Refiner, you are not alone in your thoughts. You need to go to Danny Maher's site on Marcion.
Marcion was an early Christian who is basically the one responsible for our NT - keeping the Pauline Epistles together. He and many early Christians believed the OT God was not the true God, but a demiurge - another God. They also believed that Christ came to earth representing the TRUE God to redeem mankind from this God's power so we could worship the true God.
Of course, once the Catholic church started consolidating, they called him, and anyone else who disagreed a "heretic." I have found, that anyone the early Catholic church condemned as heretic, is usually worth reading.
Marcion believe the Gospel of John and the Pauline epistles are what we are to believe and point to the true God, not the OT God of wrath. There are many great articles on this site.
Refiner: No, I do not believe so. I believe that every man, regardless of origin or belief, will stand before the throne of God one day and be judged according to his actions, save the born-again Christians. Those whose lives tip the balance will be spared, and only those who are found wanting will be sent to the Pit.
Refiner: There's no dual nature of God. The devil does all the mean stuff.
However, Jehovah would have been responsible for both using his power to create Lucifer, as well as knowing that he would turn on him, yet doing nothing to prevent that. That makes Jehovah at least an accessory, if not directly responsible.
I think that the difference is that in the old testament, they based Jehovah off of the ancient Babylonian religions, which had stories of Marduk which eventually evolved into Jehovah. If you look at some of their stories and some of the earlier old testament, you'd be suprised at their similarities. The new testament "God" has changed his nature because society changed since then. Where the Babylonians were a more vengeful people, the ancient Greeks had introduced ideas of equality and fairness, which must have rubbed off on those other societies in the area over the years, up through the time of the Romans. I think that is why the early Christians were different than the older religious, including Judaism.
quote:That, and the whole savior thing made no sense to me, either--just what exactly are we saved from? Hell? The Devil? Something in the afterlife, that has no real effect on life in the here and now?
I believe we are saved from eternal death, which is eternal non-existence. I don't believe in eternal punishment, or eternal pain. Jesus, the second Adam, made it available for those who believe to enter into the eternal Kingdom of God, which is what God wanted in the first place before Lucifer put a fly in the ointment.
What I think we don't know yet is, in the new heavens and earth, in our new bodies, will folks have freedom of will? The way I see it, it can't be the same free will as we have now, or Lucifer had/has, otherwise you're going to have the same thing happening all over again.
But I believe God is Just and Good and will right the wrongs -- and He has all eternity to do it, even though we don't have all the answers now. For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face ...
Much (but not necessarily all) of atheism is based on arrogant, egocentric finger-pointing. "Well, I wouldn't have done it that way, so GOD wouldn't have done it that way. Therefore, there is no god." This assumes that the atheist would have access to all the knowledge that a supernatural deity would have and still reach a different conclusion.
It is similar to rejecting doctors based on the Hippocratic Oath ("First, do no harm...") because they occasionally saw off a limb or pump poison into a patient's blood. The fact that amputation can save a person's life from gangrene, or that chemotherapy can save a person's life from cancer would be irrelevant. "Hmph! The Oath says 'do no harm', and these 'doctors' are running around hacking people up! I would find a way to cure them without doing that, so all doctors are chronic committers of assault with intent to do bodily harm!"
Now, in reality, most people understand why amputation and chemo are necessary, so it's only the crackpots who would not believe in doctors. Yet, since it's impossible by definition to understand everything that a supernatural Supreme Being can, rejecting a god based solely on one's nature-limited reasoning is just as big a foolishness.
This has a corollary in the old "why do bad things happen to good people" argument, too, since the answer is based in the same concept. I usually sum it up with the following sentence:
It's not that God can't help, it's that He won't cheat.
In a game of chess, the object is to eliminate the opponent's king. There's nothing physically stopping you from grabbing the opposing player's king and chucking it into the fireplace, is there? It's the rules that stop you, not a lack of ability or desire. Not even the inventor of chess gets to break his own rules. Now, we don't know if God made all the rules, or if He's simply following some higher rules that we can't fully comprehend, but even a cursory analysis of the records in the Bible bears out that God is definitely operating within certain boundaries the He does not cross on a whim.
So, hurricanes in Florida? Famines in Africa? Earthquakes in Turkey? Yes, an omnipotent God could pick them all up and toss them into the fireplace...
But would you ever play with Him again if He did? :)-->
Actually Refiner, there are many Christians in China, unfortunately many die there as they won’t denounce Christ,
The land was promised to Abraham, maybe the nations living there when Joshua went in were nothing more than illegal squatters bent of the prevention of the promises coming to pass.
I made comments about being more loving or what was the loving thing to do in some citations. But then I started thinking about my Father. He had been a hunter and fisher as well as a farmer, over the years he lost any and all interest in any activities that might inflict pain on animals. He was a very kind hearted and loving man, even to the animals on the farm. One of my uncles told the story of long before I was born Dad’s dairy herd got bangs and had to be put down, the whole herd. My uncle volunteered to do the dirty deeds for Dad, but my Dad said it wasn’t easy, pleasant or kind, but was necessary.
It was necessary or all herds down river would die from it. So Dad shot the bull, all the cows and even the calves and dug a huge pit with a dozer, pushed them in and buried them.
Because of their choice to take and live on lands that were not theirs to take, those nations made it necessary to be removed. Because they wouldn’t just go away and leave the Christ line alone so all men could have the chance to reconciled and would constantly strive to wipe out Israel, it became necessary to end their time on the earth.
But, this is the only time in history this was for lack of a better word, sanctioned. The time during which the very coming of Christ hinged on the survival of a people the promise had been given to. There is now the truth that all men come from one blood and are the same, why? Because the redemption of man has been accomplished and it is up to individual men and women to accept or reject. Without the bible, or even knowledge of the bible there has been historically tribes wiping out each other through out history.
Much (but not necessarily all) of atheism is based on arrogant, egocentric finger-pointing. "Well, _I_ wouldn't have done it that way, so GOD wouldn't have done it that way. Therefore, there is no god." This assumes that the atheist would have access to all the knowledge that a supernatural deity would have and still reach a different conclusion.
I believe that in reality it's saying, "I can see flaws in this doctrine, so if it is based on a supposedly perfect being, then that being is not really perfect as the doctrine isn't." You know, the word of god is the will of god, and all that. Add to that the fact that there is no solid evidence of the existance of any of the dieties in question, and it makes a fairly compelling case for atheism or agnosticism.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
It is similar to rejecting doctors based on the Hippocratic Oath ("First, do no harm...") because they occasionally saw off a limb or pump poison into a patient's blood. The fact that amputation can save a person's life from gangrene, or that chemotherapy can save a person's life from cancer would be irrelevant. "Hmph! The Oath says 'do no harm', and these 'doctors' are running around hacking people up! _I_ would find a way to cure them without doing that, so all doctors are chronic committers of assault with intent to do bodily harm!"
The fallacy in your argument is because doctors would not be supreme beings, because if a doctor actually was omniscent, they could save the person from cancer without any surgery. They could simply want the person to be cured and they would be cured. Plus, there's no proof that Christianity ever saved anyone from anything.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
Now, in reality, most people understand why amputation and chemo are necessary, so it's only the crackpots who would not believe in doctors. Yet, since it's impossible by definition to understand everything that a supernatural Supreme Being can, rejecting a god based solely on one's nature-limited reasoning is just as big a foolishness.
Not at all, because if there was a supreme being that wanted us to be it's "children" then it would have given us the capability to recognize it and then choose to love it or not to love it. The fact is that I've personally not found any reason to believe that such a being exists, so that would mean that if omniscent gods do exist they are purposely being decietful and hiding themselves from my limited understanding.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
This has a corollary in the old "why do bad things happen to good people" argument, too, since the answer is based in the same concept. I usually sum it up with the following sentence:
It's not that God can't _help,_ it's that He won't _cheat._
If your god made the rules, then he could make exceptions, particularly at the beginning when his supposed foresight should have been used to look for places where the rules would not be right.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
In a game of chess, the object is to eliminate the opponent's king. There's nothing physically stopping you from grabbing the opposing player's king and chucking it into the fireplace, is there? It's the rules that stop you, not a lack of ability or desire. Not even the inventor of chess gets to break his own rules. Now, we don't know if God made all the rules, or if He's simply following some higher rules that we can't fully comprehend, but even a cursory analysis of the records in the Bible bears out that God is definitely operating within certain boundaries the He does not cross on a whim.
