Bob Spence wrote:

Sorry, it is still you who have it wrong again: was not saying or assuming you were in an environment of "truly walking by faith in Christ in the Light of the Spirit", just that (I assumed) you were in an environment  that was much more strongly oriented toward religious observance of some kind than I was. Are you saying that the culture you were surrounded by was athesistic/skeptical? If so, I do apologise.

While it is true that some areas of Science do not obviously conflict with all religious teachings, there is certainly strong conflict with some religious views, such as Creationism and belief in the Biblical Flood. You are already conceding that your beliefs conflict with the cuurent theories about the origin of the Universe, which do have a much firmer grounding than you want to imply, so please stop denying that your beliefs conflict with Science. I thought you were better informed than fools like Ken Ham. We don't need to observe some event in the here-and-now to have justified confidence that we have useful knowledge about it. If you don't accept that, you clearly do NOT understand or accept Science. You further demonstrate your wilful refusal to accept the reality that many people leave faith and belief behind after considering their position much more seriously and carefully than before.

I may have to concede that your reply here suggests I was a bit optimistic in assuming I really understood where you are coming from.

You still clearly don't understand my position - I do not have a "research project" in any sense; you are still stuck on this erroneous assumption. You certainly have no conception of what my life "is all about". For example, I certainly don't just look for people that "say what I want to hear"; I believe that ones ideas need to be continually tested against different ideas held by other people.

Bob,

You seem to state that if I don't have faith (your faith) I can't understand or accept  science (your science).  

...which is not true about science because science isn't God; but the principle DOES HOLD with understanding and accepting Jesus, God, Truth, the Gospel and the Bible.  You can understand that since you don't believe God or believe in God.  He therefore hasn't  Lit it up for you.   Scientifically speaking - you have an absence of LIGHT on the whole subject.  

In this case however you are not dealing with a hammered out science book but THE LIVING GOD Who Knows everything about you and deals with you respectfully, justly and honestly.  You are snared with the cords of your sin.  He offers the solution to the real problem.  And it's not rocket science Bob.  Shut off the magnetic shield and listen.     

It is the Glory of God to conceal things - but the glory of kings is to search things out.    

Since I do not base my approach on anything that can reasonably be compared with religious faith, you still don't understand where I am coming from. To truly appreciate Science, you need the opposite of 'Faith', namely a level of distrust in everything we currently accept about the Universe as described by Science, so that if someone finds good evidence that it may in fact be wrong, we are prepared to accept what can be shown to be a much better interpretation.

Or are saying I have faith in the idea of not having Faith? The continuing advances in our understanding, which have lead to so many advances in Communications (including what allows us to carry on this discussion from opposite sides of tha world), in exploring space, in the ability to control and protect ourselves and our children from many of the diseases which, your God, if he exists, inflicted on us, showing us how little he respects us AND our innocent children.

Calling my position a "faith" is like calling Atheism a 'religion', when it is, in essence, a lack of a religion. Or to quote a very common analogy, it is like calling "not collecting stamps a 'hobby'.

The particular atoms that we are composed of can be replaced one or more times through our lifetimes, so it is the patterns that define us, not any particular atoms. So Science does NOT consider us 'nothing but' atoms. For patterns to be recorded and passed on, they must be employ particles of matter, such as atoms, since energy by itself has no persistent structure. So we need atoms to give us substance and life, to allow the patterns that are us to be expressed.

BobSpence wrote:

Since I do not base my approach on anything that can reasonably be compared with religious faith, you still don't understand where I am coming from. To truly appreciate Science, you need the opposite of 'Faith', namely a level of distrust in everything we currently accept about the Universe as described by Science, so that if someone finds good evidence that it may in fact be wrong, we are prepared to accept what can be shown to be a much better interpretation. Or are saying I have faith in the idea of not having Faith? The continuing advances in our understanding, which have lead to so many advances in Communications (including what allows us to carry on this discussion from opposite sides of tha world), in exploring space, in the ability to control and protect ourselves and our children from many of the diseases which, your God, if he exists, inflicted on us, showing us how little he respects us AND our innocent children.

Calling my position a "faith" is like calling Atheism a 'religion', when it is, in essence, a lack of a religion. Or to quote a very common analogy, it is like calling "not collecting stamps a 'hobby'. Your inability to grasp this shows you are the one who is in darkness, or whose vision is blocked by your faith, or perhaps blinded by the light you refer to. It is the SHAME of your God to torture the children, especially the children of the poor, with so many germs, viruses, and parasites. I could never 'accept' or praise such a cruel, deceitful, vengeful being if it could be shown to exist.

You didn't answer my question about your early environment: was it, or was it not, at least based on a nominally Christian belief, but obviously not one that 'worked for you'?

Since you appear to reject the Science of the Origin of the Universe (the Big Bang Theory), what do you believe about the age of the Universe? And do you 'accept' the Biblical Flood story?

