if God lived and walked among us? How else do you explain the unprecedented effect of a "nobody's" life on humanity? None of the British monarchs, Roman Emporers or Egyptian Pharoahs come close in comparison. What happened back there? To me, it suggests that the miracles attributed to him in the Bible, must have been pretty convincing- not to mention the subjective personal relationship bit, that he advertised. Things that make you go hmm.

I find this post a little sad. You seem to think that a normal human is incapable of impacting all of humanity unless they have magic powers. Nobodies are only nobodies if they refuse to do anything with their lives.

I don't know why you dismiss the accomplishments of the monarchs and pharoahs so readily. Building empires doesn't mean anything?

Lastly, your suggestion that his miracles must have been pretty convincing is simply not true. His "miracles" managed to convince a small group of people. Those people were particularly good at spreading the word. If he really wanted to save more of humanity he should have carved his name into the moon or rearranged the stars to spell out bible verses.

farmermike

29th November 2004, 06:50 AM

Karen

Everyone is aware that the powers that "beed" at the time of the resurection, would have poured all their energies into producing the remains of Jesus, to stamp out what the crucifixion had apparently failed to?
And please don't suggest to me that one of the apostles/fishermen hid it so that they could enjoy a life of persecution culminating in execution. I would say that this singular historical event approaches writing his name in the sky.

*******************************************
What's sad to me, is the context this argument takes place in-limbo land. People are complaining where's the light switch, why isn't it better marked? Others are convinced the light doesn't exist. Some aren't so sure. What about the kerosene lantern, the torch? Do we need electricity? And then a couple of us, intellectual weaklings are heard saying, the switch is over here, try it and see, only to be shouted down with variations on how can you be so sure? I tried it once and it seemed to stick. Why doesn't it just turn itself on if its so good? Why should I have to lift my arm and flick the switch? If the light's too brite I might see something I don't like.
*************************************
Malcolm Muggeridge Jesus Rediscovered (again)
"Ever since I can remember, the image of earthly power, whether in the guise of shcoolmaster, mayor, judge, prime minister, monarch or any other, has seemed to me derisory....Nor, as far as I am concerned, is there any recompense in the so-called achievements of science. It is true that in my lifetime more progress has been made in unravelling the composition and mechanism of the material universe than previously in the whole of recorded time. This does not at all excite my mind, or even my curiosity. The atom has been split, the universe has been discovered and will soon be explored. Neither achievement has any bearing on what alone interests me-WHY LIFE EXISTS, and what is the significance, if any, of my minute and so-transitory part in it."

Cosmo

29th November 2004, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
What's sad to me, is the context this argument takes place in-limbo land. People are complaining where's the light switch, why isn't it better marked? Others are convinced the light doesn't exist. Some aren't so sure. What about the kerosene lantern, the torch? Do we need electricity? And then a couple of us, intellectual weaklings are heard saying, the switch is over here, try it and see, only to be shouted down with variations on how can you be so sure? I tried it once and it seemed to stick. Why doesn't it just turn itself on if its so good? Why should I have to lift my arm and flick the switch? If the light's too brite I might see something I don't like.

I've certainly heard this argument before. Ask yourself, however:

If god is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing, and my immortal soul is on the line (I risk going to hell for not believing in him), why the **** is he leaving even the slightest shadow of doubt about his existence? What does he serve to gain from being deliberately obscure? Since he's all-knowing, he knows quite well the huge negative effect that being obscure will have on the people who believe in him, and it will turn off countless more to his existence. God seems to be doing an abysmally poor job.

If God were a business owner, he'd have filed for chapter 11 by now.

KingMerv00

29th November 2004, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Cosmo
I've certainly heard this argument before. Ask yourself, however:

If god is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing, and my immortal soul is on the line (I risk going to hell for not believing in him), why the **** is he leaving even the slightest shadow of doubt about his existence? What does he serve to gain from being deliberately obscure? Since he's all-knowing, he knows quite well the huge negative effect that being obscure will have on the people who believe in him, and it will turn off countless more to his existence. God seems to be doing an abysmally poor job.

If God were a business owner, he'd have filed for chapter 11 by now.

Just to add to what you said. Currently, at least 2/3 of the world population is wrong about the universe. This is the MINIMUM that are wrong. Clearly God is not quite as clear as Christians think he is.

Ossai

29th November 2004, 07:58 AM

farmermike - Karen
Everyone is aware that the powers that "beed" at the time of the resurection, would have poured all their energies into producing the remains of Jesus, to stamp out what the crucifixion had apparently failed to? You are making the assumption that a person named Jesus actually existed and performed the miracles and rose from the dead. How about looking at it from another perspective. 60 â€“ 100 after all of it supposedly happened some people made up some stories and embellished others about another, possibly multiple, Jewish rabbi.

And then a couple of us, intellectual weaklings are heard saying, the switch is over here, try it and see, only to be shouted down with variations on how can you be so sure? False, you keep getting shouted at to â€˜flip the switchâ€™ and prove itâ€™s over there, yet we all remain in darkness.

Malcolm Muggeridge Jesus Rediscovered (again)
"The atom has been split, the universe has been discovered and will soon be explored. Neither achievement has any bearing on what alone interests me-WHY LIFE EXISTS, and what is the significance, if any, of my minute and so-transitory part in it." Or to paraphrase, me me me, I want to be special. If there is a god then Iâ€™m special. There must be a god because Iâ€™m special, because I want to be.

Ossai

Skeptical Greg

29th November 2004, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
...

Neither achievement has any bearing on what alone interests me-WHY LIFE EXISTS, and what is the significance, if any, of my minute and so-transitory part in it." It is more minute than you think, with significance approaching zero. Why would introducing a / God change that?

KingMerv00

29th November 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
It is more minute than you think, with significance approaching zero. Why would introducing a / God change that?

Ironically, i think she just stepped on a theological land mine.

She just accidently revealed why GOD was created.

farmermike

29th November 2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Ironically, i think she just stepped on a theological land mine.

She just accidently revealed why GOD was created.

Don't think so...........I've had that same accusation levelled against me here before. I can't handle the meaninglessness of it all, so I latch onto the God hypothesis. That might not be a half-bad explanation, if it weren't for the fact that the God I latch onto, makes certain demands of my life and does not promise a rose garden. In fact there are plenty of verses a la pick up your cross and follow me. So now I'm a sadist right?
**************************
Cosmo - Why doesn't God hit me over the head with a baseball bat to prove his existence?
There must be some value in our voluntary search for him. He does however promise that "whoever seeks, finds, and to him who knocks the door shall be opened."
Re punishment-The Bible is pretty clear that people are not responsible for what they have not been exposed to.
*********************************
Selective archaeology? I guess the fact that archaeology has been able to verify many historical references made in the Bible leads me to believe that the rest, where science and religion seem to be in conflict, will likewise resolve themselves. I feel even more confident of this than usual, having just spent a few minutes listening to pre-historic theorey be presented as(excuse the expression) gospel truth, on the Discovery chanel. In all honesty however,the expert in question did admit that a lot of his arguments were speculative. And atheists don't understand faith?

Dr Adequate

29th November 2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I don't see how this matters. Ok, Jesus said he was the only God. Good for him. Why is he right and the others wrong?
No he didn't.

There is no point in any of the Gospels in which he claims to be God.

The Messiah, yes. God, no. You'd think he's have mentioned it if it was true, but apparently it slipped his mind, so theologians had to explain what he meant to say.

Ossai

29th November 2004, 07:22 PM

farmermike - Karen
There must be some value in our voluntary search for him. He does however promise that "whoever seeks, finds, and to him who knocks the door shall be opened." He also promises that some who seek will not find because god will send them strong delusions.
He (being the bible) also mentions that you have absolutely nothing to do with your state of grace and that god predetermined who would go to heaven and who to hell.

Re punishment-The Bible is pretty clear that people are not responsible for what they have not been exposed to.
1. Original Sin
2. Solomonâ€™s sons
3. Sons are punished for the actions of the father to the fourth generation. (or is it fifth?)

Ossai

farmermike

30th November 2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
No he didn't.

There is no point in any of the Gospels in which he claims to be God.

The Messiah, yes. God, no. You'd think he's have mentioned it if it was true, but apparently it slipped his mind, so theologians had to explain what he meant to say.

Karen

At the risk of taking the Bible at face value, apparently the Jewish hierarchy was similarly misinformed because this was their chief beef with him; "We have a law and according to that law he must die because he claimed to be the Son of God." John 19:7. You'd think he'd have mentioned it if it wasn't true. Me, Myself and I.
"He who has seen me has seen the Father." John 14:9
"I and the Father are one." John 10:30
***********************
What no one ripped me to shreads for questioning the authority of the discovery channel?
Anyway, my point was that I don't see any irreconcilable differences between science and religion. One deals with how, the other with why. To me, why trumps how.

alfaniner

30th November 2004, 11:30 AM

Not all religions can be right, but all religions can be wrong.

farmermike

30th November 2004, 12:05 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ossai
[b] farmermike - Karen
He also promises that some who seek will not find because god will send them strong delusions.
***********************
Context, context, context. The preceding verse reads, "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." 2Th. 10b
***************************
He (being the bible) also mentions that you have absolutely nothing to do with your state of grace and that god predetermined who would go to heaven and who to hell.
***********************
I think the "call" is universal and in his ommniscience God knows who will take advantage of it and who won't. Taken in context with the rest of scripture like, "God is not willing that any should perish," and "He who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved", it seems a logical conclusion.
********************************

1. Original Sin
2. Solomonâ€™s sons
3. Sons are punished for the actions of the father to the fourth generation. (or is it fifth?)
Ossai
*******************************************
For sure, we're all guilty of preferring our own way to God's, but we're punished in accordance with the knowledge we either had or cared to have. "All who sin apart from the law, will also perish apart from the law....Indeed when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves..since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts....."Romans 2:12-15

It's not that I don't have any questions, but I also have this assurance that God is fundamentally loving and just and omniscient and personal and that what I now "see through a glass darkly" and wonder about, will one day be crystal clear.(Bible again)

Skeptical Greg

30th November 2004, 01:02 PM

.......... but I also have this assurance that God is fundamentally loving and just and omniscient and personal .... But, we have offered evidence that God is not loving and just. What assures you that he his?

Atlas

30th November 2004, 02:24 PM

Dr. Adequate challenged Karen (Mrs. Farmermike) There is no point in any of the Gospels in which he claims to be God.

The Messiah, yes. God, no. You'd think he's have mentioned it if it was true, but apparently it slipped his mind, so theologians had to explain what he meant to say. Karen responds: At the risk of taking the Bible at face value, apparently the Jewish hierarchy was similarly misinformed because this was their chief beef with him; "We have a law and according to that law he must die because he claimed to be the Son of God." John 19:7. You'd think he'd have mentioned it if it wasn't true. Me, Myself and I.
"He who has seen me has seen the Father." John 14:9
"I and the Father are one." John 10:30

In her response Karen gives us 3 quotes. Some things in the Bible are open to interpretation - You decide.

This contains Karen's 1st quote, we pick up the story right after the Jews had called out: "Give us Barabbas"...

Note that the crowd is accusing - Jesus says nothing.

<blockquote>1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.

2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,

3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.

4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.

5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!

6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;

9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. </blockquote>

==============================

In Karen's 2nd quote, Jesus is talking to his disciples, he seems to immediately clarify not that he and the Father are one another but that they are in one another.

<blockquote>9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very worksâ€™ sake.</blockquote>

A few verses later Jesus refers darkly to his upcoming death and uses the same in descriptor. If you believe the quote above is Jesus claiming to be God then his followup must make his disciples God too?

<blockquote>19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. </blockquote>

=============================

Karen's third quote is the most direct and most compelling. Again, it's open to interpretation. Here Jesus is already deep into a "people as sheep" metaphor when he talks of his death almost as suicide. Many think he's crazy. Later he gets a chance to clear things up, He reminds them that they've seen him operate and his argument builds until verse 30 which Karen quotes. Then the rabble readies to stone him for blasphemy, Jesus back pedals saying something like: "Hey guys, I didn't mean it like that, you misunderstand me" - and runs away.

<blockquote>11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.

20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?

21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?

22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.

23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomonâ€™s porch.

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Fatherâ€™s name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Fatherâ€™s hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand...</blockquote>

(edit: These quotes are presented in Karen's order which is actually the reverse order of appearence in the gospel. What is interesting is that after he was nearly stoned (3rd quote) he is not so forceful anymore, saying only that: The Father is in me (2nd quote). In the 1st quote he is silent on the subject but if you look up and read the whole passage he is defiant but non confrontational blaming, not Pilate, but someone else. - I just noticed that and thought I'd add it. Make of it what you will.)

jimmygun

30th November 2004, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Karen...

"It's not that I don't have any questions, but I also have this assurance that God is fundamentally loving and just and omniscient and personal and that what I now "see through a glass darkly" and wonder about, will one day be crystal clear.(Bible again)"

Again I will harken back to the original context of this thread...where are the examples of god's love? Maybe I'm thick headed but I still don't see any evidence of 'love' from god.