The inventor of chess also didn't have the foresight to see every game of chess that would ever be played, as well as the ability to make sure that every person who played the game that he wanted to win would win based on the way he set up the rules. An omniscent being could do that.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
So, hurricanes in Florida? Famines in Africa? Earthquakes in Turkey? Yes, an omnipotent God could pick them all up and toss them into the fireplace...
But would you ever play with Him again if He did? :)-->
Most protestant sects of Christianity do think that their god is to blame for all of that, and that their god will send most people to hell. Even you seem to believe that many if not most people will go to hell for not believing in an invisible diety that you can't prove exists.
Much (but not necessarily all) of atheism is based on arrogant, egocentric finger-pointing. "Well, _I_ wouldn't have done it that way, so GOD wouldn't have done it that way. Therefore, there is no god." This assumes that the atheist would have access to all the knowledge that a supernatural deity would have and still reach a different conclusion.
I believe that in reality it's saying, "I can see flaws in this doctrine, so if it is based on a supposedly perfect being, then that being is not really perfect as the doctrine isn't." You know, the word of god is the will of god, and all that. Add to that the fact that there is no solid evidence of the existance of any of the dieties in question, and it makes a fairly compelling case for atheism or agnosticism.
You don't seem to notice that your quote is nothing but a rephrasing of my accusatory one. It's still the same arrogant presumption that your experience alone allows you to define the parameters of "perfect" for a higher being. You're also being disingenuous with the word "proof." There are lots of things we accept as fact without "proof" simply because there exists evidence that supports that acceptance. The fact that you don't happen to believe that evidence does not mean it does not exist.
And for Pete's sake, learn how to spell "deities". Try www.dictionary.com --it's not difficult to use.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
It is similar to rejecting doctors based on the Hippocratic Oath ("First, do no harm...") because they occasionally saw off a limb or pump poison into a patient's blood. The fact that amputation can save a person's life from gangrene, or that chemotherapy can save a person's life from cancer would be irrelevant. "Hmph! The Oath says 'do no harm', and these 'doctors' are running around hacking people up! _I_ would find a way to cure them without doing that, so all doctors are chronic committers of assault with intent to do bodily harm!"
The fallacy in your argument is because doctors would not be supreme beings, because if a doctor actually was omniscent, they could save the person from cancer without any surgery. They could simply want the person to be cured and they would be cured. Plus, there's no proof that Christianity ever saved anyone from anything.
I don't think you have a good grasp on what "fallacy" really is. You're simply restating your earlier erroneous argument outside of the parameters of the analogy. The analogy between the doctor and God is that you, as a non-doctor, couldn't do ANYTHING to save a person's life from either gangrene or cancer, whereas a doctor presumably has both superior knowledge and superior ability to you. The fact that the doctor is neither omniscient nor omnibenevolent is not germane.
And again you toss out a flip statement about "no proof". There's more proof that Christianity has saved people that there is of God's existence. There are posters on this board who will testify that Christianity saved them from a self-destructive lifestyle, regardless of whether it was TWI or not.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
Now, in reality, most people understand why amputation and chemo are necessary, so it's only the crackpots who would not believe in doctors. Yet, since it's impossible by definition to understand everything that a supernatural Supreme Being can, rejecting a god based solely on one's nature-limited reasoning is just as big a foolishness.
Not at all, because if there was a supreme being that wanted us to be it's "children" then it would have given us the capability to recognize it and then choose to love it or not to love it. The fact is that I've personally not found any reason to believe that such a being exists, so that would mean that if omniscent gods do exist they are purposely being decietful and hiding themselves from my limited understanding.
More hubris. You are again defining the capacities of everything solely on your own preconceptions. That's egocentrism. The second sentence is a non sequitur, too, because your conclusion does not follow absolutely from your line of reasoning.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
This has a corollary in the old "why do bad things happen to good people" argument, too, since the answer is based in the same concept. I usually sum it up with the following sentence:
It's not that God can't _help,_ it's that He won't _cheat._
If your god made the rules, then he could make exceptions, particularly at the beginning when his supposed foresight should have been used to look for places where the rules would not be right.
And if He didn't make the rules? And if He did, who says the rules DON'T cover those situations you declare "not right"?
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
In a game of chess, the object is to eliminate the opponent's king. There's nothing physically stopping you from grabbing the opposing player's king and chucking it into the fireplace, is there? It's the rules that stop you, not a lack of ability or desire. Not even the inventor of chess gets to break his own rules. Now, we don't know if God made all the rules, or if He's simply following some higher rules that we can't fully comprehend, but even a cursory analysis of the records in the Bible bears out that God is definitely operating within certain boundaries the He does not cross on a whim.
The inventor of chess also didn't have the foresight to see every game of chess that would ever be played, as well as the ability to make sure that every person who played the game that he wanted to win would win based on the way he set up the rules. An omniscent being could do that.
That is a gross misunderstanding of game theory in general, chess in specific, and God, unsurprisingly. In chess, everyone who wants to win and plays exactly by the rules may still not play optimally by them. Some wrong moves can be corrected; some cost you the game. It isn't the rules' fault, after all. Free will is a wonderful, and sometimes tragic, thing.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
So, hurricanes in Florida? Famines in Africa? Earthquakes in Turkey? Yes, an omnipotent God could pick them all up and toss them into the fireplace...
But would you ever play with Him again if He did? :)-->
Most protestant sects of Christianity do think that their god is to blame for all of that, and that their god will send most people to hell. Even you seem to believe that many if not most people will go to hell for not believing in an invisible diety that you can't prove exists.
I never said nor implied that "many if not most people will go to hell", and your erroneous inference that I did is more your projecting your prejudice against religion as a whole onto my words than a rational rebuttal.
I often thought that if any of us humans, even if we were as popular and well-loved as Reagan, did half the things that we say God did, ... that we'd be arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to the electric chair, and the ACLU would be there to pull the switch! -->
Which basically communicates that I find it rather bemusing that all these excuses, explanations, and pontificating as to why God can do, with impunity, all of the things that would send any of us to the death chamber for committing war crimes against humanity, are being made about a God who Himself said that He is perfect; that He doesn't lie, murder, steal, or do any of that which He calls 'sins' and strongly forbids us to do. And in the OT, the punishment for doing many of those things is death.
Ie., this God is perfect, according to the scriptures.
So here some of us 'infidels' look at the scriptures, see this blatent discrepency, openly and honestly point it out, and we are reduced to being 'arrogant', getting mad because we didn't get our 'ponies', simply think that *WE* can do things better than GOD from a childish and arrogant perspective, etc., ad nauseum.
Really? Is that all (or even most) of what atheism, agnosticism, et al really amounts to? ... Or is that the orthodox party line that you are goosestepp--err, have pledged allegience to, right or wrong?
Why is it, if God is so REAL and powerful, so TRUE, that His believers go ape-.... when He or His word is challenged? I mean, can you imagine some well reknown chemist going self-righteously indignent if you were to question the fact that H2O = water? Now for that chemist to go nuts if it is questioned means that he is in dire need of a 4 week vacation, ... starting NOW. Why? Because we all KNOW, since it has been scientifically proven, that H2O does indeed make water, and that no amount of questioning or believing otherwise will make it otherwise.
So if spiritual truth is so HIGHER and more TRUE than physical facts, well then the certainty of them would be just as much more. ... So why is it a threat, a moral wrong, something to get all up in arms about, for them to be challenged? Or for someone to walk away from them and say 'No. I don't accept them any more.'
Frankly, I'm more and more of the opinion that this tack of saying 'Who are you to question God?!' (including all scriptures that convey this idea) has FAR less of a moral basis, and a lot MORE on a basis for control and silencing of any honest dissent. ... And unfortunately, it has been all too effective for many a century. :(-->
Analogies just seem to confuse the hell out of some folks, and I don't know why. But here's another one anyway.
I love animals, and for the most part I'm a firm believer in never killing what you don't intend to eat. Yet, if I discover a nest of copperheads in my back yard, I'm going to kill every last one of them. Sure, they may be "innocent living creatures", but if one of my grandchildren happened to step on one accidentally, they could die. I love my grandkids more than I respect the right of a copperhead to live wherever it wants to. It's tragic that they chose my yard, but that's just reality.