 

 

Bob,

I like that analogy - not collecting stamps a hobby.  I think atheism is like not collecting stamps but with a knowing pious face on it.  But that doesn't mean you're not an expert on what the God you don't believe in, believe, or believe exists...does - yes this you know and say in great detail so you can enable yourself to hopefully come to believe in Him less and believe in yourself more.  You have your straw men and your straw god.  Do you not collect straw for a hobby... or stamps?  

I was raised by great Christian parents.  But there were surrounding deeply ingrained doctrines I had to break free from - possibly my own misunderstanding or early on perception when in a position of ignorance where I thought I knew something (like you describing what the God Who Created the Heavens and the Earth but you don't believe exists is doing).  Teedilly freakin dee.  

I would obiquelly compare my breaking free of deeply ingrained ideas to when a doctor decided - hey -  there was such a thing as germs and bacteria - and they jailed him and put him in an asylum later.  He had a new doctrine that was true and could be experimentally proven but the experts that were gathering and researching information from life that fit what they felt was real and fit into other facts they had screwed together to support their scaffold around their tower of ignorance.  So their religion had become a "party spirit" of "we're right and everybody else is wrong".  Eventually they had egg on their face and as you say - no stamps for their hobby.  Maybe you can get what I broke free from from that analogy.  

I accept the flood, yes - er - ree Bob.  And I am confident of it.  Also the Red Sea parted and the children of Israel went through on dry ground.  A donkey talked, David killed Goliath with a sling (I used to love those slings), Jonah spent 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of a big fish before he decided to go to Nineveh, Elijhah called fire down on 50 soldiers, Jesus was raised from the dead on the 3rd day, cursed a fig tree, etc, etc.  I believe the Bible Bob.  It's all true - but you have to know the Author to understand it (unlike science).  

As far as the age of the earth the Bible doesn't say and I don't know.  But in Ecclesiastes it says (paraphrased) there is nothing new under the sun - is has been already in the ages before.  That's possibly a hint that God has made other worlds before, winnowed the wheat, collected the stamps and burned the chaff.  The materials could be billions of years old, used clay.  The Bible doesn't give dates - that dating thing came about with one of these scientific experts.  I'm ok with the things not revealed - curious, but ok with leaving them unknown.  

 

In your next post you go on and on about the wonderful atoms in the body, etc, as if you created yourself.  (ha) Is that an atheist hobby or religion?  Anyway, then you go on to make sure and say how you've risen above the primitive idea that a God Who Knows more than you put this all together.  That would be like discovering fire or something.  

Fonzie wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Since I do not base my approach on anything that can reasonably be compared with religious faith, you still don't understand where I am coming from. To truly appreciate Science, you need the opposite of 'Faith', namely a level of distrust in everything we currently accept about the Universe as described by Science, so that if someone finds good evidence that it may in fact be wrong, we are prepared to accept what can be shown to be a much better interpretation. Or are saying I have faith in the idea of not having Faith? The continuing advances in our understanding, which have lead to so many advances in Communications (including what allows us to carry on this discussion from opposite sides of tha world), in exploring space, in the ability to control and protect ourselves and our children from many of the diseases which, your God, if he exists, inflicted on us, showing us how little he respects us AND our innocent children.

Calling my position a "faith" is like calling Atheism a 'religion', when it is, in essence, a lack of a religion. Or to quote a very common analogy, it is like calling "not collecting stamps a 'hobby'. Your inability to grasp this shows you are the one who is in darkness, or whose vision is blocked by your faith, or perhaps blinded by the light you refer to. It is the SHAME of your God to torture the children, especially the children of the poor, with so many germs, viruses, and parasites. I could never 'accept' or praise such a cruel, deceitful, vengeful being if it could be shown to exist.

You didn't answer my question about your early environment: was it, or was it not, at least based on a nominally Christian belief, but obviously not one that 'worked for you'?

Since you appear to reject the Science of the Origin of the Universe (the Big Bang Theory), what do you believe about the age of the Universe? And do you 'accept' the Biblical Flood story?

 

 

Bob,

I like that analogy - not collecting stamps a hobby.  I think atheism is like not collecting stamps but with a knowing pious face on it.  But that doesn't mean you're not an expert on what the God you don't believe in, believe, or believe exists...does - yes this you know and say in great detail so you can enable yourself to hopefully come to believe in Him less and believe in yourself more.  You have your straw men and your straw god.  Do you not collect straw for a hobby... or stamps?  

I was raised by great Christian parents.  But there were surrounding deeply ingrained doctrines I had to break free from - possibly my own misunderstanding or early on perception when in a position of ignorance where I thought I knew something (like you describing what the God Who Created the Heavens and the Earth but you don't believe exists is doing).  Teedilly freakin dee.  

I would obiquelly compare my breaking free of deeply ingrained ideas to when a doctor decided - hey -  there was such a thing as germs and bacteria - and they jailed him and put him in an asylum later.  He had a new doctrine that was true and could be experimentally proven but the experts that were gathering and researching information from life that fit what they felt was real and fit into other facts they had screwed together to support their scaffold around their tower of ignorance.  So their religion had become a "party spirit" of "we're right and everybody else is wrong".  Eventually they had egg on their face and as you say - no stamps for their hobby.  Maybe you can get what I broke free from from that analogy.  