Ossai

1st December 2004, 08:04 AM

Farmermike â€“ Karen

Context, context, context. The preceding verse reads, "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." 2Th. 10b
Then actually look at it in context.

KJV 2 Thessalonians 2
2:9 â€“ 2:11
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders ,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

NIV 2 Thessalonians 2
9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

It seem what happens is Satan shows up and performs miracles, then god shows up and performs a few more. Some people are just so fed up with all of it they donâ€™t believe either, so god deliberately sends them delusions so that they are forced to believe the lies.
God deliberately condemns them.

I think the "call" is universal and in his ommniscience God knows who will take advantage of it and who won't. Taken in context with the rest of scripture like, "God is not willing that any should perish," and "He who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved", it seems a logical conclusion. God, who is omni- and is responsible for everything, deliberately creates people that he knows wonâ€™t accept him and will be condemned to hell. Which goes along with other scripture, Proverbs16:4.

Ossai

Atlas

1st December 2004, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by jimmygun
... Again I will harken back to the original context of this thread...where are the examples of god's love? Maybe I'm thick headed but I still don't see any evidence of 'love' from god. I just had a thought that I'll throw out for attack. Many people assume the opposite of love is hate, some say it is jealosy or something else. But the Bible may be built on a different paradigm. The deity therein wields FEAR. Do what I say or perish. Suffer in torment forever, burn in hell you vile sinful creatures. That kind of thing. Somehow that gets registered as love. As if the continuum between opposites is between Fear and Love. If that sounds bizzarre it's because we look at Saddam and the Nazis and other terrorists as as fear bringers - not love bringers. We associate Fear with the darkness and love with the light. But the Stockholm Syndrome hints at the connection. Bring enough fear and pain and it is love when you stop. Throw in an extra piece of bread and it is proven love.

Up above I quote a section of John 10 which includes this verse. (Jesus speaking.)
John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

This is one big extra piece of bread. For most people fear of death is so big that even some guy promising eternal life gets a listen. Heck, you can hawk vitamins with a promise of longer life and people respond. Face cream that makes you appear to yourself less close to death is well received.

Still, eternal life is illusory. You have to die to participate in it. Are there any bread crumbs we might enjoy here. As it turns out, there are plenty of diseases that bring you to the brink. Fevers and poxes that can make you delusional and scare the crap out of those around you. If you survive them it is more Stockholm Syndrome proven love. What else could it be? :p

(edit: I am offering this somewhat in opposition to my general idea which is... Love is a feeling. Contemplation of the magnificence and the light and beauty of creation delivers a feeling. The delivered feeling is a good feeling and love is a good feeling so they must spring from the same source - Creation and Love.... must come from God. It makes a poor syllogism but that doesn't disqualify it from acceptence by the masses.

We have a tendency to make love lofty because it can give us a feeling like we are walking on air. But the Bible may assume it is nothing more than the other side of fear. Even the main character of Christendom that God so loved the world with that He delivered him into the hands of fearsome torturers who nailed the guy to a cross reveals the depth of His love.)

(edit2: I alluded to the Stockholm syndrome on page 1 of this thread but there I was thinking in basic definition terms. Here I promote it as a psychological phenomenon that permeates our thought even our "holy" books. And that the love that is described by the god of that book arises out of that weird psychological connection with our aversion to pain and death.)

jimmygun

1st December 2004, 02:06 PM

Rather than comparing god's 'love' with the Stockholm syndrome I would equate it with the abused wife or child that mistakes non violence at the moment (ie he aint wailing on them right now) as a sign of love from the abuser. It is my contention that the abusers not only inflict abuse on their charges but also blame them for the abuse. The victims are convinced it was something horrilble they did to deserve such a horrilble beating and see the so-called forgiveness as an act of love. Trouble is, the forgiveness only lasts till the abuser is ready for another round.

When I think of examples of love I think of doing positive things to reflect that love, everything from getting someone a glass of water to laying down one's life to protect them from harm. Though the bible claims that god sent his son to die in the place of sinners I don't see it as an act of love. Surely JC didn't volunteer for the task. Why else would he have cried out about being forsaken at the last moment? If I laid my life on the line, voluntarily that would be an act of love, if I demanded my son do the act that would be an act of cowardess and sadism.

My point in asking the original question is that I sincerely wish to have anyone point out to me a single act of love that the bible tells of. So far nothing.

Atlas

1st December 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by jimmygun
... It is my contention that the abusers not only inflict abuse on their charges but also blame them for the abuse. The victims are convinced it was something horrilble they did to deserve such a horrilble beating ... If people could dispassionately look at Yahweh/Allah like they can Zeus or Odin, the parallel you draw would be plain.

I hadn't fully appreciated the idea you express:but also blame them for the abuse. It really does make clear the deity's abuser tendency. Johnathan Edwards Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God sermon comes to mind. We are despicable creatures worthy of nothing above contempt and yet God will save a handful and torment the rest in fire forever because that's what we deserve.

The rest of your post was good too but for some reason that "also blame us" thought struck a chord.

(edit: I want to add that the Stockholm syndrome perspective seems to me a victim's perspective. Yours is virtually the opposite, getting more into the psychology of the abuser. )

farmermike

2nd December 2004, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by jimmygun
Originally posted by Karen...

"It's not that I don't have any questions, but I also have this assurance that God is fundamentally loving and just and omniscient and personal and that what I now "see through a glass darkly" and wonder about, will one day be crystal clear.(Bible again)"

Again I will harken back to the original context of this thread...where are the examples of god's love? Maybe I'm thick headed but I still don't see any evidence of 'love' from god.
Karen
What's So Amazing About Grace? Philip Yancey
"Wrestling with the command to love your enemies while being persecuted under Nazi Germany, Dietrich Bonhoeffer finally concluded that it was this very quality of the "peculiar; the extraordinary, the unusual" that sets a Christian apart from others."(granted this is the ideal and all too often not the case) "Even as he worked to undermine the regime, he followed Jesus' command to "Pray for those who persecute you'" Bonhoeffer wrote
Through the medium of prayer we go to our enemy, stand by his side, and plead for him to God. Jesus does not promise that when we bless our enemies and do good to them they will not despitefully use and persecute us. They certainly will....
Why did Bonhoeffer strive to love his enemies and pray for his persecutors? He had only one answer: "God loves his enemies-that is the glory of his love, as every follower of Jesus knows." If God forgave our debts, how can we not do the same?"

2.

farmermike

2nd December 2004, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Ossai
Farmermike â€“ Karen

Then actually look at it in context.

NIV 2 Thessalonians 2
9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
So they believe the lies because they had no interest in
It seem what happens is Satan shows up and performs miracles, then god shows up and performs a few more. Some people are just so fed up with all of it they donâ€™t believe either, so god deliberately sends them delusions so that they are forced to believe the lies.
God deliberately condemns them.
God, who is omni- and is responsible for everything, deliberately creates people that he knows wonâ€™t accept him and will be condemned to hell. Which goes along with other scripture, Proverbs16:4.
****************************************
I don't suppose the fact that God knows right now, whether or not I will renounce my faith in 10 years, changes my ability to do it. He created us with free will. You are at perfect liberty to decide against God. If you're asking me if he wants you to make that decision, my answer is an emphatic no.
"It is to the prodigals...that the memory of their Father's house comes back. If the son had lived economically he would never have thought of returning." Simone Weil

Ossai

farmermike

2nd December 2004, 08:00 AM

Karen
"Truly it is an evil to be full of faults," said Pascal,"but it is a still greater evil to be full of them, and to be unwilling to recognize them." Honesty is the best policy.
Counter to the Stockholm Syndrome and abused wife thingy, the Bible describes faith in God as supremely freeing.

bluess

2nd December 2004, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
Karen
"Truly it is an evil to be full of faults," said Pascal,"but it is a still greater evil to be full of them, and to be unwilling to recognize them." Honesty is the best policy.
Counter to the Stockholm Syndrome and abused wife thingy, the Bible describes faith in God as supremely freeing.

I'm not sure how belief in the god described in your holy book would be freeing. According to that book, you were created by an all-powerful being who chose to make it more likely that you would sin than choose the 'straight and narrow path' and then also chose to ensure that any of its fallible creations who make a mistake suffer unendurable agony for eternity. Under this scenario, no created being is free. They struggle for the duration of their short life to not commit an unforgiveable sin which their creator created them to commit.

So, to go with the 'God the Father' analogy - your Dad raised you to desire and enjoy cakes and candies, even though these are bad for you. He keeps cakes and candies in the house, and displays them in appealing fashions to make them more tempting. The day you finally eat a cake, he throws you into the shed in the back and leaves you to suffer thirst, hunger, cold and fear. Is this the act of a loving father?

Oh, thirst, hunger, cold and fear only last to your death. Not through eternity.

I'm sorry, I just cannot understand how a rational human would believe in this god.

Atlas

2nd December 2004, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
Karen
"Truly it is an evil to be full of faults," said Pascal,"but it is a still greater evil to be full of them, and to be unwilling to recognize them." Honesty is the best policy.
Counter to the Stockholm Syndrome and abused wife thingy, the Bible describes faith in God as supremely freeing. I wonder if Pascal would have said that if he had been introduced to tectonic plate theory. Would he think Earthquake Fault lines evil? And what of sunspots, these dark blemishes on the near perfect face of the sun. He was a contemporary of Galileo and may have heard of his discoveries. Both the Earth and the Sun are unwilling to recognize their faults - they must be evil indeed.

It sounds stupid, doesn't it, to talk as conscious beings about the evil inherent in unconscious entities like the Earth and Sun.

Why isn't it just as stupid to speak with God's voice as Pascal does, as a super conscious entity, explaining how full of natural created fault we are and how evil that makes us as mere awakening conscious beings.

Man's idea of good and evil must be warped from whatever super conscious entity that would be God. What our local monotheistic religions give us is a god made in our own image, full of rage and anger and jealousy and some sunshine. Come, walk with me in the desert for 40 years and I'll lead you to the promised land where everybody will hate you and try to kill your children, and this I will do because you are my people and this is my love.

Ladewig

2nd December 2004, 09:14 AM

jimmygun

Again I will harken back to the original context of this thread...where are the examples of god's love? Maybe I'm thick headed but I still don't see any evidence of 'love' from god.

farmermike (Karen)
What's So Amazing About Grace? Philip Yancey
"Wrestling with the command to love your enemies while being persecuted under Nazi Germany, Dietrich Bonhoeffer finally concluded that it was this very quality of the "peculiar; the extraordinary, the unusual" that sets a Christian apart from others."(granted this is the ideal and all too often not the case) "Even as he worked to undermine the regime, he followed Jesus' command to "Pray for those who persecute you'" Bonhoeffer wrote
Through the medium of prayer we go to our enemy, stand by his side, and plead for him to God. Jesus does not promise that when we bless our enemies and do good to them they will not despitefully use and persecute us. They certainly will....
Why did Bonhoeffer strive to love his enemies and pray for his persecutors? He had only one answer: "God loves his enemies-that is the glory of his love, as every follower of Jesus knows." If God forgave our debts, how can we not do the same?"

The example you gave is one of a person's love for God, not God's love for people. Can you provide evidence of God's love?

Quoting the Bible does not count as evidence.
Describing feelings does not count as evidence.
Listing the number of people who believe in God's love does not count as evidence.

Ossai

2nd December 2004, 10:15 AM

farmermike - Karen
I don't suppose the fact that God knows right now, whether or not I will renounce my faith in 10 years, changes my ability to do it. He created us with free will. You are at perfect liberty to decide against God. If you're asking me if he wants you to make that decision, my answer is an emphatic no. Weâ€™re getting in a dicey area here. If god is omni- then we donâ€™t have freewill, at best, just the illusion of it.

"It is to the prodigals...that the memory of their Father's house comes back. If the son had lived economically he would never have thought of returning." Simone Weil You have to sin in order to be saved, or maybe, you donâ€™t know what you have until itâ€™s gone. What was the point of the quote?

Ossai

farmermike

3rd December 2004, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Ladewig

The example you gave is one of a person's love for God, not God's love for people. Can you provide evidence of God's love?

Quoting the Bible does not count as evidence.
Describing feelings does not count as evidence.
Listing the number of people who believe in God's love does not count as evidence. [/B]

There's more than one kind of evidence and I think these would all be admissable in a court of law and certainly worth considering for anyone interested in the question of God. Experiential evidence of God's love comes through relationship with him.
"God cannot be discovered through reasoning(alone). However, if He is real, He must be quited inescapable and well-worth knowing. I came to the conclusion that if God really existed, finding this out was the most important step I could ever take."
Lambert Dolphin

farmermike

3rd December 2004, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Ossai
farmermike - Karen
Weâ€™re getting in a dicey area here. If god is omni- then we donâ€™t have freewill, at best, just the illusion of it.

You have to sin in order to be saved, or maybe, you donâ€™t know what you have until itâ€™s gone. What was the point of the quote?

Ossai
Karen
I thought earlier on that everyone was upset because God HAD given them free will?