Copperheads, Amalekites...the principle's the same.
quote: You don't seem to notice that your quote is nothing but a rephrasing of my accusatory one. It's still the same arrogant presumption that your experience alone allows you to define the parameters of "perfect" for a higher being.
Tell me something. Remember that account in I Samuel where Samuel tells King Saul that God wanted all the Amalekites slaughtered, including infant and suckling? (And of course how Saul got in trouble for not totally carrying it out, to the losing of his kingdom?) Please, using your formidable skills of logic and thinking things through, tell me in what way it is arrogant of me to think that there is something *seriously wrong* with this order, both from a moral and ethical standpoint? That there is something intrinsically wrong with the slaughter of innocent (Yes Virginia, they WERE innocent, any arguments of all of us humans being guilty before God notwithstanding) children, even if God orders it? Regardless if God orders it?
And no, you can't say that they were a immediate threat to Isreal (they weren't in any way at the time, so your phrase of "Copperheads, Amalekites...the principle's the same." does not apply, and thus is flawed), for the strike was in revenge for an attack of the Amalekites agains the children of Isreal *400 years before*, and even then that attack was effectively squeltched. That would be like us attacking modern day American Indians for any scalpings done back in the days of Jamestown in 1604!
So just because God orders it, that makes it right, and thus an unquestionable position that we are to accept w/o question?
quote: You are again defining the capacities of everything solely on your own preconceptions. That's egocentrism.
Have you ever given thought that maybe, just maybe, at least some of these 'egocentric preconceptions' just might be based on the same rules of right and wrong? From the same bible that you learn about what God expects of you in how to behave in life? Or is it just 'egocentric preconceptions' that is motivating people when they expect God to play by His own rules? Just our own arrogance?
You don't seem to notice that your quote is nothing but a rephrasing of my accusatory one. It's still the same arrogant presumption that your experience alone allows you to define the parameters of "perfect" for a higher being. You're also being disingenuous with the word "proof." There are lots of things we accept as fact without "proof" simply because there exists evidence that supports that acceptance. The fact that you don't happen to believe that evidence does not mean it does not exist.
Your still ignoring the fact that if 1) God is completely good, and 2) God is omniscent, he would have to do everything within his power to prevent problems, which should mean that problems would never occur because he's omniscent. It's very simple logic.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
And for Pete's sake, learn how to spell "deities". Try http://www.dictionary.com --it's not difficult to use._
I'll take that into consideration, but I'm pretty sure you know what I meant anyway. -->
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
I don't think you have a good grasp on what "fallacy" really is. You're simply restating your earlier erroneous argument outside of the parameters of the analogy. The analogy between the doctor and God is that you, as a non-doctor, couldn't do ANYTHING to save a person's life from either gangrene or cancer, whereas a doctor presumably has both superior knowledge and superior ability to you. The fact that the doctor is neither omniscient nor omnibenevolent is not germane.
There is no way to compare a doctor to a god because doctors can not prevent problems in the first place, nor do they have infinite power. That's why the argument is very important, in my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
And again you toss out a flip statement about "no proof". There's more proof that Christianity has saved people that there is of God's existence. There are posters on this board who will testify that Christianity saved them from a self-destructive lifestyle, regardless of whether it was TWI or not.
Great, but there are people who adamantly believe that drinking their own urine cures cancer as well. That doesn't mean I have to believe it. Also, I can find stories of non-Christians who say their faith, whether Islam, buddhism, etc. saved them just as much. That contradicts the idea of biblegod saying, "Thou shalt put no other gods before me." So either the bible is wrong, or all of the other religions out there are and their adherents are liars. That's too egotistical of a statement for anyone to really say and believe, since as you agree there's not much proof as to the existance of any gods.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
More hubris. You are again defining the capacities of everything solely on your own preconceptions. That's egocentrism. The second sentence is a non sequitur, too, because your conclusion does not follow absolutely from your line of reasoning.
I base it on common logic, which if I was created by an infinitely powerful god who lives outside of time and space, would have known I would come to these conclusions based on the tools of reasoning that he gave to me. Therefore, my logic of questioning of the existance of biblegod would be exactly what he wanted me to do, since he would have seen in his foreknowledge that this is what I would say when he created me. The same would apply to you as well, which would mean that if your god is real, and the information in the bible is accurate, he created both of us in such a way that we would be opposed on issues like this and he would have purposely set us up in a way that we would argue. It would also mean that our free will is a joke, unless he found some way to limit himself, which would mean that he is not all-powerful.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
And if He didn't make the rules? And if He did, who says the rules DON'T cover those situations you declare "not right"?
If he didn't make the rules, then there would be one higher than him and thus the bible would not be accurate. If he did make the rules and still allows bad things to happen to innocent good people, then the bible is not accurate in stating that he is just. I am happy though, because with that statement I think you're starting to understand where I am coming from as to how it is not logically possible for an omniscent and good being to create something like the world we live in.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
That is a gross misunderstanding of game theory in general, chess in specific, and God, unsurprisingly. In chess, everyone who wants to win and plays exactly by the rules may still not play optimally by them. Some wrong moves can be corrected; some cost you the game. It isn't the rules' fault, after all. Free will is a wonderful, and sometimes tragic, thing.
Game theory would not apply to gods. If you are incapable of mistakes, and write a computer program that would play chess against you using a specific pattern of moves, you would always be able to beat it, and if not, you could simply rewrite it and recompile, but if you were perfect you would have gotten it right the first time.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
I never said nor implied that "many if not most people will go to hell", and your erroneous inference that I did is more your projecting your prejudice against religion as a whole onto my words than a rational rebuttal.
Is this not your post stating that?
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
Refiner: No, I do not believe so. I believe that every man, regardless of origin or belief, will stand before the throne of God one day and be judged according to his actions, save the born-again Christians. Those whose lives tip the balance will be spared, and only those who are found wanting will be sent to the Pit.
The pit is a fiery place which is what most people think of as Hell. You know as well as I do that the bible says that biblegod is no respecter of persons and that the conditions of being "good" according to the bible all wrap around and start with respecting some diety from a branch of Judaism, whether it's Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. The rest of us fail the 1st commandment test as well as other areas of the bible, so the rest of us would go to Hell.
quote: Analogies just seem to confuse the hell out of some folks, ...
Actually, what confuses the hell out of me, is otherwise intelligent people turning their critical thinking skills OFF whenver their preciousssss belief is challenged. And especially when they view this same belief to be absolutely true. Please refer to my example of the chemist for further illustration of this principle.
"john, do you mean when the OT people attributed bad things to god, they really meant satan but they did not or could not SEE or say that ?
i semi remember this teaching from the way
can you or someone help me with this ?
or help refiner "
F. S. sat down with you and me and went over this. I also think that VP went over it in one of the classes.
There was an OLD text that actually explained that the bad things were of the devil in the OT but through the coming years it became illegal for anyone to mention "the devil" like a communist era or something and the Bible was then redone having "the devil" removed from the text. It was still legal to talk and write about God so the writers went in and took the DEVIL out and rewrote things making the word "god" when it used to say the devil.
So then you have god doing bad and God doing good....
Which then lead the whole thing into the toliet of confusion.
I always find it interesting that Bible fundies have little problem discounting mythologies of Greeks or Romans or Hindus, but when it comes to the stories of THE BIBLE, well, they're beyond doubt, aren't they?
To which I can only ask,...WHY? What makes The Bible so irrefutable in your mind? Why are the (obvious) legends of Noah, Joshua, Job, Moses, et al, beyond question? Even though to believe in them, you would have to believe that all the known laws of physics would have to be overridden for them to have actually happened?
How did we ever become convinced that "God said it, I believe it, That settles it"? And what's more, how did we accept that THE BIBLE was what that aforementioned God "said"?
We ridicule the Muslim extremists for their belief that they'll be rewarded for their acts of courage for blowing themselves up in the name of Allah, but have no problem thinking that we'll have wonderful heavenly rewards for all eternity ('cause God MADE us worthy, afterall, and who are you to argue with GOD? Huh, punk?) while all those who didn't share our beliefs we'll have to make do with something less (that is, if they're not frying for eternity in HELL).