I accept the flood, yes - er - ree Bob.  And I am confident of it.  Also the Red Sea parted and the children of Israel went through on dry ground.  A donkey talked, David killed Goliath with a sling (I used to love those slings), Jonah spent 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of a big fish before he decided to go to Nineveh, Elijhah called fire down on 50 soldiers, Jesus was raised from the dead on the 3rd day, cursed a fig tree, etc, etc.  I believe the Bible Bob.  It's all true - but you have to know the Author to understand it (unlike science).  

As far as the age of the earth the Bible doesn't say and I don't know.  But in Ecclesiastes it says (paraphrased) there is nothing new under the sun - is has been already in the ages before.  That's possibly a hint that God has made other worlds before, winnowed the wheat, collected the stamps and burned the chaff.  The materials could be billions of years old, used clay.  The Bible doesn't give dates - that dating thing came about with one of these scientific experts.  I'm ok with the things not revealed - curious, but ok with leaving them unknown.  

 

In your next post you go on and on about the wonderful atoms in the body, etc, as if you created yourself.  (ha) Is that an atheist hobby or religion?  Anyway, then you go on to make sure and say how you've risen above the primitive idea that a God Who Knows more than you put this all together.  That would be like discovering fire or something.  

 

Please, Fonzie, can you get it through your head that I don't have, and never have had, any notion of a God of any form as part of my thought processes, it really has never meant any more to me than the idea of Santa Claus. Your confirmation that you have always been in an environment where a 'God' was always assumed, even if you may have had different doctrines attached to your particular God concept, means I can return to my earlier conclusion that explains why you are simply unable to conceive of anyone for whom the idea of God is simply an irrelevant, maybe childish, concept which plays no part in their personal development. Which is why you keep trying to interpret my comments in some way as me creating my own personal idea of God, or considering myselfy as my own 'God', or other crazy ideas. No 'pious face' on it, at least for me and most atheists I know, even if there could well be some people who that would apply to.

So you do believe all that mythical nonsense in the Bible, for which there is little or no evidence, and in many cases, strong evidence against it, often from recent historical and archeological research. The idea of the Earth being about 6000 years old does come from the Bible, by following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham as described there. Not from scientific experts, from Bible scholars.

My talk about atoms was to explain that life is intimitately dependendent on complex material processes, so the idea of some 'life' being possible in a immaterial form is not credible. It was not about any 'wonderful atoms' but about the wonderful structures, which can only be comprised* of atoms, which are at the core of Life as we know it, such as DNA.

*Correction NOTE: 'built' is  clearly the wrong word to use here - it too strongly implies a 'builder', which is asking for trouble when trying to explain reality to Bible addicts.

 Fonzie, you need to turn your God spectacles back on yourself and realize that you are even more subject to over-confidence in your own pet beliefs, helped by the arrogant assumption that your 'knowledge" of God has ultimately been conveyed to you by God himself. You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that you have no more justification for your particular beliefs that those who you say you rejected.

Science realized this basic problem with faith-based beliefs long ago - they are not easily tested. In fact the 'tests' they do come up with are unconsciously heavily biased to be mostly just self-justificstions, since their minds could not cope with the slightest hint that they could be mistaken.

While there are, and have been, practising scientists who fall into a version of the same very human trap, most will welcome the harshest possible criticism and testing. This is why there are far fewer scientific theories that have become well-accepted at any one period of history than there are religious 'faiths' that have significant numbers of followers. It is also why it would be very unusual for groups of scientists following opposing theories to come into open conflict, while the opposite is true in the violent history of religious disputes.

Of course I fully expect you to once again dismiss all this and twist and mis-interpret everything I have said as just a pathetic attempt to defend my particular poor excuse for a 'faith' in myself as my own 'God'. So sad.

Right from your first post, where you expected us not to believe you could be 'really happy' in your beliefs, which I, for one, had no trouble accepting, ie, that it really did 'wrk for you'. We understand where you are coming from far better than you understand our position, which certainly suggests, even if it doesn't prove, who has a better grasp of reality. As does your refusal to respond to my refernces to the more problematic aspects of God's 'creation', such all the cute little viruses such as Ebola.

The unthinking arrogance I refer to is your absolute confidence that your belief is true and that everything in the Bible is true, and of course that God exists, and that your personal judgement in choosing to simply accept all this as unquestionably true is adequate to make such an assessment.

Why do you include "atom bombs and agent orange" in with Ebola?? Ebola, and all the other viral and bacterial diseases are the work of your God (assuming He exists), the others are creations of Man, so not relevant to my argument.If there were a "Devil" God would still be morally respnsible for all the evil attributed to that character, since He would have the power to block any evil acts committed by the Devil, or anyone else for that matter.

If it is OK to get to go to Heaven early, what is the point of all that suffering in life?