And the prodigal reference was from one to another. It sounds like you had a bad church experience growing up and turned your back on God as well as the hypocrisy. For sure,your hunger doesn't concern you until you run out of options to satisfy it.

farmermike

3rd December 2004, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Atlas

Man's idea of good and evil must be warped from whatever super conscious entity that would be God. What our local monotheistic religions give us is a god made in our own image, full of rage and anger and jealousy and some sunshine. Come, walk with me in the desert for 40 years and I'll lead you to the promised land where everybody will hate you and try to kill your children, and this I will do because you are my people and this is my love.

The 40 years in the desert were not part of the original deal but resulted from Israel's(man's) disobedience. You know Job wrestled with a lot of these issues-might be worth a read. I agree with you though that man's idea of good and evil is warped.
"The Catholic(christian) novelist believes that you destroy your freedom by sin; the modern reader believes, I think, that you gain it in that way. There is not much possibility of understanding between the two." Flannery O'Connor

farmermike

3rd December 2004, 07:39 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bluess
[B]I'm not sure how belief in the god described in your holy book would be freeing. According to that book, you were created by an all-powerful being who chose to make it more likely that you would sin than choose the 'straight and narrow path' and then also chose to ensure that any of its fallible creations who make a mistake suffer unendurable agony for eternity. Under this scenario, no created being is free. They struggle for the duration of their short life to not commit an unforgiveable sin which their creator created them to commit.
********************************
Karen
I'd like to suggest that we don't struggle half so hard as we like to think we do. You don't suffer for eternity for making a mistake. God is in the forgiving business. You suffer for deciding you don't need any of that forgiveness, thank-you very much.
*******************************
So, to go with the 'God the Father' analogy - your Dad raised you to desire and enjoy cakes and candies, even though these are bad for you. He keeps cakes and candies in the house, and displays them in appealing fashions to make them more tempting. The day you finally eat a cake, he throws you into the shed in the back and leaves you to suffer thirst, hunger, cold and fear. Is this the act of a loving father?
**************************************
Karen
Satan is the one portrayed in the Bible as the pastry chef.

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." 1Peter 2:24

Skeptical Greg

3rd December 2004, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bluess

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." 1Peter 2:24

Another one of your Christian paradoxes.

The most hideous acts we have or can commit have been borne by Jesus and forgiven by God if we only acknowledge them and ask for forgiveness.. While leading a decent life means nothing if one does not do the groveling thing.

Would you seek the company of any human who had the same sense of justice?

Ossai

3rd December 2004, 09:44 AM

Farmermike â€“ Karen
I thought earlier on that everyone was upset because God HAD given them free will?
Nope, just what I noted before. If god is omni- then human freewill is nothing more than an illusion. Which neatly removes all responsibility, both good and bad, from humanity and places it square on godâ€™s shoulders.

I'd like to suggest that we don't struggle half so hard as we like to think we do. You don't suffer for eternity for making a mistake. God is in the forgiving business. You suffer for deciding you don't need any of that forgiveness, thank-you very much. What of those that never had the choice offered? Can you change your mind once you die? If not, why?
How can god forgive me for something I did wrong to someone else? Being â€˜forgivenâ€™ by god is nothing more than a means of escaping your responsibility to the injured party.

Satan is the one portrayed in the Bible as the pastry chef. Only half right. In the old testament, Satan is nothing more than an angel doing his job. It wasnâ€™t until the new testament came about that people wanted to distance their god from the bad things happening.

Ossai

Ladewig

3rd December 2004, 05:14 PM

So, to go with the 'God the Father' analogy - your Dad raised you to desire and enjoy cakes and candies, even though these are bad for you. He keeps cakes and candies in the house, and displays them in appealing fashions to make them more tempting. The day you finally eat a cake, he throws you into the shed in the back and leaves you to suffer thirst, hunger, cold and fear. Is this the act of a loving father?

Karen:
Satan is the one portrayed in the Bible as the pastry chef.

If before leaving a room, you tell a four-year-old to play with anything in the room except the matches on the table, then it is somewhat irrational to act surprised when you come back to find the room in flames.

If Eve and Adam had fewer life experiences, less common sense, less of an understanding of right and wrong, and no understanding of what deception is then why should they be held to a higher standard than a four-year-old child? In Genesis, once one hits the end of chapter 2, one doesn't have to be omnipotent to know what is going to happen next. Yet God's response is to become angry, punish them, and then come up with the response, "well, now that you've learned from the tree of knowledge, I'll have to kill my Son who is completely innocent."

farmermike

6th December 2004, 06:55 AM

I don't know why God allows but simultaneously hates evil. Therefore I trust that it is a necessary part of his plan. It is no defense to say that because child pornography exists, that I am not responsible for buying it.
*****************************
I'm harking back a week or so here but I found this quote that I think is relevant to some of our earlier discussions. "Indeed it has beeen argued-and I think very rightly-that myth theories of the beginnings of Christianity are modern speculative hypotheses motivated by unreasoning prejudice and dislike. It would never entere anyone's head to ask whether Jesus had lived, unless before asking the question the mind had been darkened by the wish that he had not lived." Roderic Dunkerly Beyond the Gospels
****************************
Historical References to Jesus:

Flavius Josephus Antiquities XVIII,III
Cornelius Tacitus Annals XV, 44
Sulpicius Severus Chronicles, 30;6
Seutonius Life of Claudius/Epistles X, 96

bluess

6th December 2004, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
[QUOTE]
Karen
I'd like to suggest that we don't struggle half so hard as we like to think we do. You don't suffer for eternity for making a mistake. God is in the forgiving business. You suffer for deciding you don't need any of that forgiveness, thank-you very much.

Your god is in the 'forgiving business' only if you ask first? And, no matter how heinous the sin, say 'I'm sorry' and all is ok?

This just strikes me as odd.
*******************************
[i]
Karen
Satan is the one portrayed in the Bible as the pastry chef.

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." 1Peter 2:24

Yes, who created Satan? And for what purpose? To trip his innocent lambs as the gambol in the field?

- Sorry, its Monday morning and I'm feeling cranky.

bluess

6th December 2004, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
I'm harking back a week or so here but I found this quote that I think is relevant to some of our earlier discussions. "Indeed it has beeen argued-and I think very rightly-that myth theories of the beginnings of Christianity are modern speculative hypotheses motivated by unreasoning prejudice and dislike. It would never entere anyone's head to ask whether Jesus had lived, unless before asking the question the mind had been darkened by the wish that he had not lived." Roderic Dunkerly Beyond the Gospels
****************************

Why do you have to posit dislike and unreasoning prejudice? How about the use of one's 'God-given' intelligence to ensure that one is truly following god?

Ossai

6th December 2004, 07:18 AM

[b]farmermike/[b]
"Indeed it has beeen argued-and I think very rightly-that myth theories of the beginnings of Christianity are modern speculative hypotheses motivated by unreasoning prejudice and dislike. It would never entere anyone's head to ask whether Jesus had lived, unless before asking the question the mind had been darkened by the wish that he had not lived." Roderic Dunkerly What an asinine viewpoint. Although it does go along with most Christian doctrine Iâ€™ve read, donâ€™t question and accept any/everything I tell you. If you question you must be a heretic.

Historical References to Jesus: It will require more of a biblical scholar than I (not at all) to go over the list. Although I do know the first one is very suspect.

Ossai

Atlas

6th December 2004, 07:41 AM

I sure agree with Ossai about Dunkerly's stupid statement. Is it really wishes of death on historical figures that drives our inquiries into the past? I'm sure the following is just as true as what Dunkerly originally said.

"Indeed it has beeen argued-and I think very rightly-that myth theories of the beginnings of English history are modern speculative hypotheses motivated by unreasoning prejudice and dislike. It would never entere anyone's head to ask whether Merlin had lived, unless before asking the question the mind had been darkened by the wish that he had not lived."

Dr Adequate

6th December 2004, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
I don't know why God allows but simultaneously hates evil. Therefore I trust that it is a necessary part of his plan.
Er, this is where you lose me.

To allow evil when you could prevent it is despicable. But worse than that, God does not merely allow evil, he orders it and causes it:
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. --- Proverbs 16:4
He makes wicked people for entirely selfish reasons. Now you know what his plan is. I wish Christians would read the Bible more often.

Now the stupid psych-101:
"It would never entere anyone's head to ask whether Jesus had lived, unless before asking the question the mind had been darkened by the wish that he had not lived." Roderic Dunkerly Beyond the Gospels
Compare:
"It would never enter anyone's head to ask whether Nessie exists, unless before asking the question the mind had been darkened by the wish that she does not exist." Roderic Dunkerly Beyond the Gospels, as ammended by me
Why not? Surely the first thing you want to know about any idea is "Is it true?"

"It would never enter anyone's head to read the Bible and not to ask whether any of it was true, and if so, which bits, unless the mind had been darkened by intellectual laziness, willing credulity, or knee-jerk incredulity." --- me.

Edited to add: hey, Atlas, are you my Psychic Twin?

farmermike

7th December 2004, 08:04 AM

Dunkerly was addressing the reltive ease with which we accept the existence of other hitorical personalities and the "knee-jerk" incredulity with which we approach Jesus of Nazereth. *********************************
The reference to creating the wicked (those who deliberately reject God) for the day of destruction is widely advertised in the Bible. Good and bad co-exist. Choice exists. Consequences exist.
*********************************
Stumbled over another worthwhile quote that I'd be interested in hearing your perspectives on: James Russell Lowell, U.S. Minister of State for England at a banquet over a century ago where Christianity was being attacked by scoffers. He said: "I challenge any skeptic to find a ten square mile spot on this planet where they can live their lives in peace and safety and decency, where womanhood is honored, where infancy and old age are revered, where they can educate their children, where the Gospel of Jesus Christ has not gone first to prepare the way. If they find such a place, then I would encourage them to emigrate thither and there proclaim their unbelief."
Does anyone feel physically ill? If so, I think you can better understand Dunkerly's proposition that you really wish Jesus had never lived, evidenced in the resulting cry,"Then He wasn't God." There is no God. I can't fit Him into my paradigm without blowing it all to smitherenes: A position which would make more sense if you knew whence you came and whither you were going.

Dr Adequate

7th December 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
Dunkerly was addressing the reltive ease with which we accept the existence of other hitorical personalities and the "knee-jerk" incredulity with which we approach Jesus of Nazereth.
We? You are speaking neither for yourself, nor for me.
The reference to creating the wicked (those who deliberately reject God) for the day of destruction is widely advertised in the Bible.
Yes, it is. Why does he do it? Why make the wicked in order to have the fun of damning them? Why is it fun? He does this for himself, remember, not for the sake of others. What sort of creature is he?
Good and bad co-exist. Choice exists. Consequences exist.
Even though I'm only an Evil Ignorant Atheist, I had noticed. But if there's a God, why does he permit evil?
Stumbled over another worthwhile quote that I'd be interested in hearing your perspectives on: James Russell Lowell, U.S. Minister of State for England at a banquet over a century ago where Christianity was being attacked by scoffers. He said: "I challenge any skeptic to find a ten square mile spot on this planet where they can live their lives in peace and safety and decency, where womanhood is honored, where infancy and old age are revered, where they can educate their children, where the Gospel of Jesus Christ has not gone first to prepare the way. If they find such a place, then I would encourage them to emigrate thither and there proclaim their unbelief."
Thereby writing off all Hindus, Muslims etc as having barbarous societies. I'm not surprised you had to dig back to to the nineteenth century to find such a disgusting piece of raw prejudice. Well, I live where Christians are a tiny minority and... I proclaim my unbelief. There is no need to be Christian in order to be good, which I know from experience, instead of the lies and bigotry of the racist you quote.
Does anyone feel physically ill? If so, I think you can better understand Dunkerly's proposition that you really wish Jesus had never lived, evidenced in the resulting cry,"Then He wasn't God." There is no God. I can't fit Him into my paradigm without blowing it all to smitherenes: A position which would make more sense if you knew whence you came and whither you were going.
I don't see your chain of thought here. However, I don't need to, since it suffices to say that if Dunkerly says that I "really wish Jesus had never lived, evidenced in the resulting cry,"Then He wasn't God." There is no God. I can't fit Him into my paradigm without blowing it all to smitherenes:" then Dunkerly is a liar. I, and not he, know what I think.

Why do you rely on a Christian bigot to tell you what I think, when you could just ask me and find out? And having been lazy and credulous enough to believe his stupid gibble, why do you pass it on as fact without checking whether this is true? This is gossip. This is bearing false witness. It is untrue, offensive, and, I may say, absolutely typical of the worst and lowest brand of Christian apologetics.

Marquis de Carabas

7th December 2004, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
Dunkerly was addressing the reltive ease with which we accept the existence of other hitorical personalities and the "knee-jerk" incredulity with which we approach Jesus of Nazereth. *********************************
Most historical figures aren't claimed to heal the lame and rise from the dead.

Stumbled over another worthwhile quote that I'd be interested in hearing your perspectives on: James Russell Lowell, U.S. Minister of State for England at a banquet over a century ago where Christianity was being attacked by scoffers. He said: "I challenge any skeptic to find a ten square mile spot on this planet where they can live their lives in peace and safety and decency, where womanhood is honored, where infancy and old age are revered, where they can educate their children, where the Gospel of Jesus Christ has not gone first to prepare the way. If they find such a place, then I would encourage them to emigrate thither and there proclaim their unbelief."
Nifty quote. Not only does he assume that correlation equals causation, he assumes that the believed utility of the Gospel has anything whatsoever to do with its veracity.