Jeezus, it's all a farking joke peepul. Wake up and smell the century...
Oh, and I meant to mention, isn't it odd that virtually ALL of the supposed attributes of great men of the Bible were already used (MANY times) in the mythologies of the "pagans"?
Virgin births, superhuman strength, healing powers, divine insight, and then the (required?) rejection by the heathen hordes and even - quite often - a terrible, painful, humiliating death.
Then, naturally, there's some sort of divine "gotcha" after all that, as the superhero's legacy deals a final, fatal blow to the rabble and despotic leaders.
It's been written countless times before, but somehow, when it got transposed into the Bible, well, then it became the undisputed, UNCHALLENGEABLE, truth.
Tell me something. Remember that account in I Samuel where Samuel tells King Saul that God wanted all the Amalekites slaughtered, including _infant and suckling_?
Yes.
(And of course how Saul got in trouble for not totally carrying it out, to the losing of his kingdom?)
Yes.
Please, using your formidable skills of logic and thinking things through, tell me in what way it is arrogant of me to think that there is something _*seriously wrong*_ with this order, both from a moral and ethical standpoint?
The arrogance is in your presumption that human lives have an absolute value that coincides precisely with your estimation of it.
That there is something intrinsically wrong with the slaughter of innocent (Yes Virginia, they WERE innocent, any arguments of all of us humans being guilty before God notwithstanding) children, even if God orders it?
I wouldn't spare the baby copperheads, either, in the starry-eyed idealistic hope that they might all become vegetarians and never bite anyone.
Regardless if God orders it?
Non sequitur.
And no, you can't say that they were a immediate threat to Isreal (they weren't in any way at the time, so your phrase of "Copperheads, Amalekites...the principle's the same." does not apply, and thus is flawed), for the strike was in revenge for an attack of the Amalekites agains the children of Isreal *400 years before*, and even then that attack was effectively squeltched. That would be like us attacking modern day American Indians for any scalpings done back in the days of Jamestown in 1604!
The copperheads hadn't actually bitten any of my grandchildren--yet.
So just because God orders it, that makes it right, and thus an unquestionable position that we are to accept w/o question?
Yes, it does make it right, in the same way that a country can either try you for murder or pin a medal on your chest depending on what you were wearing and who you shot. But there's no such thing as an unquestionable position--you can question your precious H2O formula, for example, but if you know all there is to know about the chemistry of hydrogen and oxygen, you'll reach the exact same conclusion after you waste your time. Consequently, if one knew all there was to know about the Amalekites, one might just reach the same conclusion as God did. As for the redundant accepting without question, see above.
quote: You are again defining the capacities of everything solely on your own preconceptions. That's egocentrism.
Have you ever given thought that maybe, just maybe, at least some of these 'egocentric preconceptions' just might be based on the same rules of right and wrong? From the same bible that you learn about what God expects of you in how to behave in life? Or is it just 'egocentric preconceptions' that is motivating people when they expect God to play by His own rules? Just our own arrogance?
No, just your own immaturity. I don't mean that in a nasty or insulting way, I'm just being descriptive of the problem. I would have thought this was painfully obvious, but it looks like I'll have to be blunt:
You aren't God.
You are not capable of being God.
Therefore, you are not capable of objectively judging a higher being's actions or motivations.
Consider the following: "Why is it that children get sent to bed at 9:30 while the parents get to stay up as late as they want? Why don't they play by their own rules? Wait--they have DIFFERENT rules? Waaah! That's not FAIR!"
Immaturity often leads to irrational conclusions that are little more than an intellectual or spiritual pout. Sorry about your pony.
Your still ignoring the fact that if 1) God is completely good, and 2) God is omniscent, he would have to do everything within his power to prevent problems, which should mean that problems would never occur because he's omniscent.
Of course I'm ignoring that, because it's NOT a fact. Your conclusion does not follow from 1 & 2. You are begging the question by assuming what you are trying to prove is proof for your assumption.
No, it's merely your opinion, which you've declared to be logic by fiat.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
I don't think you have a good grasp on what "fallacy" really is. You're simply restating your earlier erroneous argument outside of the parameters of the analogy. The analogy between the doctor and God is that you, as a non-doctor, couldn't do ANYTHING to save a person's life from either gangrene or cancer, whereas a doctor presumably has both superior knowledge and superior ability to you. The fact that the doctor is neither omniscient nor omnibenevolent is not germane.
There is no way to compare a doctor to a god because doctors can not prevent problems in the first place,
So that polio vaccine is, what, exactly?
nor do they have infinite power.
The point (which you have completely missed twice now) is that they have sufficiently MORE power than YOU do to make the decision for the given problem. Therefore, anything you THINK might be a better or more humane solution has no valid basis. It's just your own wishes, not any equally valid medical deduction because you simply do not have the skill or background to second-guess him. Neither do you have the equipment to second-guess God, no matter how many isues of Skeptic's Quarterly you might read.
That's why the argument is very important, in my opinion.
Then quit dodging it.
Great, but there are people who adamantly believe that drinking their own urine cures cancer as well. That doesn't mean I have to believe it. Also, I can find stories of non-Christians who say their faith, whether Islam, buddhism, etc. saved them just as much. That contradicts the idea of biblegod saying, "Thou shalt put no other gods before me." So either the bible is wrong, or all of the other religions out there are and their adherents are liars. That's too egotistical of a statement for anyone to really say and believe, since as you agree there's not much proof as to the existance of any gods.
I never said YOU have to believe it. You asserted there was no proof that Christianity ever saved anyone from anything. I demonstrated that to be another false notion. As for the rest, it's just anti-Christian strawman fodder.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
More hubris. You are again defining the capacities of everything solely on your own preconceptions. That's egocentrism. The second sentence is a non sequitur, too, because your conclusion does not follow absolutely from your line of reasoning.
I base it on common logic, which if I was created by an infinitely powerful god who lives outside of time and space, would have known I would come to these conclusions based on the tools of reasoning that he gave to me. Therefore, my logic of questioning of the existance of biblegod would be exactly what he wanted me to do, since he would have seen in his foreknowledge that this is what I would say when he created me. The same would apply to you as well, which would mean that if your god is real, and the information in the bible is accurate, he created both of us in such a way that we would be opposed on issues like this and he would have purposely set us up in a way that we would argue. It would also mean that our free will is a joke, unless he found some way to limit himself, which would mean that he is not all-powerful.
Again, you are not arguing from "common logic", you're arguing from what you fervently wish to believe. While your over at dictionary.com, look up "solipsism".
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
And if He didn't make the rules? And if He did, who says the rules DON'T cover those situations you declare "not right"?
If he didn't make the rules, then there would be one higher than him and thus the bible would not be accurate. If he did make the rules and still allows bad things to happen to innocent good people, then the bible is not accurate in stating that he is just. I am happy though, because with that statement I think you're starting to understand where I am coming from as to how it is not logically possible for an omniscent and good being to create something like the world we live in.
No, sorry. There's nothing (yet again) in your statement that is axiomatic upon which you can draw your conclusions. You may be dressing it up to sound nice and logical, but all that's coming out is your manifesto on what YOU would do, were you God. If that happens one day, you have my permission to smite me with a lightning bolt, or whatever. Until then, try to recognize that what you would like to happen does not always coincide with what does happen.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
That is a gross misunderstanding of game theory in general, chess in specific, and God, unsurprisingly. In chess, everyone who wants to win and plays exactly by the rules may still not play optimally by them. Some wrong moves can be corrected; some cost you the game. It isn't the rules' fault, after all. Free will is a wonderful, and sometimes tragic, thing.
Game theory would not apply to gods.
Says who? True game theory is a highly abstract form of predictive mathematics. It's not just learning how to play Parcheesi.
If you are incapable of mistakes, and write a computer program that would play chess against you using a specific pattern of moves, you would always be able to beat it, and if not, you could simply rewrite it and recompile, but if you were perfect you would have gotten it right the first time.
Oh, please! That's just a variant of the old philosophical chestnut "Can God make a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" Give me a break.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
I never said nor implied that "many if not most people will go to hell", and your erroneous inference that I did is more your projecting your prejudice against religion as a whole onto my words than a rational rebuttal.
Is this not your post stating that?