 The supreme, unthinking arrogance of the believer who is so certain that his particular version of the God delusion is not a delusion but an undisputable FACT communicated  to him in some manner by his God, ignoring the billions of people who believe in some other delusion with just as much conviction and as little actual verifiable evidence, continues to have me face-palming. What makes your God real and all the others just errors or mistakes of some kind?

If I see someone about to commit some horrible act on another person, I would not hesitate to come to his aid if I felt I could. Yet somehow it would be wrong for God to do something equivalent because it would interfere with tha freeedom of action, 'the free will' of the person with the intent to cause harm? Is this the same God who 'hardened Pharoah's heart'

Or from 2 Thessalonians 2:11 New International Version (NIV)

'11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie'

So if it is OK for God to explicitly delude people to contol them so he can 'justify' punishing them, why is it not ok to allow him to save them from suffering, even when it is not that person's fault?

Christian 'morality' is just so screwed up. Again, this is what you get when peple keep trying to make a story seem consistent rather than admit that the evidence is that it is simply made-up to support some primitive beliefs.

Fonzie wrote:

 

Bob,

Just like Harold wanting to be the front end of the horse for a change - when it comes to talking about "screwed up" - "stick to what you know Harold".  You love to talk about the God you don't believe in or know and describe Him in your "straw god" terms then act like it upsets you no end.  Give me a break.  The thing that's "screwed up" is your concept of unbelief from the first thought.  I can't help you out because the beginning is something you reject and meet at the door in unbelief:  The Fear of God is the Beginning of Knowledge.  Fools despise Wisdom and Instruction.  You don't accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ which means you've judged yourself so far already as rejecting God.  He hasn't rejected you yet because you're still alive - and if you're an enemy He loves His enemies.  The ball is in your court.  

But I've noticed you haven't given a discourse on the height and breadth and beginning and end of the results of your research and atheist freethinking.  One thing you have come up with is justification of not being able to know anything for sure.  While I think that does represent a truth for you in your position  (rejecting faith in God and asking something of man that man doesn't have to give) it hardly represents a description of a charted course or a life crusing on with billowed sails moving forward to new horizons.  Are you just making it up moment by moment as you go?  Kind of inefficient Bob and I wouldn't want to try to find my way out of the outback that way.  

So next you come on and say I have no idea what you're about - yeah, you're right, you haven't given it.  And I don't think you have found it either.  You've "settled" with something you're happy with?  Hey, how would I know.  I've laid my cards on the table and you say you have a wining hand - so let's see it.  

The Bible is like I said "Living and Active, Sharper than any two edged sword, dividing bone and marrow and able to understand the intentions of the heart."  Thus, it (along with the intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit and The Real God Working along with the Word, the Word becoming an intimate companion, etc.) - thus it creates that kind of confidence.  We are capable of "Knowing God".  John wrote his gospel that we might Know Him and have Abundant Life.  So I'm telling you the Truth about all this - not lying.  I have no doubts about the Bible or the God of the Bible.  When you start talking about it - it's evident you don't know the slightest thing about what you're saying.

So instead of trying to handle things you know nothing about why don't you lay out the many splendored wonders of atheistic life?  I don't know what they are - but I'm sure if they exist you do. Here's your opportunity to promote them.  

PLease don't even think about "helping me out". You reveal yet again YOU have not the faintest idea of what it is like to look out at the world without your vision obscured and blurred by the misconceptions and fairy tales of the Bible, ie, via 'unbelief'. My 'research'? I presume you mean my basic life course of aiming to improve and refine my understanding of "Life, the Universe, and Everything", in the words of the wonderful writer Douglas Adams.

A basic error which underlies much of your misunderstanding of just about everything is not 'getting' the fundamental Truth that there is very little we are justified in being absolutely certain about. I can be fairly certain that there is no significant probability that there exists an actual God being. The Bible certainly seems to be the work of a bunch of deluded human beings who were intent on recording their somewhat poorly thought-through beliefs and very old style rules on how to behave, such as the many situations which would justify stoning a child to death. Nice stuff.

Did you have any female teachers at school? The Bible says women are not allowed to teach, or be in any position of authority over a man. Or wear jewelery. So the Bible solidly endorses the subjugation of women.

It also supports slavery:

Exodus 20.21: If a man strikes his male or female servant with a stick and he or she dies as a direct result, the master must be punished. But if the servant survives a day or two, the master is not to be punished because the servant is his property.

Genesis confirms the un-surprising fact that the people responsible for the stories of 'Creation' had little or no idea of the nature of the stars and planets and early life-forms, so the Genesis narrative bears little relation at any point to what we now have reason to believe about the origin of "Life, the Universe, and Everything".

That is just a few 'hilites' of why I have zero respect for the Bible or anyone who takes it seriously, let alone literally, ie word-for-word. Your comments have got me doing more reseaarch into the Bible, revealing ever more reasons why it is Not a 'Good Book'.

The 'wonders' of a life not infected by God belief are what I have tried to convey a few times - the feeling of having some insight into the marvels of "Life, the Universe, and Everything", and some ability to follow the advancement of the Sciences in revealing more of the way the Universe 'works'.