Does anyone feel physically ill?
I feel fine, thanks. Hope you're well.

Ladewig

7th December 2004, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by farmermike

Stumbled over another worthwhile quote that I'd be interested in hearing your perspectives on: James Russell Lowell, U.S. Minister of State for England at a banquet over a century ago where Christianity was being attacked by scoffers. He said: "I challenge any skeptic to find a ten square mile spot on this planet where they can live their lives in peace and safety and decency, where womanhood is honored, where infancy and old age are revered, where they can educate their children, where the Gospel of Jesus Christ has not gone first to prepare the way. If they find such a place, then I would encourage them to emigrate thither and there proclaim their unbelief."

And I challenge any believer to find a ten sqare mile spot where people cannot live in safety and decency, where people's lives are in danger, where secular education is reviled, in which religion did not pave the way.

You didn't include a date on your quote. Was it before or after the U.S. outlawed slavery - a peculiar institution supported by the majority of Christian churches in the South?

. . . . .

I feel fine, thanks for asking. Please note it is not just atheists that doubt the divinity of Jesus. Hindus, Buddhists, and a vareity of other religious people also doubt the divinity of Jesus. (oh, and they feel fine as well).

Atlas

7th December 2004, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
Dunkerly was addressing the reltive ease with which we accept the existence of other hitorical personalities and the "knee-jerk" incredulity with which we approach Jesus of Nazereth. Often we try to guage a historical personality by records of birth and death. The Bible tells us little of the date of Jesus birth, only that Herod tried to kill him as an infant in Bethlehem during a census that forced Mary and Joseph to go and be counted there. That should be all we need to know if we can trust Gospel truth. From here... (http://www.ciforum.org/question.php?Q=12)

Consider, for example, the description in Matthew of the flight of Joseph and his family to Egypt to escape Herod's infanticide spree, in fulfillment of two prophecies:
<blockquote>When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." (Matthew 2:13-18) </blockquote>

Nowhere else in the New Testament is this trip to Egypt recorded. Likewise, Herod's order to kill all the male infants around Bethlehem, which would seem to be a fairly major event, is not reported elsewhere in the Bible, nor by secular historians of the time. Worse still, the trip to Egypt and the need to hide from Herod seem to be contradicted by Luke's account (Luke 2), which says that the 8-day-old Jesus was shown publicly in Jerusalem and suggests that Joseph and his family then remained in Nazareth for at least 12 years. Because Matthew was clearly aware that the events he recounted, if true, would seem to fulfill prophecy, coupled with the fact that these rather major events were not mentioned by other biblical authors, raises the question of whether Matthew might have embellished his account of the little-known early life of Jesus. Herod the Great reigned from 37 BC to 4 BC. Matthew suggests that Jesus was born maybe 6 or 7 BC. There was a Roman census in 6 AD maybe that's what Luke is referring to. Christian scholarship guessed it as in the middle, missing both Herod's reign including the imaginary infanticide and the census.

Except for one Gospel account no other record, Roman, Jew, civilian, refers to the infanticide of Herod. Perhaps you know of one, I can't find any. You'd think the Jews would have documented this atrocity in their own writings seperate from the need to add more stature to a Messianic cult figure by drawing a parallel to Moses birth. In short, the gospel truth is, we don't know when or if Jesus was born. But I can assume he was. The story of the Roman, Panthera, impregnating young Mary makes more sense than the angel myth. But it renders her a virgin once removed.

The story of Jesus' death and especially the myth of resurrection is equally challengable even from using only Gospel accounts. The early Christians embellished the tales of his birth and death to obscure the reality and promote the myth. It is these very embellishments that threaten to turn the existence of the man Jesus into a myth - to say nothing of the claim he is the son of god.

The reference to creating the wicked (those who deliberately reject God) for the day of destruction is widely advertised in the Bible. Good and bad co-exist. Choice exists. Consequences exist. Good and evil were descriptions made for an imperfect God. One that was jealous of other Gods. For the perfect God the universe unfolds according to His plan. There is no evil except as part of God's good plan. Better yet, there is no good or evil - there is only the whim of God and the perception of humans. The God of the old testament is not evil, He is to the human mind disturbed to the point of being megalomaniacal.

Stumbled over another worthwhile quote that I'd be interested in hearing your perspectives on: James Russell Lowell, U.S. Minister of State for England at a banquet over a century ago where Christianity was being attacked by scoffers. He said: "I challenge any skeptic to find a ten square mile spot on this planet where they can live their lives in peace and safety and decency, where womanhood is honored, where infancy and old age are revered, where they can educate their children, where the Gospel of Jesus Christ has not gone first to prepare the way. If they find such a place, then I would encourage them to emigrate thither and there proclaim their unbelief."
This is such a strange quote. There have been several cultures before Christianity and after that survived for generations in peace, safety and decency. Generations of fathers taught their sons to hunt and provide for their families and tribe. Since most early cultures had few who lived to old age those who did were revered elders. Most cultures celebrate having children and this was women's greatest gift to the tribe or family or group. Women are honored more in societies that have not been told by a deity that men are above them, or they were created as an afterthought and tricked men into sin.

Besides that, Lowell's challenge is so lame. If you find such a place why don't you go there then. NOT Let's document the find. NOT I'd like to see it in operation. NOT This would mean something big. NOPE. If you find it, proving my blind bias, You know what I'll tell ya, "Git the Hell outa Dodge. I don't wanna see ya." All you have posted is an example of Christian closed-mindedness.

Does anyone feel physically ill? If so, I think you can better understand Dunkerly's proposition that you really wish Jesus had never lived, evidenced in the resulting cry,"Then He wasn't God." There is no God. I can't fit Him into my paradigm without blowing it all to smitherenes: A position which would make more sense if you knew whence you came and whither you were going. I am as perplexed by this weirdly expressed thought as Dr Adequate. It seems to say that if we are sick we can better understand Dunkerly. I hope you start to feel better soon, Karen. I do agree with your ending thought.... 'There is no God' makes more sense to those who know whence they come and whither they go. 'There is a God' is an expression of hope, more than knowing, of the whence and the whither.

Skeptical Greg

7th December 2004, 12:40 PM

Gee, love it when someone trots out the " Historical Evidence " of the Bible argument, and someone like Atlas blows it away with the Herod infanticide bit..

History asside, if you assume it is true, it is another Bible horror story that reveals the nature of God and his love for his chosen people.

farmermike

7th December 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Gee, love it when someone trots out the " Historical Evidence " of the Bible argument, and someone like Atlas blows it away with the Herod infanticide bit..

History asside, if you assume it is true, it is another Bible horror story that reveals the nature of God and his love for his chosen people.

And I love it when someone runs so long at the mouth that we forget the original question. When I have more time I'll take a stab at Atlas's essay. The point was, here in North America, we can thank Christianity for creating a climate where divergent opinions are tolerated, for hospitals, for universities, for feeding the poor in disproportionate numbers, etc. Diogenes, ask yourself why you so enjoy seeing what you consider to be the refutal of the evidence for the existance of Jesus Christ. It wouldn't be to better enjoy the usual weekend festivities would it?

drkitten

7th December 2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
And I love it when someone runs so long at the mouth that we forget the original question. When I have more time I'll take a stab at Atlas's essay. The point was, here in North America, we can thank Christianity for creating a climate where divergent opinions are tolerated, for hospitals, for universities, for feeding the poor in disproportionate numbers, etc.

Why should we thank Christianity?

I mean, why not thank Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain? Why not thank the Renaissance? Why not thank English common law? Why not thank the Enlightenment? Why not thank Hammurabi the Lawgiver? Why not Rousseau and Adam Smith? Why does Christianity, in particular, get credit for the fact that a bunch of non-Christian Deists wrote freedom of speech into a document, or that a bunch of scholars decided to get together to create a university?

Atlas

7th December 2004, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
And I love it when someone runs so long at the mouth that we forget the original question.
Guilty. In my defense I feel that the issue is as important to me as it is to you. I apologize that my style makes you forgetful.

The point was, here in North America, we can thank Christianity for creating a climate where divergent opinions are tolerated, for hospitals, for universities, for feeding the poor in disproportionate numbers, etc. Thanks for alerting me to the point. I had entirely missed it. It seemed to more about why we dark minded types wish Jesus didn't exist (Dunkerly) and also Lowell's wish for all to leave town if they don't believe in Jesus. In the interest of brevity I'll exit in agreement with New DrKitten.

Ladewig

7th December 2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by farmermike

Does anyone feel physically ill? If so, I think you can better understand Dunkerly's proposition that you really wish Jesus had never lived, evidenced in the resulting cry,"Then He wasn't God." There is no God. I can't fit Him into my paradigm without blowing it all to smitherenes: A position which would make more sense if you knew whence you came and whither you were going.

Are you suggesting that we deny God because we fear having our world-view destroyed? And that facing that fact will makes us become so fearful as to be sick?

Please note that many, many people on this board once held very strong religious beliefs. For a variety of reasons, these people changed their paradigm, their world-view, perhaps even their image of self, when they laid aside their religious beliefs. We've already changed our world-view once, we are not scared of changing it again - if we found evidence of a reason to do so.

I fear that you might be projecting onto us, your reluctance to change one's perspective.

Ladewig

7th December 2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
The point was, here in North America, we can thank Christianity for creating a climate where divergent opinions are tolerated, for hospitals, for universities, for feeding the poor in disproportionate numbers, etc.

Whaaa? We can also thank Christianity for creating a climate so intolerant of various forms of Christianity, that the early settlers were willing to risk their lives to leave England. And many of the Christians that arrived here were so intolerant of other Christian doctrines that the kicked people out of their colonies (read how Rhode Island was founded).

Skeptical Greg

7th December 2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by farmermike
And I love it when someone runs so long at the mouth that we forget the original question. When I have more time I'll take a stab at Atlas's essay. The point was, here in North America, we can thank Christianity for creating a climate where divergent opinions are tolerated, for hospitals, for universities, for feeding the poor in disproportionate numbers, etc. Diogenes, ask yourself why you so enjoy seeing what you consider to be the refutal of the evidence for the existance of Jesus Christ. It wouldn't be to better enjoy the usual weekend festivities would it?

Thou dost project to much..

I'll watch for a point for point answer to Atlas's post, but I expect the usual obfuscation.

P.S.

What evidence?

Ossai

8th December 2004, 05:23 AM

farmermike - Karen
The reference to creating the wicked (those who deliberately reject God) for the day of destruction is widely advertised in the Bible. Good and bad co-exist. Choice exists. Consequences exist. What choice? If someone is specifically created wicked then what choice did they have? Can a person choose to not be wicked if god specifically created them to be so? Can a person overpower godâ€™s decision?

"I challenge any skeptic to find a ten square mile spot on this planet where they can live their lives in peace and safety and decency, where womanhood is honored, where infancy and old age are revered, where they can educate their children, where the Gospel of Jesus Christ has not gone first to prepare the way. If they find such a place, then I would encourage them to emigrate thither and there proclaim their unbelief." How about a large portion of what is now China for starters. The usual practice was for Christianity to prepare the way for itâ€™s culture by either killing or enslaving the native populace. Now whoâ€™s feeling physically ill?

The point was, here in North America, we can thank Christianity for creating a climate where divergent opinions are tolerated, for hospitals, for universities, for feeding the poor in disproportionate numbers, etc. You did not pay attention in American history class did you? It because of religious conflict that different opinions are tolerated. Itâ€™s in spite of christianity that slavery was outlawed. Itâ€™s despite Christianity that women can vote and own land. Itâ€™s because of secular science that weâ€™re able to feed large numbers of people.

Ossai

farmermike

8th December 2004, 07:55 AM

Bernard Ramm: "A thousand times over, the death knell of the Bible has been sounded, the funeral procession formed, the inscription cut on the tombstone, and committal read. But somehow the corpse never stays put." No other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scutinized and villified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? with such venom and skepticiism? with such thoroughness and erudition?upon ever chapter line and tenet?

Atlas- I must have failed to grasp something in your argument about Jesus being found in Jerusalem 8 days after his birth and heading for Egypt after a visit from the magi at 2 years of age?

As for outside records about the slaughter of all boys in Bethlehem, 2 years and under-don't know.

Virgin Birth--"Others rule out the supernatural. They will not be likely to give credence to the book which teaches theat Christ rose from the dead" Robert M. Horn

PROPHECY
61 major Old Testament prophecies all fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ-I'll just give you a smattering. Rember that the Old Testament was translated into Greek 250 B.C. (and I know that doesn't make it true....)
*Randi himself would have to admit these run kind of specific

1. "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel(God with us) Isaiah 7:14**** Fulfillment...Matthew 1:18,24,25 "She was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph...kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called his name Jesus."

2. "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathat, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.. His goings forth are form long ago, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2*******Fulfillment John 7:42,Matthew 2: 4-8, Luke 2: 4-7 "...Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea..."