No, it isn't. That's my post saying that everyone will be judged. It's your own theophobia that causes you to infer that means "most won't make it." I don't know if you're plagued by a guilty conscience or what, but if you tend to think you won't measure up and therefore very few others will either, then that's quite conceited.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
Refiner: No, I do not believe so. I believe that every man, regardless of origin or belief, will stand before the throne of God one day and be judged according to his actions, save the born-again Christians. Those whose lives tip the balance will be spared, and only those who are found wanting will be sent to the Pit.
The pit is a fiery place which is what most people think of as Hell. You know as well as I do that the bible says that biblegod is no respecter of persons and that the conditions of being "good" according to the bible all wrap around and start with respecting some diety from a branch of Judaism, whether it's Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. The rest of us fail the 1st commandment test as well as other areas of the bible, so the rest of us would go to Hell.
Now you're assuming that the orthodox dogma is absolute truth. That makes one of us. I know it's convenient to project that upon me to rail against it, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe I know the precise criteria for who makes it and who doesn't. What I do believe, however, is that it will be far easier for those who accept Christ than it will be for those who have been taught and still choose to be wise in their own conceits and reject him. Little Xiao Ming off in Hunan might have the excuse that she's never heard of Jesus.
I don't know what in the world you're going to tell him. It had better be good though. He could spot hypocrisy a mile away.
quote: The arrogance is in your presumption that human lives have an absolute value that coincides precisely with your estimation of it.
Apparently that same 'arrogance' is plainly exhibited by you when you would defend your grandchildren against those copperheads. ... Join the club. ;)-->
quote: (The various times that you compare the copperhead snakes to the Amalekites)
Fascinating. This is the same 'they are nothing more than animals' attitude that arrogant believers (Oopsie! Did I just call *them* arrogant? ) throughout the centuries had towards those who did not believe in their god, coupled with this eerily McCarthyite attitude that these same unbelievers posed just as much a danger to themselves and to Western civilization that you seem to think that the Amalekites posed to Isreal during the time of Samuel. (Ohh by the way, where is it in the biblical text that this threat was actually present for Isreal to take that military strike against them? Or was it Yet Another 'Godly' principle of pre-emptive strike that was called for here? ... Praise Dubya! -->)
quote: But there's no such thing as an unquestionable position--you can question your precious H2O formula, for example, but if you know all there is to know about the chemistry of hydrogen and oxygen, you'll reach the exact same conclusion after you waste your time.
You're getting ....ed, I can tell. Why? Because you totally missed the point of my H2O illustration. ... Now remember, click your heels three times together and say, "its ONLY a discussion board ... its ONLY a discussion board ... its ONLY a discussion board ...". :)-->
And finally,
quote: You aren't God.
You are not capable of being God.
Therefore, you are not capable of objectively judging a higher being's actions or motivations.
You want to know how much **BULL....** has been done, and how many people that has died because of such 'who are you to question GOD' browbeating? Uhhh, excuse me, but didn't we get a classic textbook example of this same garbage in The Way International? "Religious Mental Slavery 101". ... You DID pass that exam, did you not? -->
Sorry chief, but this practice of mindlessly goosestepp-- ahh I mean, accepting w/o question and challenge what is said about God, or even what God says himself (even with the 'I am not God' argument), isn't on my To Do List anymore. That has ben thrown out in the trash along with my other PFAL collateral. ... If you hurry, you just might see Smikeol scrounging around in that pile of trash.
And if that is 'Rejecting Christ', ....... so be it! :P-->
Of course I'm ignoring that, because it's NOT a fact. Your conclusion does not follow from 1 & 2. You are begging the question by assuming what you are trying to prove is proof for your assumption.
So what would be correct then? God is all good and all powerful so his acts of evil are good, yet he is not powerful enough to give us the understanding to see why his acts are really good?
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
No, it's merely your opinion, which you've declared to be logic by fiat.
So's the bible, now where does that get us?
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
So that polio vaccine is, what, exactly?
A polio vaccine could prevent illness, but it's not 100%, nor was it created by the doctor from nothing. The doctor isn't the one curing, but he gives the vaccine that cures.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
The point (which you have completely missed twice now) is that they have sufficiently MORE power than YOU do to make the decision for the given problem. Therefore, anything you THINK might be a better or more humane solution has no valid basis. It's just your own wishes, not any equally valid medical deduction because you simply do not have the skill or background to second-guess him. Neither do you have the equipment to second-guess God, no matter how many isues of Skeptic's Quarterly you might read.
In the case of a doctor, I could still have a valid concern or other ideas even though I do not have as much expertise on an issue as he would. With the bible, the same thing holds true. The fact that I don't have a PhD in studying the book of Acts doesn't mean I can't find flaws with what is written. The point is that what would be mistakes to me would be "God meant to do that" to you. There's no point in arguing it I guess, but I am distrustful of these things by nature so unless your mythical god could prove he is real and that he has a plan, there's no reason for me to believe it.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
Then quit dodging it.
If I am dodging it, I'm not the only one. The problem is that your analogies are too limited in nature. Either your god is finite in some way, or you can't really make analogies that will stick. Trying to solve math equations with infinity as one of the values will get you nowhere.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
I never said YOU have to believe it. You asserted there was no proof that Christianity ever saved anyone from anything. I demonstrated that to be another false notion. As for the rest, it's just anti-Christian strawman fodder.
Since 100% of people have died or will die, I don't really see Christianity, which is supposed to result in eternal life, as saving anyone at this point. Maybe it will happen, who knows, but there's no proof that Christianity is right and everything else is wrong. That's my point. Any effect Christianity has can be replicated with other religions and experiences, including the lack of religion. Why do Christians believe that Jesus talked to God but scoff at the idea of the priestesses at Delphi? There's no way to prove either are more valid than the other. Why do you accept Christianity but not believe in Santa Claus? How can you tell which is true and which is false?
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
Again, you are not arguing from "common logic", you're arguing from what you fervently wish to believe. While your over at dictionary.com, look up "solipsism".
You've yet to prove me wrong though.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
No, sorry. There's nothing (yet again) in your statement that is axiomatic upon which you can draw your conclusions. You may be dressing it up to sound nice and logical, but all that's coming out is your manifesto on what YOU would do, were you God. If that happens one day, you have my permission to smite me with a lightning bolt, or whatever. Until then, try to recognize that what you would like to happen does not always coincide with what does happen.
I disagree, I'm simply stating the problems with believing in an all-knowing all-powerful god. As far as striking you down with lightning, I wouldn't do it. I'd only reveal myself as a god to you and convince you to go around trying to tell others about me.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
Says who? True game theory is a highly abstract form of predictive mathematics. It's not just learning how to play Parcheesi.
The person who writes the rules of physics would not be bound to mathematics, except as he wishes but even then it wouldn't really be true. There is no logical way to prove that any gods exist.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:Oh, please! That's just a variant of the old philosophical chestnut "Can God make a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" Give me a break.
Perhaps, but the point is that it is not logical for there to be any all-knowing all-powerful beings.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
No, it isn't. That's my post saying that everyone will be judged. It's your own theophobia that causes you to infer that means "most won't make it." I don't know if you're plagued by a guilty conscience or what, but if you tend to think you won't measure up and therefore very few others will either, then that's quite conceited.
So what rules do you think exist for non-Christians? If everyone will be judged, there should be a set of guidelines somewhere for those that don't believe in gods but do try to be good people. The bible is obsessed with demanding devotion to biblegod, and the morals surround that concept.
I'm not a "theophobe" but instead unwilling to put the blinders back on that I had in TWI. I see things clearly now and I don't feel like backing down for those that arrogantly believe I am going to go to Hell or that I am inferior because I find flaws with the bible and the concepts therein. If "no man come unto the father but by me" according to Jesus, and most of the world doesn't believe Jesus was god/son of god/whatever then we should be bound for Hell. So, my estimation would be accurate unless you have some other source of morals that biblegod would be judging people based on.
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
Now you're assuming that the orthodox dogma is absolute truth. That makes one of us. I know it's convenient to project that upon me to rail against it, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe I know the precise criteria for who makes it and who doesn't. What I do believe, however, is that it will be far easier for those who accept Christ than it will be for those who have been taught and still choose to be wise in their own conceits and reject him. Little Xiao Ming off in Hunan might have the excuse that she's never heard of Jesus.