 

My Atheism is simply a assertion that I do not believe in the existence of any gods, or any other supernatural beings, for that matter. The origin, at least the theory most widely accepted (in Science, of course), is The Big Bang Theory, which even you may have heard about. Like any theory in Science, it is not a matter of belief in the sense in which you 'believe' in God and Jesus etc., but just a matter of acceptance that it best fits the totality of current observations, according to those people who study the relevant Science, as reported in current scientific publications.

From the Wikipedia entry on Douglas Adams:

" was an English writer, humorist, and dramatist.

I enjoyed his writings immensely, and heard him speak at an Apple Computer World-Wide Developer's Convention in San Jose, California, and got to meet him briefly after his talk. Richard Dawkins dedicated his book 'The God Delusion' to Adams, and quotes from one of Adams' books "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

I should mention that I watched a quite interesting documentary on National Geographic channel tonight entitled "Secret Lives of the Apostles", in which several Academics, including Bart Ehrman, an American New Testament scholar, attempted to piece together the the history of the Apostles from all avaiable sources, including the Bible. I found it interesting and informative because they took a serious objective approach in assessing what might have actually happened at various points in the narrative of the crucifiction and claimed resurrection, admitting that in some cases we didn't have enough evidence to explain the story, and in other cases where it was more clearly not true. It certainly helped give me a better understanding of the origins of a rather important part of the Christian story.

So do you accept the scriptural support for slavery and the tratment of women?

BobSpence wrote:

Fonzie wrote:

 

Bob,

Your whole post is a concise summary of your disdain for and lack of understanding of the God Breathed Scripture and the God Who Inspired It.   

So again, why don't you instead describe your atheistic "wonders of life", your "feelings" of having some insight into the marvels of life, and yes the universe and everything, its origin (that you think you might possibly have reason to believe in anyway), and some of the revelations of the "wonderful" Douglas Adams (why you have put your faith in him specifically and how he has come to live rent free in your head).   

Don't worry I can't help you.  But what is this wonderful atheist mystery that you have still as yet hidden and have yet to reveal?    

There is NO 'wonderful atheist mystery'. As I keep trying to explain, my outlook is NOT structured as some second-rate version of how you approach life. It is quite different. My Atheism is simply a assertion that I do not believe in the existence of any gods, or any other supernatural beings, for that matter. The origin, at least the theory most widely accepted (in Science, of course), is The Big Bang Theory, which even you may have heard about. Like any theory in Science, it is not a matter of belief in the sense in which you 'believe' in God and Jesus etc., but just a matter of acceptance that it best fits the totality of current observations, according to those people who study the relevant Science, as reported in current scientific publications. From the Wikipedia entry on Douglas Adams:

" was an English writer, humorist, and dramatist.

Adams is best known as the author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which originated in 1978 as a BBC radio comedy before developing into a "trilogy" of five books that sold more than 15 million copies in his lifetime and generated a television series, several stage plays, comics, a computer game, and in 2005 a feature film. Adams's contribution to UK radio is commemorated in The Radio Academy's Hall of Fame."

I enjoyed his writings immensely, and heard him speak at an Apple Computer World-Wide Developer's Convention in San Jose, California, and got to meet him briefly after his talk. Richard Dawkins dedicated his book 'The God Delusion' to Adams, and quotes from one of Adams' books "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" As you should have gathered by now, he was,  in his own words, a "radical atheist". I think he would have laughed at the idea of anyone "putting their faith in him". He was also an envirionmental activist and produced a radio documentary and book "Last Chance to See" which was about many endangered species.

I should mention that I watched a quite interesting documentary on National Geographic channel tonight entitled "Secret Lives of the Apostles", in which several Academics, including Bart Ehrman, an American New Testament scholar, attempted to piece together the the history of the Apostles from all avaiable sources, including the Bible. I found it interesting and informative because they took a serious objective approach in assessing what might have actually happened at various points in the narrative of the crucifiction and claimed resurrection, admitting that in some cases we didn't have enough evidence to explain the story, and in other cases where it was more clearly not true. It certainly helped give me a better understanding of the origins of a rather important part of the Christian story.

Hope this helps give you a better understanding of where I am coming from.

So do you accept the scriptural support for slavery and the tratment of women?

 

Bob,

There was a paid-for lie (they paid the soldiers to say someone stole the body) when Jesus rose from the dead - maybe a forerunner of your documentary.  You can tell it or hear it however you want I'll give you that - if you go to man.

The Mosaic Law you quoted from had those laws about slavery - and yes I accept that it was the Law at the time.  Also say a slave wanted to stay with the master - he went through a ceremony at the door having an awl pierced through his ear.  The Law was upheld - and fulfilled by Jesus' Life and Death (as the Lamb of God), also the prophecies were fulfilled and the temple worship and ceremony was done away with.  Now Jesus is High Priest, we are all priests (we can each go to God ourselves one on one - not through a priest) and the Law of God is written on our hearts (you have to understand this doesn't mean direct revelation).   