3. "Then the eyes of the blind will be opened and the ewars of the deaf will be unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb will shout for joy" Isaiah 35:5,6a*****Fulfillment Matthew 9:35 "And Jesus was going about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness."

4.."He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief' and like one from whom men hide their face. He was despised and we did not esteem Him. "Isaiah 53:3 alos Psalms 69:8; 118:22**********Fulfillment John 7:5,48 "For not even His brothers were believing in Him. Not one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he? also see John1:11; Matthew 21:42,43

5. "They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.: Psalm 22:18************Fulfillment John 19:23,24 "The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took His outer garments and made four parts, a part to every soldier and also the tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in onepiece. They said..."Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be..." John 19:23,24

********Very clever for a conspiracy that spanned the centuries**********

J.B. Philips "I have read, in Greek and Latin, scores of myths but I did not find the slightest flavour of myth here. Most people who know their Greek and Latin, whatever their attitude to the New Testament narrative, would agree..."

"For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty: 1 Peter 1:16

"The strongest argument against historical skepticism...is this;the man who doubts the possibility of correct historical evidence and tradition cannot then accept his own eividence, judgment, combination and interpretation. He cannot limit his doubt to historical criticsim, but is required to let it operate on his own life. He discovers at once that he not only lacks conclusive evidence in all sorts of aspects of his own life that he had quite taken for granted, but also that there is no evidence whatever. In short, he finds himself forced to accept a general philosophical skepticism along with his historical skepticism. And general philosophical skepticism is a nice intellectual game, but one cannot live by it." Huizenga The Varieties of History

Oh yeah-Christians have done lots of bad things too, but then we're all very well versed in those.

We are at an impass..."Taste and see that the Lord is good"
Lambert Dolphin "As a scientist, will you try this simple experiment.. Beginning with the premise that God is, pray to Him and ask Him to make Himself real to you if He does exist."

Ossai

8th December 2004, 08:47 AM

Farmermike - Karen
1. "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel(God with us) Isaiah 7:14**** Fulfillment...Matthew 1:18,24,25 "She was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph...kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called his name Jesus." Besides the fact that Isaiah isnâ€™t a messianic prophecy or that youâ€™re taking it completely out of context or that Jesus wasnâ€™t named Immanuel, I guess you could call it a prophecy.

2. "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathat, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.. His goings forth are form long ago, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2*******Fulfillment John 7:42,Matthew 2: 4-8, Luke 2: 4-7 "...Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea..." Considering Bethlehem wasnâ€™t a city but a tribe and Jesus didnâ€™t rule, this one may be a prophecy as well.

3. "Then the eyes of the blind will be opened and the ewars of the deaf will be unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb will shout for joy" Isaiah 35:5,6a*****Fulfillment Matthew 9:35 "And Jesus was going about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness." And these claims are different from all the other messiahs, how? Or for that matter, how are the claims different from the current crop of shysters?

4.."He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief' and like one from whom men hide their face. He was despised and we did not esteem Him. "Isaiah 53:3 alos Psalms 69:8; 118:22**********Fulfillment John 7:5,48 "For not even His brothers were believing in Him. Not one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he? also see John1:11; Matthew 21:42,43 Out of context, again. No prophecy involved.

. "They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.: Psalm 22:18************Fulfillment John 19:23,24 "The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took His outer garments and made four parts, a part to every soldier and also the tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in onepiece. They said..."Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be..." John 19:23,24 Again, not a prophecy.

We are at an impass..."Taste and see that the Lord is good"
Lambert Dolphin "As a scientist, will you try this simple experiment.. Beginning with the premise that God is, pray to Him and ask Him to make Himself real to you if He does exist." Then when no answer is forthcoming, you know he doesnâ€™t exist.

Ossai

Dr Adequate

8th December 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
Bernard Ramm: "A thousand times over, the death knell of the Bible has been sounded, the funeral procession formed, the inscription cut on the tombstone, and committal read. But somehow the corpse never stays put."
The Bible contains inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and the reason the corpse of Biblical literalism still keeps lurching on, undead, is that Christians ignore this. But "I've got my fingers in my ears, I can't hear you" is not an answer which will actually convert anyone.
No other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scutinized and villified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? with such venom and skepticiism? with such thoroughness and erudition?upon ever chapter line and tenet?
I'd suggest the Origin of Species, except that the bit about "thoroughness and erudition" doesn't apply... nor, indeed "upon every chapter line and tenet". If I could substitute "drivelling stupidity" and "upon a flimsily constructed straw man", then it would fit.

1. "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel(God with us) Isaiah 7:14**** Fulfillment...Matthew 1:18,24,25 "She was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph...kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called his name Jesus."

So either the prophecy doesn't refer to Jesus, or Jesus was not the Messiah. Take your pick

2. "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathat, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.. His goings forth are form long ago, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2*******Fulfillment John 7:42,Matthew 2: 4-8, Luke 2: 4-7 "...Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea..."

Except that another of the gospels has him born, not in Bethlehem, but in Jerusalem. Which got it right?

3. "Then the eyes of the blind will be opened and the ewars of the deaf will be unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb will shout for joy" Isaiah 35:5,6a*****Fulfillment Matthew 9:35 "And Jesus was going about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness."

And if Jesus was the only person for whom healing powers were claimed, even in the Bible, then it might be taken as referring to him. Or not.

4.."He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief' and like one from whom men hide their face. He was despised and we did not esteem Him. "Isaiah 53:3 alos Psalms 69:8; 118:22**********Fulfillment John 7:5,48 "For not even His brothers were believing in Him. Not one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he? also see John1:11; Matthew 21:42,43

Something written in the past tense by Isaiah is a prophecy of Jesus. Well, well.

5. "They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.: Psalm 22:18************Fulfillment John 19:23,24 "The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took His outer garments and made four parts, a part to every soldier and also the tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in onepiece. They said..."Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be..." John 19:23,24

Something written in the present tense and the first person by the Psalmist is a prophecy of the Messiah. Well, well.

********Very clever for a conspiracy that spanned the centuries**********

But it doesn't have to. All you have to do is pick life events that match bits of Scripture, and there's loads of scripture.

Bible Prophecies Indicating Napoleon was the Messiah (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/napoleon_messiah.htm)We are at an impass..."Taste and see that the Lord is good"
Lambert Dolphin "As a scientist, will you try this simple experiment.. Beginning with the premise that God is, pray to Him and ask Him to make Himself real to you if He does exist."
I've done that. I accept the results of the experiment. God does not exist. Or is this only the right way to find out whether God exists if I get the answer "Yes"?

Now will you try doing a couple of things? Will you ask God to "make himself real to me", and see if you have the slightest effect? He may hate me, but you ought to be in his good books. And will you look at the world around you and try to answer the OP?

Dr Adequate

8th December 2004, 11:47 AM

NB: 2. No, Dr Adequate's wits are wandering. 'Scuse me. (Gets Big Whip Of Truth from the corner of his cell, flagellates himself.)

If the footnotes to my Bible are correct, what Matthew, or, if you will, the Holy Ghost, is referring to is the book of Micah:
4:13 "Arise and thresh, daughter of Zion,
For your horn I will make iron
And your hoofs I will make bronze,
That you may pulverize many peoples,
That you may devote to the LORD their unjust gain
And their wealth to the Lord of all the earth.

5:1 "Now muster yourselves in troops, daughter of troops;
They have laid siege against us;
With a rod they will smite the judge of Israel on the cheek.

5:2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity."
It sounds rather less like Jesus.

But the other slightly worrying thing about this is that although it seems the best of the prophecies you've produced, the whole census business is the one bit of the Gospels that can be shown to be shaky on purely historical grounds. Still, it's not as bad as I thought.

Skeptical Greg

8th December 2004, 01:11 PM

From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.

If that is a prophecy, it is another failed one..

farmermike

10th December 2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
[
Now will you try doing a couple of things? Will you ask God to "make himself real to me", and see if you have the slightest effect? He may hate me, but you ought to be in his good books. And will you look at the world around you and try to answer the OP? [/B]

First, about the Immanuel/Jeus/I Am Who I Am/Alpha and Omega name thing; Jesus means "Help of Jehovah"
***********************************
And you're right. I've been long on human arguments and short on prayer the majority of this discussion which probably doesn't leave God terribly impressed but then we can't earn his grace, it's free. I will pray that you humble yourself and seek God, and I know that he will make himself known to you under those circumstances. Over Christmas I'd encourage everyone to give that carpenter who changed the world another chance. The Bible is clear that far from hating you, he yearns after you.
1 Kings 19:11-13:ThLord said, Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by. Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains aprart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind After the wind there was an earthquake but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave. Then a voice said to him, What are you doing here Elijah."
******************************
When you look at the world around you, you see the effects of man when he has disposed with God and you see "the light(which) shines brighter in the darkness."
Favourite Hymn: When I survery the wondrous cross, on which the Prince of glory died, My richest gain I count but loss, and pour contempt on all my pride. Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast, save in the death of Christ my God!All the vain things that charm me most, I sacrifice them to His blood.
See from his head, his hands, his feet, Sorrow and love flow mingled down! Did e'er such love and sorrow meet, or thorns compose so rich a crown?
His dying crimson, like a robe, spreads o'er His body on the tree; Then I am dead to all the globe and all the globe is dead to me.
Were the whole realm of nature mine, that were a present far too small; Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life my all.
I could add a bunch more worthy human thought but I think I'll stop here.

Ossai

10th December 2004, 10:08 AM

farmermike
First, about the Immanuel/Jeus/I Am Who I Am/Alpha and Omega name thing; Jesus means "Help of Jehovah" But the text specifically states that the baby will be named Immanuel. So was the text wrong â€“ not a true prophecy or was Jesus wrong â€“ not the messiah?

I will pray that you humble yourself and seek God, and I know that he will make himself known to you under those circumstances. Done so already, raised in a religious household, nothing happened then or more recently.

The Bible is clear that far from hating you, he yearns after you. Except for the parts where he sends plagues, earthquakes, disease, makes us specifically to go to hell, etc.

I could add a bunch more worthy human thought but I think I'll stop here. Iâ€™ll wait for one.

Ossai

Dr Adequate

10th December 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
I will pray that you humble yourself and seek God, and I know that he will make himself known to you under those circumstances.
Wrong, as it turns out. Look, I've done this. I did it again on Wednesday, when you asked me to. Then I had another look at the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. And I still can't solve the problem of evil.

The quote from 1 Kings seems a bit of a non sequitur.
When you look at the world around you, you see the effects of man when he has disposed with God and you see "the light(which) shines brighter in the darkness."
Hmm, let's think about the "effects of man" I've seen lately which I'm not too keen on. Now, let's see... are Al-Qaida and the Taliban "men who have disposed with God"? Or are they both composed of theists? George W. Bush? Saddam Hussein? Believers, it seems. The troubles in the Middle East? Turns out all those suicide bombers are devout. If you really mean to blame all the troubles of the world, not just on people, but on people who are atheists, you'd better be prepared to back that slander up with more than words.

But that's just the trouble caused by humans. A glance at the world tells us that acts of God are far more devastating then the works of humanity. God kills a million African children a year with malaria alone. Humanity has its faults, granted, chiefly the fighting of wars, but last century we saved more lives with penicillin alone than we wasted in war, so I still think we come out more good than bad, overall.

I should add that lights don't shine brighter in the darkness. That's just contrast. And that I've heard this kind of talk before, but I've never seen anyone banging their head against the wall so that later they may have the pleasure of stopping.

My favourite hymn. By A. E. Housman. You may not have heard it.

Easter Hymn

If in that Syrian garden, ages slain,
You sleep, and know not you are dead in vain,
Nor even in dreams behold how dark and bright
Ascends in smoke and fire by day and night
The hate you died to quench and could but fan,
Sleep well and see no morning, son of man.

But if, the grave rent and the stone rolled by,
At the right hand of majesty on high
You sit, and sitting so remember yet
Your tears, your agony and bloody sweat,
Your cross and passion and the life you gave,
Bow hither out of heaven and see and save.

Skeptical Greg

10th December 2004, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
First, about the Immanuel/Jeus/I Am Who I Am/Alpha and Omega name thing; Jesus means "Help of Jehovah"
***********************************
.................................................

I could add a bunch more worthy human thought but I think I'll stop here. I thought you were going to elighten us about fulfilled phrophecys?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which ruler in Israel was this?

Dr Adequate

10th December 2004, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
First, about the Immanuel/Jeus/I Am Who I Am/Alpha and Omega name thing; Jesus means "Help of Jehovah"
And Immanuel doesn't.

They've both got a God reference in them, but so do an awful lot of male Jewish names, don't they?

Ladewig

10th December 2004, 11:44 AM

I am going to bow out of this is thread. I find that once someone starts quote prophecy to support a point, then it is all over but the name calling.

Skeptical Greg

10th December 2004, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Ladewig
I am going to bow out of this is thread. I find that once someone starts quote prophecy to support a point, then it is all over but the name calling.

Hey! We already got the name calling out of the way.