How do you know these things if you don't subscribe to the Christian dogma? The bible is pretty clear in it's stance on some of these things, and if you don't believe them why do you consider yourself a Christian? It sounds like a lot of your beliefs come from external sources, some of which would contradict the bible. What makes those sources valid enough for you to believe in things that contradict the bible?
quote:Originally posted by Zixar:
I don't know what in the world you're going to tell him. It had better be good though. He could spot hypocrisy a mile away.
Well, if he exists, and if it happens in the way that you believe, I'd ask him where the hell he's been and why did he make such a f*cked up place. I'm limited in every way as a human being, a creature, a member of the most intelligent animal species on Earth. If biblegod does view us as children, he created a race of latchkey children, and I see no reason to respect such a thing. Perhaps hypocracy is a word to describe it, but honesty is a better one, in my opinion. I see no reason to suck up to a being that may not exist and has no tangible benefit for believing in. If anything, I don't appreciate the idea of extorting "love" out of people by holding the thought of eternal damnation over their heads if they don't love you. That's not free will, it's coercion. If God exists and he wanted me to know differently, well he had the foreknowledge and the power to do something about it but failed to. I would just be a shadow of a thought in his lucid dreams.
Refiner... wow! Garth ! wow ! ( I always knew you held a high opinion of yourself... but WOW! and a high opinion of your "intellect" but WOW!
Gee... I guess it won't be long till we know eh?hmmmm ... ya know it's kinda like poker.... how right are ya?? how big-a hand do ya got?? enough to go "all in"?
Just remember this , if there's no absolute standard for truth you have no right to say I can't do whatever the hell I please... even if it means sacrificing YOU to the tree god. Cause that's MY beliefs... and I'm bigger and better than you. Don't like that eh? To bad...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
37
34
22
Popular Days
Jul 1
77
Jun 29
67
Jun 30
65
Jul 2
31
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 35 posts
Raf 37 posts
Refiner 34 posts
lindyhopper 22 posts
Popular Days
Jul 1 2004
77 posts
Jun 29 2004
67 posts
Jun 30 2004
65 posts
Jul 2 2004
31 posts
Popular Posts
George Aar
Why I personally reject the Bible is simply because it's the easiest case to make. Rather than spend endless hours trying to develop a plausible spin to explain why an all-knowing, all-powerful, omni
Raf
The last post on this thread was eleven years ago. Suffice it to say, MY position has changed since then.
waysider
Not only have we changed in those 11 years, the internet, in general, has changed. Social media has changed. On-line behaviors have changed. And, best of all, TWI has changed. It's shriveled up and be
Refiner
Let me put it another way, there are no Christians in China.
Must 1 billion Chinese go to Hell simply because they had the misfortune to be born in China?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Refiner, you are not alone in your thoughts. You need to go to Danny Maher's site on Marcion.
Marcion was an early Christian who is basically the one responsible for our NT - keeping the Pauline Epistles together. He and many early Christians believed the OT God was not the true God, but a demiurge - another God. They also believed that Christ came to earth representing the TRUE God to redeem mankind from this God's power so we could worship the true God.
Of course, once the Catholic church started consolidating, they called him, and anyone else who disagreed a "heretic." I have found, that anyone the early Catholic church condemned as heretic, is usually worth reading.
Marcion believe the Gospel of John and the Pauline epistles are what we are to believe and point to the true God, not the OT God of wrath. There are many great articles on this site.
Go Here: www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/library.html
I find it very intersting.
I just tried the link - I don't know why it doesn't work, but that is the address. Or search "Marcion."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Refiner: No, I do not believe so. I believe that every man, regardless of origin or belief, will stand before the throne of God one day and be judged according to his actions, save the born-again Christians. Those whose lives tip the balance will be spared, and only those who are found wanting will be sent to the Pit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
However, Jehovah would have been responsible for both using his power to create Lucifer, as well as knowing that he would turn on him, yet doing nothing to prevent that. That makes Jehovah at least an accessory, if not directly responsible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I think that the difference is that in the old testament, they based Jehovah off of the ancient Babylonian religions, which had stories of Marduk which eventually evolved into Jehovah. If you look at some of their stories and some of the earlier old testament, you'd be suprised at their similarities. The new testament "God" has changed his nature because society changed since then. Where the Babylonians were a more vengeful people, the ancient Greeks had introduced ideas of equality and fairness, which must have rubbed off on those other societies in the area over the years, up through the time of the Romans. I think that is why the early Christians were different than the older religious, including Judaism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I believe we are saved from eternal death, which is eternal non-existence. I don't believe in eternal punishment, or eternal pain. Jesus, the second Adam, made it available for those who believe to enter into the eternal Kingdom of God, which is what God wanted in the first place before Lucifer put a fly in the ointment.
What I think we don't know yet is, in the new heavens and earth, in our new bodies, will folks have freedom of will? The way I see it, it can't be the same free will as we have now, or Lucifer had/has, otherwise you're going to have the same thing happening all over again.
But I believe God is Just and Good and will right the wrongs -- and He has all eternity to do it, even though we don't have all the answers now. For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Much (but not necessarily all) of atheism is based on arrogant, egocentric finger-pointing. "Well, I wouldn't have done it that way, so GOD wouldn't have done it that way. Therefore, there is no god." This assumes that the atheist would have access to all the knowledge that a supernatural deity would have and still reach a different conclusion.
It is similar to rejecting doctors based on the Hippocratic Oath ("First, do no harm...") because they occasionally saw off a limb or pump poison into a patient's blood. The fact that amputation can save a person's life from gangrene, or that chemotherapy can save a person's life from cancer would be irrelevant. "Hmph! The Oath says 'do no harm', and these 'doctors' are running around hacking people up! I would find a way to cure them without doing that, so all doctors are chronic committers of assault with intent to do bodily harm!"
Now, in reality, most people understand why amputation and chemo are necessary, so it's only the crackpots who would not believe in doctors. Yet, since it's impossible by definition to understand everything that a supernatural Supreme Being can, rejecting a god based solely on one's nature-limited reasoning is just as big a foolishness.
This has a corollary in the old "why do bad things happen to good people" argument, too, since the answer is based in the same concept. I usually sum it up with the following sentence:
It's not that God can't help, it's that He won't cheat.
In a game of chess, the object is to eliminate the opponent's king. There's nothing physically stopping you from grabbing the opposing player's king and chucking it into the fireplace, is there? It's the rules that stop you, not a lack of ability or desire. Not even the inventor of chess gets to break his own rules. Now, we don't know if God made all the rules, or if He's simply following some higher rules that we can't fully comprehend, but even a cursory analysis of the records in the Bible bears out that God is definitely operating within certain boundaries the He does not cross on a whim.
So, hurricanes in Florida? Famines in Africa? Earthquakes in Turkey? Yes, an omnipotent God could pick them all up and toss them into the fireplace...
But would you ever play with Him again if He did?
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
Actually Refiner, there are many Christians in China, unfortunately many die there as they won’t denounce Christ,
The land was promised to Abraham, maybe the nations living there when Joshua went in were nothing more than illegal squatters bent of the prevention of the promises coming to pass.
I made comments about being more loving or what was the loving thing to do in some citations. But then I started thinking about my Father. He had been a hunter and fisher as well as a farmer, over the years he lost any and all interest in any activities that might inflict pain on animals. He was a very kind hearted and loving man, even to the animals on the farm. One of my uncles told the story of long before I was born Dad’s dairy herd got bangs and had to be put down, the whole herd. My uncle volunteered to do the dirty deeds for Dad, but my Dad said it wasn’t easy, pleasant or kind, but was necessary.
It was necessary or all herds down river would die from it. So Dad shot the bull, all the cows and even the calves and dug a huge pit with a dozer, pushed them in and buried them.
Because of their choice to take and live on lands that were not theirs to take, those nations made it necessary to be removed. Because they wouldn’t just go away and leave the Christ line alone so all men could have the chance to reconciled and would constantly strive to wipe out Israel, it became necessary to end their time on the earth.