When Jesus died the curtain (I understand it was about 4 inches thick) was torn from top to bottom signifying the Holy of Holies was now open.  We can each go to God through Christ.  The curtain signified His Flesh - torn for us.  Jesus didn't legislate new political laws concerning slavery but His Principles would tell the slave to serve whole heartedly (as serving God) and the master to be considerate (since he also has a Master in heaven.  An example of that is found in Obadiah.  

Ok it sounds like you are more than a casual fan of Douglas Adams.  I had never heard of him.  If I get a chance later today I'll try to read some of his work online.  Right now I've got to go do something so I'm cutting this short.  

  

Fonzie wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Fonzie wrote:

 

Bob,

Your whole post is a concise summary of your disdain for and lack of understanding of the God Breathed Scripture and the God Who Inspired It.   

So again, why don't you instead describe your atheistic "wonders of life", your "feelings" of having some insight into the marvels of life, and yes the universe and everything, its origin (that you think you might possibly have reason to believe in anyway), and some of the revelations of the "wonderful" Douglas Adams (why you have put your faith in him specifically and how he has come to live rent free in your head).   

Don't worry I can't help you.  But what is this wonderful atheist mystery that you have still as yet hidden and have yet to reveal?    

There is NO 'wonderful atheist mystery'. As I keep trying to explain, my outlook is NOT structured as some second-rate version of how you approach life. It is quite different. My Atheism is simply a assertion that I do not believe in the existence of any gods, or any other supernatural beings, for that matter. The origin, at least the theory most widely accepted (in Science, of course), is The Big Bang Theory, which even you may have heard about. Like any theory in Science, it is not a matter of belief in the sense in which you 'believe' in God and Jesus etc., but just a matter of acceptance that it best fits the totality of current observations, according to those people who study the relevant Science, as reported in current scientific publications. From the Wikipedia entry on Douglas Adams:

" was an English writer, humorist, and dramatist.

Adams is best known as the author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which originated in 1978 as a BBC radio comedy before developing into a "trilogy" of five books that sold more than 15 million copies in his lifetime and generated a television series, several stage plays, comics, a computer game, and in 2005 a feature film. Adams's contribution to UK radio is commemorated in The Radio Academy's Hall of Fame."

I enjoyed his writings immensely, and heard him speak at an Apple Computer World-Wide Developer's Convention in San Jose, California, and got to meet him briefly after his talk. Richard Dawkins dedicated his book 'The God Delusion' to Adams, and quotes from one of Adams' books "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" As you should have gathered by now, he was,  in his own words, a "radical atheist". I think he would have laughed at the idea of anyone "putting their faith in him". He was also an envirionmental activist and produced a radio documentary and book "Last Chance to See" which was about many endangered species.

I should mention that I watched a quite interesting documentary on National Geographic channel tonight entitled "Secret Lives of the Apostles", in which several Academics, including Bart Ehrman, an American New Testament scholar, attempted to piece together the the history of the Apostles from all avaiable sources, including the Bible. I found it interesting and informative because they took a serious objective approach in assessing what might have actually happened at various points in the narrative of the crucifiction and claimed resurrection, admitting that in some cases we didn't have enough evidence to explain the story, and in other cases where it was more clearly not true. It certainly helped give me a better understanding of the origins of a rather important part of the Christian story.

Hope this helps give you a better understanding of where I am coming from.

So do you accept the scriptural support for slavery and the tratment of women?

 

Bob,

There was a paid-for lie (they paid the soldiers to say someone stole the body) when Jesus rose from the dead - maybe a forerunner of your documentary.  You can tell it or hear it however you want I'll give you that - if you go to man.

The Mosaic Law you quoted from had those laws about slavery - and yes I accept that it was the Law at the time.  Also say a slave wanted to stay with the master - he went through a ceremony at the door having an awl pierced through his ear.  The Law was upheld - and fulfilled by Jesus' Life and Death (as the Lamb of God), also the prophecies were fulfilled and the temple worship and ceremony was done away with.  Now Jesus is High Priest, we are all priests (we can each go to God ourselves one on one - not through a priest) and the Law of God is written on our hearts (you have to understand this doesn't mean direct revelation).   

When Jesus died the curtain (I understand it was about 4 inches thick) was torn from top to bottom signifying the Holy of Holies was now open.  We can each go to God through Christ.  The curtain signified His Flesh - torn for us.  Jesus didn't legislate new political laws concerning slavery but His Principles would tell the slave to serve whole heartedly (as serving God) and the master to be considerate (since he also has a Master in heaven.  An example of that is found in Obadiah.  

Ok it sounds like you are more than a casual fan of Douglas Adams.  I had never heard of him.  If I get a chance later today I'll try to read some of his work online.  Right now I've got to go do something so I'm cutting this short.  

  

So my question is, was God ok with those laws? It would certainly seem so. Then it became not so ok after Christ. So morality changed with Christ? God changed His mind?? Seems much more likely that we are simply seeing progress in human culture - morality is not handed down from a God, it arises from our instincts and empathy, which is 'explained' in Biblical terms as being 'written on our hearts', and then the rules become attributed to whatever is the 'official' source of such rules, namely the God, or whatever is the equivalent in the particular culture, whether Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever.