Stick around..:D

Riddick

10th December 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by jimmygun
I have asked this before on other threads but so far no reply. Can anyone demonstrate the "love" part of God. I honestly do not see a loving entity from the descriptions given about him.

Please don't give me that old saw about God saving two people while he let x number burn to death. That is not indicitive of a love for anything.
You exist because of God.

RussDill

10th December 2004, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Riddick
You exist because of God.

So...what about all the beings that don't exist? Is that out of hate and spite?

Marquis de Carabas

10th December 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
So...what about all the beings that don't exist? Is that out of hate and spite?
No, just sloppy book-keeping.

Riddick

10th December 2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
So...what about all the beings that don't exist? Is that out of hate and spite?
You mean like, "So...what about all the snowflakes that don't exist? Is that out of hate and spite?"

?

Skeptical Greg

10th December 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Hey! We already got the name calling out of the way.

Stick around..:D

Give me a rain-check on that... Riddick is back..

Riddick

10th December 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Give me a rain-check on that... Riddick is back..
yes, i got suspended from the christian forums for 30 days after owning several atheist youths in a flame contest. :D

Atlas

10th December 2004, 01:56 PM

Riddick,

Are you promoting the idea that existence is love?

Your statement "You exist because of God. " in response to Jimmygun's question: "Can anyone demonstrate the "love" part of God?" has me confused.

Riddick

10th December 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Riddick,

Are you promoting the idea that existence is love?

Your statement "You exist because of God. " in response to Jimmygun's question: "Can anyone demonstrate the "love" part of God?" has me confused.
It is ONE of the ways God expresses his love. Existence is not the totality, or end, of God's love.

There are many ways he expresses his love.

Marquis de Carabas

10th December 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Riddick
There are many ways he expresses his love.
Elaborate.

RussDill

10th December 2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Riddick
You mean like, "So...what about all the snowflakes that don't exist? Is that out of hate and spite?"

?

I mean, if I exist because god loves me, does it mean that all the people that god has chosen not to allow to exist, he does not love? This huge potential population of individuals that god does not love.

Atlas

10th December 2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Riddick
It is ONE of the ways God expresses his love. Existence is not the totality, or end, of God's love.

There are many ways he expresses his love. So parasitic worms and living humans each have a measure of god's love being expressed that dead humans do not?

Riddick

10th December 2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
So parasitic worms and living humans each have a measure of god's love being expressed that dead humans do not?
Parasitic worms. I don't know. They are interesting creatures, that's for sure. Maggots are used to eat diseased tissues. My sister had to apply them to a patient in a nursing home.

Humans. Yes.

Dead humans. Yes. God keeps their "being" on record, so he can restore them when he returns.

Riddick

10th December 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Elaborate.
Nature. Probably should have many categories.

That he will resurrect us from the dead at his second coming. Whether you believe in him or not, you will be brought back to life. Of course, some will hang around longer than others.

Our ability to procreate.

Strip clubs.

Riddick

10th December 2004, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
I mean, if I exist because god loves me, does it mean that all the people that god has chosen not to allow to exist, he does not love? This huge potential population of individuals that god does not love.
Humans play a role in this. So we've basically throttled God's ability.

I should probably redefine "you exist because God loves you" to mean that God provides the mechanism for the living being.

Atlas

10th December 2004, 03:26 PM

Riddick,

You have pointed out that god loves us after we're dead by keeping us on file, and loves us before we live by providing a human mechanism for procreation.

Jimmygun is looking for a more tangible and today and apparent example of god's love. Is there some unmistakable example of the way God loves you that perhaps doesn't involve strip clubs which can be argued are not necessarily from god.

Piscivore

10th December 2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Riddick
Humans play a role in this. So we've basically throttled God's ability.

Hey, you "throttle God's 'ability' " all you want, I don't swing that way. I want no role in your pervert God's sex games.

Riddick

10th December 2004, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Riddick,

You have pointed out that god loves us after we're dead by keeping us on file, and loves us before we live by providing a human mechanism for procreation.

Jimmygun is looking for a more tangible and today and apparent example of god's love. Is there some unmistakable example of the way God loves you that perhaps doesn't involve strip clubs which can be argued are not necessarily from god.
I dunno, that just has a hint of argument for the sake of argument. It's like, you don't like the answer, so you're searching for another answer you can refute without rhyme or reason.

Be that as it may....

You're dead without God dictating how cell's interact with eachother.

You can't pull another breath of air.

You can't absorb nutrients from food in your digestive system without God.

The sun doesn't burn out.

The earth doesn't go careening off into space.

There must be something tangible there somewhere. You can feel the heat of the sun - isn't that tangible?

The tangible examples are all around you. Now, what you have to ask yourself is: "Do I want to accept the tangible evidence of God's love?" Or "Do I simply dismiss all tangible evidence given in the name of ultimate skepticism?" "Ultimate skepticism: the denial of any offered explanation." Might be too much of a good thing?

Riddick

10th December 2004, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore
Hey, you "throttle God's 'ability' " all you want, I don't swing that way. I want no role in your pervert God's sex games.
Don't suck.

Atlas

10th December 2004, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Riddick
I dunno, that just has a hint of argument for the sake of argument. It's like, you don't like the answer, so you're searching for another answer you can refute without rhyme or reason.

Be that as it may....

You're dead without God dictating how cell's interact with eachother.

You can't pull another breath of air.

You can't absorb nutrients from food in your digestive system without God.

The sun doesn't burn out.

The earth doesn't go careening off into space.

There must be something tangible there somewhere. You can feel the heat of the sun - isn't that tangible?

The tangible examples are all around you. Now, what you have to ask yourself is: "Do I want to accept the tangible evidence of God's love?" Or "Do I simply dismiss all tangible evidence given in the name of ultimate skepticism?" "Ultimate skepticism: the denial of any offered explanation." Might be too much of a good thing? In my philosophy Love is a very positive thing. In yours it is expressed in the negative. Are we even talking about the same thing?

You seem in agreement with what the nonbelievers say. You know god loves you because he is not smiting you today.

Riddick

10th December 2004, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
In my philosophy Love is a very positive thing. In yours it is expressed in the negative. Are we even talking about the same thing?

You seem in agreement with what the nonbelievers say. You know god loves you because he is not smiting you today.
Love, in my (Riddick) philosophy, is a very positive thing.

You must have a pessimistic outlook if you think my philosophy of love is negative.

c4ts

10th December 2004, 10:48 PM

Does "love" include going to skeptic message boards and telling people they'll die and go to Hell if they don't believe in God?

Atlas

11th December 2004, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Riddick
Love, in my (Riddick) philosophy, is a very positive thing.

You must have a pessimistic outlook if you think my philosophy of love is negative. Really? - This is what you said...

You're dead without God dictating how cell's interact with eachother.

You can't pull another breath of air.

You can't absorb nutrients from food in your digestive system without God.

The sun doesn't burn out.

The earth doesn't go careening off into space.

Dead... Can't... Doesn't... Not "very positive" expressions at all. I'm not surprised you missed that though. Although the Christian god is love, many times it is expressed in terms of Hell. (Expanding on C4ts observation.)

What is the implicit message in the most positive message in the new testament... "God so loved the world" ?

It's this... God so loved the world that he tortured and killed his son so that not everyone would suffer the eternal torment He has planned for them. It sounds better when it is read out in the Bible translation but this is what it means I believe.

Is deciding that you're not going to burn them all truly love?

Dr Adequate

11th December 2004, 08:25 AM

You're dead without God dictating how cell's interact with eachother.

God doesn't. That would be biochemistry

You can't pull another breath of air.

God doesn't breathe for me. My lungs do

You can't absorb nutrients from food in your digestive system without God.

God doesn't digest my food. My gut does.

The sun doesn't burn out.

God doesn't keep the sun burning. That would be nuclear fusion.

The earth doesn't go careening off into space.

And while the thing which keeps it in orbit begins with a G, it is not God

There must be something tangible there somewhere.

There are lots of tangible things. None of them appears to be God.

You can feel the heat of the sun - isn't that tangible?

Yes. And it is caused by nuclear fission.

The tangible examples are all around you. Now, what you have to ask yourself is: "Do I want to accept the tangible evidence of God's love?"

No, what I have to ask myself is: "Is this tangible evidence of God's love?

Or "Do I simply dismiss all tangible evidence given in the name of ultimate skepticism?"

Why do they all drivel out the same witless nonsense? The Christians, the alien abductees, the aura healers? They all spam out exactly the same gibble. They are all desperate not to argue with real opinions of real people but imaginary, made-up opinions of imaginary people. In this case, "ultimate scepticism". Why do they all have to take refuge from reality in this way? Oh yes, I remember...

"Ultimate skepticism: the denial of any offered explanation." Might be too much of a good thing?

This describes the position of precisely no-one in the entire world. Well, I suppose people with toy swords are obliged to fight only against straw men. But have you any idea how stupid it makes you look? No, silly question, of course you don't.

KingMerv00

11th December 2004, 11:16 AM

Dr. A, you said:

"Yes. And it is caused by nuclear fission."

You were careful to say "fusion" the first time. Sorry to point this out but I am a science guy.

Everything else is cool though. Forgive me
:D

Riddick

11th December 2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by c4ts
Does "love" include going to skeptic message boards and telling people they'll die and go to Hell if they don't believe in God?
I don't recall using any such statement at any of you here at jref or elsewhere. Maybe someone else did, in which case, all I can do is apologize on their behalf.

Everyone please notice my new avatar - attention whoring, yes. Bonus points for guessing where it came from.

Riddick

11th December 2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Really? - This is what you said...

You're dead without God dictating how cell's interact with eachother.

You can't pull another breath of air.

You can't absorb nutrients from food in your digestive system without God.

The sun doesn't burn out.

The earth doesn't go careening off into space.

Dead... Can't... Doesn't... Not "very positive" expressions at all. I'm not surprised you missed that though. Although the Christian god is love, many times it is expressed in terms of Hell. (Expanding on C4ts observation.)

What is the implicit message in the most positive message in the new testament... "God so loved the world" ?

It's this... God so loved the world that he tortured and killed his son so that not everyone would suffer the eternal torment He has planned for them. It sounds better when it is read out in the Bible translation but this is what it means I believe.

Is deciding that you're not going to burn them all truly love?
I see. So when I say "My love for you is neverending," it is seen as negative love?

Riddick

11th December 2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
You're dead without God dictating how cell's interact with eachother.

God doesn't. That would be biochemistry

You can't pull another breath of air.

God doesn't breathe for me. My lungs do

You can't absorb nutrients from food in your digestive system without God.

God doesn't digest my food. My gut does.

The sun doesn't burn out.

God doesn't keep the sun burning. That would be nuclear fusion.

The earth doesn't go careening off into space.

And while the thing which keeps it in orbit begins with a G, it is not God

There must be something tangible there somewhere.

There are lots of tangible things. None of them appears to be God.

You can feel the heat of the sun - isn't that tangible?

Yes. And it is caused by nuclear fission.

The tangible examples are all around you. Now, what you have to ask yourself is: "Do I want to accept the tangible evidence of God's love?"

No, what I have to ask myself is: "Is this tangible evidence of God's love?

Or "Do I simply dismiss all tangible evidence given in the name of ultimate skepticism?"

Why do they all drivel out the same witless nonsense? The Christians, the alien abductees, the aura healers? They all spam out exactly the same gibble. They are all desperate not to argue with real opinions of real people but imaginary, made-up opinions of imaginary people. In this case, "ultimate scepticism". Why do they all have to take refuge from reality in this way? Oh yes, I remember...

"Ultimate skepticism: the denial of any offered explanation." Might be too much of a good thing?

This describes the position of precisely no-one in the entire world. Well, I suppose people with toy swords are obliged to fight only against straw men. But have you any idea how stupid it makes you look? No, silly question, of course you don't.
Please continue pesky personal attack, if it suits your needs.

Atlas

11th December 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Riddick
I see. So when I say "My love for you is neverending," it is seen as negative love? :D :D

All I know is that it would make me feel a little uncomfortable if you said that to me. Let's keep the conversation about god.

It's not you. It's me. :p

Ossai

11th December 2004, 03:39 PM

Riddick
You're dead without God dictating how cell's interact with eachother.

You can't pull another breath of air.

You can't absorb nutrients from food in your digestive system without God.

The sun doesn't burn out.

The earth doesn't go careening off into space.

There must be something tangible there somewhere. You can feel the heat of the sun - isn't that tangible?

All very good reasons to worship Makonaima and all the others. Good thing that pesky Christian god is nothing more than a Johnny come lately and all the really important bits had already been created.

The tangible examples are all around you. Now, what you have to ask yourself is: "Do I want to accept the tangible evidence of God's love?" Or "Do I simply dismiss all tangible evidence given in the name of ultimate skepticism?" "Ultimate skepticism: the denial of any offered explanation." Might be too much of a good thing? The supernatural is a needless addition.
If you have evidence that a given function does indeed require a supernatural â€˜entity/power/etcâ€™ present some evidence.

Ossai

Riddick

11th December 2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Ossai
Riddick

All very good reasons to worship Makonaima and all the others. Good thing that pesky Christian god is nothing more than a Johnny come lately and all the really important bits had already been created.