But, this is the only time in history this was for lack of a better word, sanctioned. The time during which the very coming of Christ hinged on the survival of a people the promise had been given to. There is now the truth that all men come from one blood and are the same, why? Because the redemption of man has been accomplished and it is up to individual men and women to accept or reject. Without the bible, or even knowledge of the bible there has been historically tribes wiping out each other through out history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I believe that in reality it's saying, "I can see flaws in this doctrine, so if it is based on a supposedly perfect being, then that being is not really perfect as the doctrine isn't." You know, the word of god is the will of god, and all that. Add to that the fact that there is no solid evidence of the existance of any of the dieties in question, and it makes a fairly compelling case for atheism or agnosticism.
The fallacy in your argument is because doctors would not be supreme beings, because if a doctor actually was omniscent, they could save the person from cancer without any surgery. They could simply want the person to be cured and they would be cured. Plus, there's no proof that Christianity ever saved anyone from anything.
Not at all, because if there was a supreme being that wanted us to be it's "children" then it would have given us the capability to recognize it and then choose to love it or not to love it. The fact is that I've personally not found any reason to believe that such a being exists, so that would mean that if omniscent gods do exist they are purposely being decietful and hiding themselves from my limited understanding.
If your god made the rules, then he could make exceptions, particularly at the beginning when his supposed foresight should have been used to look for places where the rules would not be right.
The inventor of chess also didn't have the foresight to see every game of chess that would ever be played, as well as the ability to make sure that every person who played the game that he wanted to win would win based on the way he set up the rules. An omniscent being could do that.
Most protestant sects of Christianity do think that their god is to blame for all of that, and that their god will send most people to hell. Even you seem to believe that many if not most people will go to hell for not believing in an invisible diety that you can't prove exists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I often thought that if any of us humans, even if we were as popular and well-loved as Reagan, did half the things that we say God did, ... that we'd be arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to the electric chair, and the ACLU would be there to pull the switch!
-->
Which basically communicates that I find it rather bemusing that all these excuses, explanations, and pontificating as to why God can do, with impunity, all of the things that would send any of us to the death chamber for committing war crimes against humanity, are being made about a God who Himself said that He is perfect; that He doesn't lie, murder, steal, or do any of that which He calls 'sins' and strongly forbids us to do. And in the OT, the punishment for doing many of those things is death.
Ie., this God is perfect, according to the scriptures.
So here some of us 'infidels' look at the scriptures, see this blatent discrepency, openly and honestly point it out, and we are reduced to being 'arrogant', getting mad because we didn't get our 'ponies', simply think that *WE* can do things better than GOD from a childish and arrogant perspective, etc., ad nauseum.
Really? Is that all (or even most) of what atheism, agnosticism, et al really amounts to? ... Or is that the orthodox party line that you are goosestepp--err, have pledged allegience to, right or wrong?
Why is it, if God is so REAL and powerful, so TRUE, that His believers go ape-.... when He or His word is challenged? I mean, can you imagine some well reknown chemist going self-righteously indignent if you were to question the fact that H2O = water? Now for that chemist to go nuts if it is questioned means that he is in dire need of a 4 week vacation, ... starting NOW. Why? Because we all KNOW, since it has been scientifically proven, that H2O does indeed make water, and that no amount of questioning or believing otherwise will make it otherwise.
So if spiritual truth is so HIGHER and more TRUE than physical facts, well then the certainty of them would be just as much more. ... So why is it a threat, a moral wrong, something to get all up in arms about, for them to be challenged? Or for someone to walk away from them and say 'No. I don't accept them any more.'
Frankly, I'm more and more of the opinion that this tack of saying 'Who are you to question God?!' (including all scriptures that convey this idea) has FAR less of a moral basis, and a lot MORE on a basis for control and silencing of any honest dissent. ... And unfortunately, it has been all too effective for many a century.
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Analogies just seem to confuse the hell out of some folks, and I don't know why. But here's another one anyway.
I love animals, and for the most part I'm a firm believer in never killing what you don't intend to eat. Yet, if I discover a nest of copperheads in my back yard, I'm going to kill every last one of them. Sure, they may be "innocent living creatures", but if one of my grandchildren happened to step on one accidentally, they could die. I love my grandkids more than I respect the right of a copperhead to live wherever it wants to. It's tragic that they chose my yard, but that's just reality.
Copperheads, Amalekites...the principle's the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Zix,
Tell me something. Remember that account in I Samuel where Samuel tells King Saul that God wanted all the Amalekites slaughtered, including infant and suckling? (And of course how Saul got in trouble for not totally carrying it out, to the losing of his kingdom?) Please, using your formidable skills of logic and thinking things through, tell me in what way it is arrogant of me to think that there is something *seriously wrong* with this order, both from a moral and ethical standpoint? That there is something intrinsically wrong with the slaughter of innocent (Yes Virginia, they WERE innocent, any arguments of all of us humans being guilty before God notwithstanding) children, even if God orders it? Regardless if God orders it?
And no, you can't say that they were a immediate threat to Isreal (they weren't in any way at the time, so your phrase of "Copperheads, Amalekites...the principle's the same." does not apply, and thus is flawed), for the strike was in revenge for an attack of the Amalekites agains the children of Isreal *400 years before*, and even then that attack was effectively squeltched. That would be like us attacking modern day American Indians for any scalpings done back in the days of Jamestown in 1604!
So just because God orders it, that makes it right, and thus an unquestionable position that we are to accept w/o question?
Have you ever given thought that maybe, just maybe, at least some of these 'egocentric preconceptions' just might be based on the same rules of right and wrong? From the same bible that you learn about what God expects of you in how to behave in life? Or is it just 'egocentric preconceptions' that is motivating people when they expect God to play by His own rules? Just our own arrogance?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Your still ignoring the fact that if 1) God is completely good, and 2) God is omniscent, he would have to do everything within his power to prevent problems, which should mean that problems would never occur because he's omniscent. It's very simple logic.
I'll take that into consideration, but I'm pretty sure you know what I meant anyway.
-->
There is no way to compare a doctor to a god because doctors can not prevent problems in the first place, nor do they have infinite power. That's why the argument is very important, in my opinion.
Great, but there are people who adamantly believe that drinking their own urine cures cancer as well. That doesn't mean I have to believe it. Also, I can find stories of non-Christians who say their faith, whether Islam, buddhism, etc. saved them just as much. That contradicts the idea of biblegod saying, "Thou shalt put no other gods before me." So either the bible is wrong, or all of the other religions out there are and their adherents are liars. That's too egotistical of a statement for anyone to really say and believe, since as you agree there's not much proof as to the existance of any gods.
I base it on common logic, which if I was created by an infinitely powerful god who lives outside of time and space, would have known I would come to these conclusions based on the tools of reasoning that he gave to me. Therefore, my logic of questioning of the existance of biblegod would be exactly what he wanted me to do, since he would have seen in his foreknowledge that this is what I would say when he created me. The same would apply to you as well, which would mean that if your god is real, and the information in the bible is accurate, he created both of us in such a way that we would be opposed on issues like this and he would have purposely set us up in a way that we would argue. It would also mean that our free will is a joke, unless he found some way to limit himself, which would mean that he is not all-powerful.
If he didn't make the rules, then there would be one higher than him and thus the bible would not be accurate. If he did make the rules and still allows bad things to happen to innocent good people, then the bible is not accurate in stating that he is just. I am happy though, because with that statement I think you're starting to understand where I am coming from as to how it is not logically possible for an omniscent and good being to create something like the world we live in.
Game theory would not apply to gods. If you are incapable of mistakes, and write a computer program that would play chess against you using a specific pattern of moves, you would always be able to beat it, and if not, you could simply rewrite it and recompile, but if you were perfect you would have gotten it right the first time.
Is this not your post stating that?
The pit is a fiery place which is what most people think of as Hell. You know as well as I do that the bible says that biblegod is no respecter of persons and that the conditions of being "good" according to the bible all wrap around and start with respecting some diety from a branch of Judaism, whether it's Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. The rest of us fail the 1st commandment test as well as other areas of the bible, so the rest of us would go to Hell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Actually, what confuses the hell out of me, is otherwise intelligent people turning their critical thinking skills OFF whenver their preciousssss belief is challenged. And especially when they view this same belief to be absolutely true. Please refer to my example of the chemist for further illustration of this principle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Ex
"john, do you mean when the OT people attributed bad things to god, they really meant satan but they did not or could not SEE or say that ?
i semi remember this teaching from the way
can you or someone help me with this ?
or help refiner "
F. S. sat down with you and me and went over this. I also think that VP went over it in one of the classes.
There was an OLD text that actually explained that the bad things were of the devil in the OT but through the coming years it became illegal for anyone to mention "the devil" like a communist era or something and the Bible was then redone having "the devil" removed from the text. It was still legal to talk and write about God so the writers went in and took the DEVIL out and rewrote things making the word "god" when it used to say the devil.