You seem to be assuming that the speakers in that documentary were not believing Chriistians, and/or had some purpose to cast doubt on the Christian version of the story. But they definitely included people (such as Bart Ehrman, who I mentioned, who was educated at Princeton Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute) who were inlikely to have such an attitude. These were people concerned with getting as close to the truth as they could, being aware of how human writings can be mistaken or in error, even when intended as recording the facts as they saw them, IOW, not consciously lying.

Yes, we can find all kinds of different views of the Bible, as with anything else. And for sure some of them, maybe all of them at times, may be mistaken to a greater or lesser degree. My question then is, how do you know which are most accurate?

I must admit I am more inclined to go with someone who has studied the Bible seriously for a long time than someone just going on his feelings or which one matches his personal beliefs.

You are really dodging the question on the changes - if something was once ok and now is not, either God changed his mind or the rules of what is right and wrong are not dictated by God. You can't have it both ways.

Of course study won't 'make the truth false'. But when the words can be interpreted in more than one way, and can be confused by the necessary process of translation, study may definitely be required to reveal what the words are saying, ie, what 'the truth' is.

Its quite simple - if there are 'new laws', that must mean the 'old laws ' no longer apply, therefore the laws have changed. So they cannot be eternal. period. Whatever you mean by 'fulfilled'.

There is no "twisting of the words", the comment about interpretation was addressing the very real problems of grasping the intended meaning of writings in an ancient language. There were no quotes of what the commentators thought the words were, so no basis for talking about 'mis-interpreting'.

God's ways certainly are not our ways, but that does not put him outside the Laws of Logic. If something HAS changed, it CANNOT be 'eternally unchanging'. Just one example of the confusing mess that is scripture. If you don't want to accept that simple observation, that does not make your view true.

 Yes, we can find all kinds of different views of the Bible, as with anything else. And for sure some of them, maybe all of them at times, may be mistaken to a greater or lesser degree. My question then is, how do you know which are most accurate? I must admit I am more inclined to go with someone who has studied the Bible seriously for a long time than someone just going on his feelings or which one matches his personal beliefs. If you want to make serious comments on the program, please watch it first. If you can't get to watch it, That's ok, but you will not be in a position to honestly comment on it until you have. Do a Google search for "SECRET LIVES OF THE APOSTLES" and you should find some options for viewing it.

I found it interesting precisely because the commentators seemed to take the story seriously, including all the accounts of miracles, but were honestly pointing out when , mainly due to the great passage of time, we could not be sure exactly what happened. IOW, this was part of a serious and honest search for the truth, which I will always look st seriously and carefully, even if it looks like that truth may not align with my current beliefs/assumptions.

You are really dodging the question on the changes - if something was once ok and now is not, either God changed his mind or the rules of what is right and wrong are not dictated by God. You can't have it both ways.

Fonzie wrote:

Bob,

I finally found 45 minutes to watch Secret Lives of the Apostles - National Geographic.  It was interesting.    

What is it exactly that I'm dodging?  I don't see any contradiction in the Bible or in God in the minutest detail.  You grab a couple of scriptures and think you've got a case on something you don't even believe, haven't applied, don't respect and are looking to discredit.  If you study the Bible a little it's with the fervent hope you can come up with a contradiction.  There is no contradiction.  

 

Glad you found the program interesting. I mainly wanted you to see that a program that I found interesting was not necessarily full of comments casting doubts on the Bible and its stories, which you seemed to assume.

The contradiction I was pointing out had nothing to do with that program; it was between two quotes from the Bible, which had laws about how to treat slaves being changed from what they originally were, which contradicts the idea that God's laws are 'eternal'. In trying find more clear examples of this contradiction I eventually realized there are so msny ways to read different parts of the Bible that it was not going to be worth the time and effort. So I should try and find more concrete examples of problematic passages that would be more difficult to 'explain' via the usual dodges.

The idea of punishment for 'sins' of your ancestors (original sin) is, to me, a nasty, immoral, idea, but probably seen as a way to 'explain' why bad things happen to people have not done anything that would justify such punishment. The worst example of such psychology I read about in some primitive Buddhist communities, where anyone born with a disability is assumed to have done something bad in a previous life ('karma'), which is then used to justify them being treated badly by other people. Not Christian, of course, but another example of how superstitions can be bad influences on people's behaviour. A very bad effect of the original sin idea is it embeds in our culture the idea that women deserve to be treated with less respect because of Eve's disobedience to God.

God does not interfere with our 'free will' - except when he does, such as 'hardening Pharoah's heart', or:

Or from 2 Thessalonians 2:11 New International Version (NIV)

'For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie'.
 

I still find it indefensible to punish anyone for the sins of their ancestors. So I find the concept of 'original sin' a poor attempt to justify many of the nastier things God does to us or allows to happen.