The supernatural is a needless addition.
If you have evidence that a given function does indeed require a supernatural â€˜entity/power/etcâ€™ present some evidence.

Ossai
Huh-Oh. You used the word "indeed." I always struggle when it makes an appearance.

"The supernatural is a needless addition." Ah, I see, very well. You'll permit me to play 'The universe without the supernatural is a needless reduction.' Touche`.

There is evidence that a given function/action requires a supernatural 'entity/power/etc.' But, it seems that the passage of time has deemed it lacking in merit. And I certainly won't insult you by bring up the specific examples in the bible. You've heard them many times before.

I suggest we try playing chess. There you can beat me senseless.

Mr Clingford

12th December 2004, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
...God so loved the world that he tortured and killed his son so that not everyone would suffer the eternal torment He has planned for them. It sounds better when it is read out in the Bible translation but this is what it means I believe. What principles of Bible interpretation, which verses and what theology did you use to form this meaning?

Dr Adequate

12th December 2004, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Riddick
Please continue pesky personal attack, if it suits your needs.
Please continue to avoid the substance of my posts if it suits your needs. Please continue to think that attacking a home-made straw man isn't stupid, if that suits your needs. Please continue thinking that pointing out the stupidity of this line of argument constitutes a "personal attack", if this suits your needs. Please continue to live in a fantasy world undisturbed by criticism of your thinking, if that suits your needs. But if that is what you need, why are you on these forums?

Riddick

12th December 2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Please continue to avoid the substance of my posts if it suits your needs. Please continue to think that attacking a home-made straw man isn't stupid, if that suits your needs. Please continue thinking that pointing out the stupidity of this line of argument constitutes a "personal attack", if this suits your needs. Please continue to live in a fantasy world undisturbed by criticism of your thinking, if that suits your needs. But if that is what you need, why are you on these forums?
What I have learned about you so far is that this:
Originally posted by Dr AdequateBut have you any idea how stupid it makes you look?
is acceptable bantering with another person. Ah hah, very well. I may look stupid, but I have a question for you: Can you kick MY ASS? :D

Well, I really don't see very much to respond to in your previous post. Just that we don't agree on seveal key points.

Atlas

12th December 2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
What principles of Bible interpretation, which verses and what theology did you use to form this meaning? John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

I used the Mel Gibson meaning of "gave his only Son" with the common belief that most perish into eternal torment: Hell - if they do not accept the Son who saves us.

We haven't met yet Mr. Clingford... I do think my interpretation of the passage is implied. Where do you disagree?

Mr Clingford

13th December 2004, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

I used the Mel Gibson meaning of "gave his only Son" with the common belief that most perish into eternal torment: Hell - if they do not accept the Son who saves us.

We haven't met yet Mr. Clingford... I do think my interpretation of the passage is implied. Where do you disagree? Hi, say, do you work out?;)

I am not familiar with Mel Gibson's theological works - he isn't a scholar, is he? (I haven't seen the Passion of the Christ).
It is orthodox Christian belief that Jesus Christ is God, so that in a sense God died on the cross, as God is the son as well as the father.
There are very vocal Christians (especially in America, I believe) who trumpet loudly that only they are going to be saved and that YOU, and especially the FAGS, are going to burn in hell forever, haha, but I would suggest that there are other ways of looking at it.

There are Bible verses which suggest that God wants all to be saved and that Jesus died for all humanity and that possibly all may eventually be with God. John 12:47 'I did not come to judge the world, but to save it' is an example.

There are several words in the Bible that are to do with hell; sheol meaning the place of shades, departed spirits (as the ancient Hebrews didn't believe in an afterlife); gehenna meaning a place of burning which was named after the burning rubbish dump outside Jerusalem; Hades which may have a lake of burning fire (fire may purify the 'soul') and is also described at the end of Revelation as being thrown into the fire (confusing, eh!) and is therefore not eternal. The Hebrews were very fond of expressing ideas in imagery that it would be probably incorrect to interprete literally (Revelation,anyone?).

There are, of course, verses to do with God's judgement and anger, which is fair enough if you agree that hurting others is wrong, but if hell is a state where people have cut themselves off from God, but with the possibility of coming to realise that they have gone wrong and ceasing to be in hell, i.e. it is only for ever if they choose to make it so. 1 Peter 3:18-20 is interesting as it has Jesus preaching to the spirits 'in prison' (in sheol) from the time of Noah, suggesting that if you haven't done right in this life then it isn't the end of the road.

I am suggesting that it is possible to interprete the Bible as saying that God died for us, that most, if not all people will be with God, that hell is not a literal place but possibly a state in which someone may burn within their own selfish destructive ideas, but may come through them and cease to be in hell, but will be with God thereafter.

Atlas

13th December 2004, 06:23 AM

Thanks for the reference in Peter to Jesus preaching to the "spirits in prison". I have wondered about that for some time and lost the reference. (Actually my thoughts were more on the Creed - "He descended into Hell". I figured it had some Biblical reference but I had not researched it.)

We may agree on the Lake of Fire (which is the second death) implying that souls are indeed not tormented through eternity but purged like tissue paper in the flames and forgotten.

I have difficulty even accepting that God would need to do that. Why inflict even that as a last experience on the disappearing. Better to leave them in the ground, dead and merely reward those whom you like. This view of how God handles the spirits of the dead, imprison them and then chuck them into the Lake of Fire on Judgement Day, seems to have been invented by a people who hold long grudges and demand that scores be settled even if it's handled by succeeding generations. It makes sense to me that this view of the deity is a projection of dark human attributes and nothing the omnipotent would be interested in unless He enjoys the show of the tormented tumbling. screaming, and evaporating in fire.

Here is the elongated passage from Peter you mentioned...18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[d] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsoâ€“not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[e] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right handâ€“with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. I really like Peter's positive attitude. God waited patiently for Noah to complete the ark so he could drown the world's people like rats. 8 people are saved. That's holding the focus well considering Peter believed it was an example of god's good judgement on ALL of mankind.

I am fascinated by how a few words, linked to an extreme extinguishment of life, can through ritual become the basis for a sacramental baptism that saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He speaks of the effect as a chemist would today of some mixing of potions or like an alchemist applying the correct change agents to turn lead into gold.

An amazing application of ritual tied to the flimsiest set of ideas. People today line up for baptism even when the do not believe in the whole earth flood. So much of belief is grounded in these kinds of shifting sands.

These thoughts of yours I am suggesting that it is possible to interprete the Bible as saying that God died for us, that most, if not all people will be with God, that hell is not a literal place but possibly a state in which someone may burn within their own selfish destructive ideas, but may come through them and cease to be in hell, but will be with God thereafter, is also a projection. It can indeed be interpreted out of the same words that others use to condemn most to eternal torment. It shows that you have, I think, chosen to believe in a "different" god than most. I think it's possibly because of the same revulsion that you share with many non believers of the worst descriptions of the personality traits of the Judeo-Christian deity.

pgwenthold

13th December 2004, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
There are Bible verses which suggest that God wants all to be saved and that Jesus died for all humanity and that possibly all may eventually be with God. John 12:47 'I did not come to judge the world, but to save it' is an example.

Of course, this just begs the question, save it from what? Well, the wrath of God, of course. Therefore, Jesus (aka God) comes to save the world from destruction that God himself will provide.

This is just the usual Christianity protection racket. Jesus is just Guido coming to collect payment to protect the business from being destroyed by a fire that Guido, or some other representative of the Don, will set.

Is a mafia protection racket evidence that the Godfather loves business owners? He sends his people to save them, to allow them to prevent them from having their businesses destroyed. How loving of him. Of course, if he wouldn't be the one destroying thier businesses in the first place, it might ring a little less hollow...

Dr Adequate

13th December 2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Riddick
Well, I really don't see very much to respond to in your previous post. Just that we don't agree on seveal key points.
Marvellous. I don't know who this guy is or where he's been lately, but he's bringing laughter back into my life.

farmermike

13th December 2004, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Wrong, as it turns out. Look, I've done this. I did it again on Wednesday, when you asked me to. Then I had another look at the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. And I still can't solve the problem of evil.
***************************
Karen
You don't have to solve the problem of evil. That is God's department, although we are instructed to oppose it.
*************************************

Hmm, let's think about the "effects of man" I've seen lately which I'm not too keen on. Now, let's see... are Al-Qaida and the Taliban "men who have disposed with God"? Or are they both composed of theists? George W. Bush? Saddam Hussein? Believers, it seems. The troubles in the Middle East? Turns out all those suicide bombers are devout. If you really mean to blame all the troubles of the world, not just on people, but on people who are atheists, you'd better be prepared to back that slander up with more than words.
*******************************
Guess I was thinking more local than global. A quick glance around your friendly neighbourhood video store will back up my position, or at your average newspaper headline. I'm not really arguing theism in case you haven't noticed, but Christianity. Sure Christians are human and as such can do a lot of harm to the cause. Maybe God should have gone with robots afterall.
*************************************
But that's just the trouble caused by humans. A glance at the world tells us that acts of God are far more devastating then the works of humanity. God kills a million African children a year with malaria alone. Humanity has its faults, granted, chiefly the fighting of wars, but last century we saved more lives with penicillin alone than we wasted in war, so I still think we come out more good than bad, overall.
**************************************
I think you'll find in most impovrished nations that the local huntas(people) have a hand in the devastating plight of their countrymen. I'm assuming you are familiar with origianl sin? We're living plan b.
******************************
I should add that lights don't shine brighter in the darkness. That's just contrast. And that I've heard this kind of talk before, but I've never seen anyone banging their head against the wall so that later they may have the pleasure of stopping.
**********************************
Tempting to level a similar personal attack but that won't advance our discussion now will it?

The problem here seems to be and I've elucidated it before, that I don't have God in a test tube, but then if I did he wouldn't be God. And any suggestion that because we can't see Him doesn't prove He isn't there, is held up to ridicule. I would suggest that your search for God/truth is not as genuine as you purport. Praying once on Wednesday,with the full expectation that you would not get a response does not constitute a valid attempt. This is a process. Take out your Bible and read it from the point of view that maybe there is a God, who came all unassuming like, as a baby, gave you a soul and an intellect and left you with the instruction manual for how to make sense of your existence- and oh yeah, the choice to run it through the shredder.
******************************
2 Peter 3: 8-9 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
************************************
My favourite hymn. By A. E. Housman. You may not have heard it.
Easter Hymn

If in that Syrian garden, ages slain,
You sleep, and know not you are dead in vain,
Nor even in dreams behold how dark and bright
Ascends in smoke and fire by day and night
The hate you died to quench and could but fan,
Sleep well and see no morning, son of man.

But if, the grave rent and the stone rolled by,
At the right hand of majesty on high
You sit, and sitting so remember yet
Your tears, your agony and bloody sweat,
Your cross and passion and the life you gave,
Bow hither out of heaven and see and save.
*****************************
Nice. It must be the melody that really gets ya'? Still, the second verse isn't bad, although I'd add a "thanks for" to the last stanza and a couple of "ing's".

Skeptical Greg

13th December 2004, 08:16 AM

I'm assuming you are familiar with origianl sin?

Why don't you give us your version.

Mr Clingford

13th December 2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Of course, this just begs the question, save it from what? Well, the wrath of God, of course. Therefore, Jesus (aka God) comes to save the world from destruction that God himself will provide.

This is just the usual Christianity protection racket. Jesus is just Guido coming to collect payment to protect the business from being destroyed by a fire that Guido, or some other representative of the Don, will set.

Is a mafia protection racket evidence that the Godfather loves business owners? He sends his people to save them, to allow them to prevent them from having their businesses destroyed. How loving of him. Of course, if he wouldn't be the one destroying thier businesses in the first place, it might ring a little less hollow... You write 'of course' as though it is the only possible option but it is not; I share your dislike of the model you have described; it is commonly known because it is popular among the most vocal of Christians, yet there other approaches. Another idea is that God saves us from the consequences of sin (sin being attitudes of selfishness, little regard for the welfare of others) which are separation and destruction (of relationships for instance). It is not a matter of God casting into fire but of the selfish turning away from goodness. How does that notion grab you?

pgwenthold

13th December 2004, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
You write 'of course' as though it is the only possible option but it is not; I share your dislike of the model you have described; it is commonly known because it is popular among the most vocal of Christians, yet there other approaches. Another idea is that God saves us from the consequences of sin (sin being attitudes of selfishness, little regard for the welfare of others) which are separation and destruction (of relationships for instance). It is not a matter of God casting into fire but of the selfish turning away from goodness. How does that notion grab you?

Since not all consequences of sin are bad, it fails.

For example, in your approach, it's not a sin if you don't get caught or can in some other way get away with it. Moreover, some sins are apparently evil just by existing even though the outcome is desired by the people involved. Homosexuality, for example, or masturbation, if you want to avoid interpersonal relationships.

Since I do not have a problem with separation or destruction that result from selfishness, why do I need God to save me from them?

Mr Clingford

13th December 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Since not all consequences of sin are bad, it fails.