So then you have god doing bad and God doing good....
Which then lead the whole thing into the toliet of confusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I always find it interesting that Bible fundies have little problem discounting mythologies of Greeks or Romans or Hindus, but when it comes to the stories of THE BIBLE, well, they're beyond doubt, aren't they?
To which I can only ask,...WHY? What makes The Bible so irrefutable in your mind? Why are the (obvious) legends of Noah, Joshua, Job, Moses, et al, beyond question? Even though to believe in them, you would have to believe that all the known laws of physics would have to be overridden for them to have actually happened?
How did we ever become convinced that "God said it, I believe it, That settles it"? And what's more, how did we accept that THE BIBLE was what that aforementioned God "said"?
We ridicule the Muslim extremists for their belief that they'll be rewarded for their acts of courage for blowing themselves up in the name of Allah, but have no problem thinking that we'll have wonderful heavenly rewards for all eternity ('cause God MADE us worthy, afterall, and who are you to argue with GOD? Huh, punk?) while all those who didn't share our beliefs we'll have to make do with something less (that is, if they're not frying for eternity in HELL).
Jeezus, it's all a farking joke peepul. Wake up and smell the century...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Oh, and I meant to mention, isn't it odd that virtually ALL of the supposed attributes of great men of the Bible were already used (MANY times) in the mythologies of the "pagans"?
Virgin births, superhuman strength, healing powers, divine insight, and then the (required?) rejection by the heathen hordes and even - quite often - a terrible, painful, humiliating death.
Then, naturally, there's some sort of divine "gotcha" after all that, as the superhero's legacy deals a final, fatal blow to the rabble and despotic leaders.
It's been written countless times before, but somehow, when it got transposed into the Bible, well, then it became the undisputed, UNCHALLENGEABLE, truth.
Whatever...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Immature huh? We'll see.
Apparently that same 'arrogance' is plainly exhibited by you when you would defend your grandchildren against those copperheads. ... Join the club.
;)-->
Fascinating. This is the same 'they are nothing more than animals' attitude that arrogant believers (Oopsie! Did I just call *them* arrogant?
) throughout the centuries had towards those who did not believe in their god, coupled with this eerily McCarthyite attitude that these same unbelievers posed just as much a danger to themselves and to Western civilization that you seem to think that the Amalekites posed to Isreal during the time of Samuel. (Ohh by the way, where is it in the biblical text that this threat was actually present for Isreal to take that military strike against them? Or was it Yet Another 'Godly' principle of pre-emptive strike that was called for here? ... Praise Dubya! 
-->)
You're getting ....ed, I can tell. Why? Because you totally missed the point of my H2O illustration. ... Now remember, click your heels three times together and say, "its ONLY a discussion board ... its ONLY a discussion board ... its ONLY a discussion board ...".
:)-->
And finally,
You want to know how much **BULL....** has been done, and how many people that has died because of such 'who are you to question GOD' browbeating? Uhhh, excuse me, but didn't we get a classic textbook example of this same garbage in The Way International? "Religious Mental Slavery 101". ... You DID pass that exam, did you not?
-->
Sorry chief, but this practice of mindlessly goosestepp-- ahh I mean, accepting w/o question and challenge what is said about God, or even what God says himself (even with the 'I am not God' argument), isn't on my To Do List anymore. That has ben thrown out in the trash along with my other PFAL collateral. ... If you hurry, you just might see Smikeol scrounging around in that pile of trash.
And if that is 'Rejecting Christ', ....... so be it!
:P-->
Now, ... where's my pony?
;)--> 
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
So what would be correct then? God is all good and all powerful so his acts of evil are good, yet he is not powerful enough to give us the understanding to see why his acts are really good?
So's the bible, now where does that get us?
A polio vaccine could prevent illness, but it's not 100%, nor was it created by the doctor from nothing. The doctor isn't the one curing, but he gives the vaccine that cures.
In the case of a doctor, I could still have a valid concern or other ideas even though I do not have as much expertise on an issue as he would. With the bible, the same thing holds true. The fact that I don't have a PhD in studying the book of Acts doesn't mean I can't find flaws with what is written. The point is that what would be mistakes to me would be "God meant to do that" to you. There's no point in arguing it I guess, but I am distrustful of these things by nature so unless your mythical god could prove he is real and that he has a plan, there's no reason for me to believe it.
If I am dodging it, I'm not the only one. The problem is that your analogies are too limited in nature. Either your god is finite in some way, or you can't really make analogies that will stick. Trying to solve math equations with infinity as one of the values will get you nowhere.
Since 100% of people have died or will die, I don't really see Christianity, which is supposed to result in eternal life, as saving anyone at this point. Maybe it will happen, who knows, but there's no proof that Christianity is right and everything else is wrong. That's my point. Any effect Christianity has can be replicated with other religions and experiences, including the lack of religion. Why do Christians believe that Jesus talked to God but scoff at the idea of the priestesses at Delphi? There's no way to prove either are more valid than the other. Why do you accept Christianity but not believe in Santa Claus? How can you tell which is true and which is false?
You've yet to prove me wrong though.
I disagree, I'm simply stating the problems with believing in an all-knowing all-powerful god. As far as striking you down with lightning, I wouldn't do it. I'd only reveal myself as a god to you and convince you to go around trying to tell others about me.
The person who writes the rules of physics would not be bound to mathematics, except as he wishes but even then it wouldn't really be true. There is no logical way to prove that any gods exist.
Perhaps, but the point is that it is not logical for there to be any all-knowing all-powerful beings.
So what rules do you think exist for non-Christians? If everyone will be judged, there should be a set of guidelines somewhere for those that don't believe in gods but do try to be good people. The bible is obsessed with demanding devotion to biblegod, and the morals surround that concept.
I'm not a "theophobe" but instead unwilling to put the blinders back on that I had in TWI. I see things clearly now and I don't feel like backing down for those that arrogantly believe I am going to go to Hell or that I am inferior because I find flaws with the bible and the concepts therein. If "no man come unto the father but by me" according to Jesus, and most of the world doesn't believe Jesus was god/son of god/whatever then we should be bound for Hell. So, my estimation would be accurate unless you have some other source of morals that biblegod would be judging people based on.
How do you know these things if you don't subscribe to the Christian dogma? The bible is pretty clear in it's stance on some of these things, and if you don't believe them why do you consider yourself a Christian? It sounds like a lot of your beliefs come from external sources, some of which would contradict the bible. What makes those sources valid enough for you to believe in things that contradict the bible?
Well, if he exists, and if it happens in the way that you believe, I'd ask him where the hell he's been and why did he make such a f*cked up place. I'm limited in every way as a human being, a creature, a member of the most intelligent animal species on Earth. If biblegod does view us as children, he created a race of latchkey children, and I see no reason to respect such a thing. Perhaps hypocracy is a word to describe it, but honesty is a better one, in my opinion. I see no reason to suck up to a being that may not exist and has no tangible benefit for believing in. If anything, I don't appreciate the idea of extorting "love" out of people by holding the thought of eternal damnation over their heads if they don't love you. That's not free will, it's coercion. If God exists and he wanted me to know differently, well he had the foreknowledge and the power to do something about it but failed to. I would just be a shadow of a thought in his lucid dreams.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Poole
WOW... and I do mean WOW!!
Refiner... wow! Garth ! wow ! ( I always knew you held a high opinion of yourself... but WOW! and a high opinion of your "intellect" but WOW!
Gee... I guess it won't be long till we know eh?hmmmm ... ya know it's kinda like poker.... how right are ya?? how big-a hand do ya got?? enough to go "all in"?
Just remember this , if there's no absolute standard for truth you have no right to say I can't do whatever the hell I please... even if it means sacrificing YOU to the tree god. Cause that's MY beliefs... and I'm bigger and better than you. Don't like that eh? To bad...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.