I don't know what you are referring to about 'making the "powerful delusion" defence'. I am quite sure I was not trying to do anything like what you are saying. I was just pointing out a Bible passage which describes God 'sending someone a powerful delusion' which seems to be a clear case of God overriding their free will, something he is supposed to be reluctant to do even to stop them from causing someone serious harm.

BobSpence wrote:

I still find it indefensible to punish anyone for the sins of their ancestors. So I find the concept of 'original sin' a poor attempt to justify many of the nastier things God does to us or allows to happen.

I don't know what you are referring to about 'making the "powerful delusion" defence'. I am quite sure I was not trying to do anything like what you are saying. I was just pointing out a Bible passage which describes God 'sending someone a powerful delusion' which seems to be a clear case of God overriding their free will, something he is supposed to be reluctant to do even to stop them from causing someone serious harm.

 

 Bob,

I don't know where you come up with God overpowering free will or punishing someone for the sins of their ancestors - maybe you've been watching movies or reading doctrines  men have come up with; or, you "find" what you "guess" about the God you don't believe in to be the thing to put your faith in - rather than what the God you don't believe said in His Word which you also don't believe and don't really want to search to find out?  

"What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge'?  As I Live says the LORD GOD this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel.  Behold all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sins shall die." (Ezekiel)

You can't claim God has sent a 'powerful delusion' that is keeping you from being able to understand the Word of God - unless you yourself are the delusion.  Maybe you're distracting yourself... 

Bob,

"For this reason" God sent a powerful delusion  (look at the reason - they've already refused to love the Truth and so be saved).    

My personal understanding of what "hardens the heart" is to see something you should do or believe and refuse to do it.  After you do this a few times it's a "use it or lose it" example.

John N Clayton has a series of videos - "DOES GOD EXIST"   He's a former atheist and a scientist I think.  I've only watched one.

The Word of God is like seeds - we don't know how they grow, that's not our part.  Our part is to take them in deep (for example like the words of a whisperer - which like delicious morsels go down deep into the body) and meditate on them, cultivate, think about them.  God makes them grow.  We don't know how the life in seed corn makes it grow - that's not the farmer's part in the equation.  His part is to plant, fertilize, etc.  If we are prejudiced - that interferes with hearing.  You can hear and not hear (distract yourself) and the seed of the Word of God doesn't even get planted.   If farmers stopped planting there wouldn't be a harvest. 

 

BobSpence wrote:

 

Bob,

Expectations go both ways.  "Today when you hear His voice do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.  Who were they that heard and yet were rebellious?  Was it not all those who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses?  And with whom was He provoked forty years?  Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?  And to whom did He swear that they should never enter His rest but to those who were disobedient?  So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief."

It's not an intellectual problem Bob.  You can see maybe 100 feet in clear Lake Superior water - but you can't see a cow track in a mud puddle in the middle of the road.  

If you call "love of God", "fear of God", "Jesus is Truth", "God is Faithful and Just", "God is Perfect", Scripture is All True, Jesus is Alive, Jesus lived Perfectly in every way, etc., etc., strong assumptions - yes I have strong confirmed well - tested assumptions that might approach faith even.  

And yes you're definitely right - "God dwells in the Heavens and does what He pleases" - and what He pleases is Eternally Exactly Right.  

 

Nobody on this forum has ever laid "it" out.  Why not become the first.  Or both you and Sapient can team up to explain the joy and wonders of atheism to the hoy paloy.    

BobSpence wrote:

 This 'Fonzie' seems determined to keep 'explaining' his faith and why 'it works for him'

He spends a lot of time gently mocking our failure to understand his faith, with responses which simultaneously demonstrate how little he understands our position, repeatedly making wildly inaccurate assumptions about where we are coming from.

I have found it an interesting exercise trying to refine my own understanding of such thinking, based on his comments, so I have tried to encourage him to explain himself, how he sees things.

 

 

Bob,

"this Fonzie" - (Sapient) - "how little he understands our position" "interesting exercise" "trying to refine my own understanding" "so I have tried to encourage him to explain himself"  "how he sees things"

It's pretty obvious where you're coming from Bob.  These are arrogant condescending  terms and statements.  But you have displayed the same attitude toward God (Who you don't believe in) - rating God How He Does Things, how you could do them better.  Hey, I'm in good company.

You view yourself as having found "it" and I poor fool haven't (whatever "it" is - you've never really explained "it" except "it's" like not collecting stamps for a hobby).  You have "understanding" and just need to "refine" it.           well   

You're totally free to approach life with this arrogance - but being wise in your own eyes is not a good or real learning position (considering what there is to know) or even a good start.   You would be better off to become a fool so you could become wise.  And I'm ok with being less bright than you BTW Bob.  The battle's not to the strong or the race to the swift.  And I'm ready for you to lay it all out as to where you're coming from (other than doing a "study" on me) so I don't make wildly inaccurate assumptions about "it".

Nobody on this forum has ever laid "it" out.  Why not become the first.  Or both you and Sapient can team up to explain the joy and wonders of atheism to the hoy paloy.