For example, in your approach, it's not a sin if you don't get caught or can in some other way get away with it. One's character may be harmed, though because integrity is important Originally posted by pgwenthold
Moreover, some sins are apparently evil just by existing even though the outcome is desired by the people involved. Homosexuality, for example, or masturbation, if you want to avoid interpersonal relationships.
an action in and of itself may not harm anyone but it may build and foster the growth of attitudes of concern only for oneself and disregard for others' needs
Originally posted by pgwenthold
Since I do not have a problem with separation or destruction that result from selfishness, why do I need God to save me from them? Are you saying that you do not care if you develop self-destructive tendencies for instance?

Ossai

13th December 2004, 09:37 AM

Farmermike
You don't have to solve the problem of evil. That is God's department, although we are instructed to oppose it. If youâ€™re going with the â€˜humans canâ€™t understand god or godâ€™s planâ€™ then how are we supposed to oppose evil? Couldnâ€™t opposing what we consider evil actually be empowering evil?

Guess I was thinking more local than global. A quick glance around your friendly neighbourhood video store will back up my position, or at your average newspaper headline. Youâ€™ve attempted to change the scope, but the problem remains.

Dr Adequate But that's just the trouble caused by humans. A glance at the world tells us that acts of God are far more devastating then the works of humanity. God kills a million African children a year with malaria alone. Humanity has its faults, granted, chiefly the fighting of wars, but last century we saved more lives with penicillin alone than we wasted in war, so I still think we come out more good than bad, overall.
I think you'll find in most impovrished nations that the local huntas(people) have a hand in the devastating plight of their countrymen. I'm assuming you are familiar with origianl sin? We're living plan b. Nice strawman, but until you can show how humans are controlling the weather, causing pandemic infections and other natural disasters, Dr. Adequateâ€™s statement still stands.

And any suggestion that because we can't see Him doesn't prove He isn't there, is held up to ridicule. I would suggest that your search for God/truth is not as genuine as you purport. Praying once on Wednesday,with the full expectation that you would not get a response does not constitute a valid attempt. Two in one here. The first one is basically, I have no evidence but I believe so Iâ€™m right. The second is a very good example of the no true Scottsman.

Mr Clingford
an action in and of itself may not harm anyone but it may build and foster the growth of attitudes of concern only for oneself and disregard for others' needs (color mine) If an action in and of itself is not harmful and does not build and foster the growth of attitudes of concern only for oneself and disregard for othersâ€™ needs â€“ is it still a sin?

One's character may be harmed, though because integrity is important So the child that disobeys an abusive parentâ€™s order (assuming the order is dangerous, etc) is committing a sin.

Ossai

Mr Clingford

13th December 2004, 09:54 AM

Thanks for the reply. I do think that we have to be wary because the Bible is far from being a systematic theology Originally posted by Atlas
...We may agree on the Lake of Fire (which is the second death) implying that souls are indeed not tormented through eternity but purged like tissue paper in the flames and forgotten. Agree on the first part but not the second; perhaps the 'dross' of solely self-regarding attitudes are burned away with contemplation/being exposed to the love of God, leaving a person who now departs from their personal hell to be in relationship with God
Originally posted by Atlas
I have difficulty even accepting that God would need to do that. Why inflict even that as a last experience on the disappearing. Better to leave them in the ground, dead and merely reward those whom you like. This view of how God handles the spirits of the dead, imprison them and then chuck them into the Lake of Fire on Judgement Day, seems to have been invented by a people who hold long grudges and demand that scores be settled even if it's handled by succeeding generations. It makes sense to me that this view of the deity is a projection of dark human attributes and nothing the omnipotent would be interested in unless He enjoys the show of the tormented tumbling. screaming, and evaporating in fire.
...These thoughts of yours I am suggesting that it is possible to interprete the Bible as saying that God died for us, that most, if not all people will be with God, that hell is not a literal place but possibly a state in which someone may burn within their own selfish destructive ideas, but may come through them and cease to be in hell, but will be with God thereafter, is also a projection. It can indeed be interpreted out of the same words that others use to condemn most to eternal torment. It shows that you have, I think, chosen to believe in a "different" god than most. I think it's possibly because of the same revulsion that you share with many non believers of the worst descriptions of the personality traits of the Judeo-Christian deity. I am in a lot of agreement but would reword your last statement thus: 'I believe in a "different" God... because of the same revulsion I share with many non believers of some interpretations of the worst attempts to describe the personality traits of the Christian deity'

My views though not similar to many Christians are not uncommon in the British Anglican Church and probably not far from the personal beliefs of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who is an educated intelligent guy.

Mr Clingford

13th December 2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Ossai

Mr Clingford
(color mine) If an action in and of itself is not harmful and does not build and foster the growth of attitudes of concern only for oneself and disregard for othersâ€™ needs â€“ is it still a sin? From the bare bones of the question it doesn't necessarily sound like sin

Originally posted by Ossai
So the child that disobeys an abusive parentâ€™s order (assuming the order is dangerous, etc) is committing a sin.

Ossai Would you expand on this question as I am not sure what you asking as it doesn't seem to follow

Dr Adequate

13th December 2004, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
I should add that lights don't shine brighter in the darkness. That's just contrast. And that I've heard this kind of talk before, but I've never seen anyone banging their head against the wall so that later they may have the pleasure of stopping.
**********************************
Tempting to level a similar personal attack but that won't advance our discussion now will it?
I don't know how on Earth you interpreted this as a personal attack, but it really isn't. My point was just that although I have heard people excuse pain as giving contrast to pleasure, and evil as giving contrast to good, no-one actually seeks out pain in order to then contrast it with pleasure, or evil so as to contrast it with good. Will we see such a contrast in Heaven? The promise seems to be "no", and yet presumably the goodness of God would be more and not less apparent to us: "Now we see as through a glass darkly..."

By the "problem of evil" I mean the question that this thread was addressing: how can a supposedly loving, omnipresent, all-powerful God coexist with evil and suffering? If someone was suffering, and you or I were around, and had the power to alleviate their suffering, we would. That's just common decency. God is in that position with repect to everyone who's suffering all the time, but seems content to let Nature take its cause. But worse than that, if everything (but for our free will) is under his dominion, then he appears to be not just passively but actively wicked. This is why I am not a theist --- since some of God's supposed attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, existence) contradict others of his supposed attributes (love, compassion, justice, mercy).

pgwenthold

13th December 2004, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I don't know how on Earth you interpreted this as a personal attack, but it really isn't. My point was just that although I have heard people excuse pain as giving contrast to pleasure, and evil as giving contrast to good, no-one actually seeks out pain in order to then contrast it with pleasure,

"Pain is SUCH a rush..." - that drugged out guy from Bachelor Party who tried to slit his wrist with an electric razor and then got depressed because his drugs killed a donkey

Ossai

13th December 2004, 11:28 AM

Mr Clingford
If an action in and of itself is not harmful and does not build and foster the growth of attitudes of concern only for oneself and disregard for othersâ€™ needs â€“ is it still a sin?
From the bare bones of the question it doesn't necessarily sound like sin Then, substantially what is different with what pgwenthold wrote?

Would you expand on this question as I am not sure what you asking as it doesn't seem to follow

You originally wrote One's character may be harmed, though because integrity is important
So the child that disobeys an abusive parentâ€™s order (assuming the order is dangerous, etc) is committing a sin.

Iâ€™ll expand a bit. If integrity is important is it more important than oneâ€™s safety, assuming no one else is put at risk?
A child disobeying a parent â€“ listed as a big NO in the 10Cs â€“ but doing so to avoid personal harm.

(This was the 1st example that came to mind. Iâ€™m sure someone else can come up with a better one.)

Ossai

RussDill

13th December 2004, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Riddick
Humans play a role in this. So we've basically throttled God's ability.

if we control who does and does not exist, then I exist only because my parents procreated, not because god loves me. You can't have it both ways.

I should probably redefine "you exist because God loves you" to mean that God provides the mechanism for the living being.

So...the argument is entirely circular then

Mr Clingford

13th December 2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Ossai
Mr ClingfordIf an action in and of itself is not harmful and does not build and foster the growth of attitudes of concern only for oneself and disregard for othersâ€™ needs â€“ is it still a sin?

From the bare bones of the question it doesn't necessarily sound like sin Then, substantially what is different with what pgwenthold wrote? [/QUOTE] which was Since not all consequences of sin are bad, it fails.

For example, in your approach, it's not a sin if you don't get caught or can in some other way get away with it I don't see how they are the same; if you get away with something, e.g. an extreme case like murder then you are a changed human being for the worse inside. I am saying that even if an act has no consequences outside of an individual it may be destructive to the character of that individual.

Originally posted by Ossai
You originally wrote
So the child that disobeys an abusive parentâ€™s order (assuming the order is dangerous, etc) is committing a sin.

Iâ€™ll expand a bit. If integrity is important is it more important than oneâ€™s safety, assuming no one else is put at risk?
A child disobeying a parent â€“ listed as a big NO in the 10Cs â€“ but doing so to avoid personal harm.

Ossai Well in Matthew 22:37-39 Jesus summed up the commandments with 'Love God' etc and 'love your neighbour as yourself' so a child disobeying a parent to avoid personal harm would not be going against these commandments. Why such rigid categorisations? These commandments are guidelines.

elliotfc

13th December 2004, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by jimmygun
I have asked this before on other threads but so far no reply. Can anyone demonstrate the "love" part of God. I honestly do not see a loving entity from the descriptions given about him.

The probable Christian response would be the Incarnation, i.e. Jesus.

A general philosophical response could be our mere existence.

Re: descriptions, there are manifold descriptions of God, and those descriptions have evolved over time within each of the major established religions.

Please don't give me that old saw about God saving two people while he let x number burn to death. That is not indicitive of a love for anything.

This is helpful. You believe that there is such a thing is love. To you there is an objective standard by which you decree something to be love, or something to be other than love. Here we are in agreement, and as long as we agree on this I am certain that you are on the right track. In fact, any depicition of God's love that you reject, I probably reject as well. Probably.

-Elliot

Atlas

13th December 2004, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Well in Matthew 22:37-39 Jesus summed up the commandments with 'Love God' etc and 'love your neighbour as yourself' so a child disobeying a parent to avoid personal harm would not be going against these commandments. Why such rigid categorisations? These commandments are guidelines. Is it really just a Hebrew translation problem?

The 10 Guidelines.

It's softer. I like it.

farmermike

14th December 2004, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Why don't you give us your version.
...of original sin
Karen
"We all like sheep have gone astray..."
"There is no one righteous..."

Not Sure this is relevant but here goes anyway. I had a dream a few years back, when I was struggling with God's authority over me. After reading a particular Bible verse I felt really convicted of sin-uncomfortable/disturbed. Quickly I checked my study notes at the bottom of the page and much to my relief the offending passage was explained away.
Question: Was I better off feeling the weight of my transgressions, leading to repentance and "life abundant" or lulled into a false sense of security?
I would argue that God is less concerned with my comfort zone than my eternal destiny.
C.S. Lewis Suprised By Joy "You must picture me alone in that room at Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.
I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape? The words compelle intrare, compel them to come in, have been so abused by wicked men that we shudder at them; but, properly understood, they plumb the depth of the Divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation."
Matthew 11:29-30 "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

bluess

14th December 2004, 07:44 AM

Karen,

I don't think you have yet addressed the basic question.

Your god allows you to be born tainted with 'sin' based on something done by his two first creations. He then says you will be cast into hell eternally because he allowed you to be born with the sin which you did not do. He then says if you bow to his greatness, he won't throw you into eternal damnation.

Please tell me how this demonstrates your god's love.

Skeptical Greg

14th December 2004, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by farmermike
...of original sin
Karen
"We all like sheep have gone astray..."
"There is no one righteous..."

I thought original sin had to do with ' the fall ' ?

Your example points out that we all make mistakes.

Do you agree that we shouldn't be judged for the mistakes of others?

Do you think we should be judged for our mistakes, or for not acknowledging them?

Does it matter how many mistakes we make as long as we ask forgiveness?

farmermike

14th December 2004, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I don't know how on Earth you interpreted this as a personal attack, but it really isn't.
**********************
oops!
************************
By the "problem of evil" I mean the question that this thread was addressing: how can a supposedly loving, omnipresent, all-powerful God coexist with evil and suffering? If someone was suffering, and you or I were around, and had the power to alleviate their suffering, we would. That's just common decency. God is in that position with repect to everyone who's suffering all the time, but seems content to let Nature take its cause. But worse than that, if everything (but for our free will) is under his dominion, then he appears to be not just passively but actively wicked. This is why I am not a theist --- since some of God's supposed attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, existence) contradict others of his supposed attributes (love, compassion, justice, mercy).
****************************
Dorothy Sayers Creed or Chaos?
"For whatever reason God chose to make man as he is-limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death-He had the honesty and the courage to take his own medicine. Whatever game He is playing with His creation, He has kept His own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that He has not exacted from Himself. He has Himself gone through the whole of human experience, from the trivial irritations of of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation, defeat, despair and death. When He was a man, He played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it well worthwhile."

Hebrews 4:15 "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with out weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are..."