Fact vs. Fiction
Offline Let us answer these questions with all the honesty we can muster...
A yes or no - Fact or Fiction
Babys are born with sinful thought.
Babys are born Atheist.
(Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist) Wikipedia
The bible is made up of true life events.
Atheist are as a rule evil people.
Evolution is made up of fact based science.
Christian believe in god.
(The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition).So, like other propositional attitudes, belief implies the existence of mental states and intentionality, both of which are hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mind whose foundations and relation to brain states are still controversial) Wikipedia
I know there are a lot more where these came from, but lets start with these and see where we end up.
Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…
- Login to post comments
Fact. They are born with a sinful nature.
I cant say that I see any biblical evidence to go either way. The closest debate on this topic that I can think of it the debate of "lapsarianism". I would lean towards answering Fact, however I'm not sure that I know enough to answer either way for sure.
Fact and Fiction. Some things are true life events, other things are symbolic stories. Where the line is drawn is up for debate, and I don't think we can be 100% sure what is fact and what isn't.
Once again, it depends. If by evil you mean morally bad, then Fact...but that would also mean that everyone is evil because we all are morally wrong somewhere in our lives. If by evil you mean the popular idea of "evil", the Fiction. The difference between atheists and theists is ultimately AFTER life, while in this life theists are just as bad as everyone else.
Fact. It is made up of fact based science. However, the true fact v.s. fiction of evolution depend on whether you are talking about macro or micro evolution. I am a little bit more liberal in my view than most Christians, but I don't believe we all came from a single cell or anything like that. God created us and from there we evolved. Perhaps Adam was a hunched over pea brained cave man capable of only simple tasks. The Bible doesn't assert that the first man was exactly like modern man, physically or intellectually.
I'm not sure I follow. What is the question?
Good topic. Now, of course, my answers to the first few were based on the Bible. So if anyone wants to contest what I said, we're going to have to have that conversation on the playing field of assuming God exists and the Bible is true.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
Babies are born with sinful thought: No. They do not have the thought process to know right from wrong yet.
Babies are born atheist: Not sure whether or not to classify this as atheism. Refer to above statement about thought process.
The bible is made up of true life events: Maybe, maybe not. I haven't seen proof of any of it but if it is it should be in the horror section of the library.
Atheist are as a rule evil people: Maybe in some peoples eyes but I'm not evil.
Evolution is made up of fact based science: More factually than the bible has been as far as I've seen.
Christians believe in god: Eh hem, Christians I believe need some guidance in their lives that they can not find elsewhere so they turn to god. There was another thread on here about mental conditions and I have to say, I'm no psychologist but I do think Christianity should be deemed a mental condition. There are people with multiple personalities and they talk to those personalities as if they are sitting in the chair next to them. They have never seen god or Jesus personally but they know he exist. If I was a psychologist I would name this halusafrenia ad prescribe a pill called fukitol.
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
Baby's aree born with sinful thoughts: Impossible. Baby's are born with instincts for food and comfort. Non-instinctual thoughts come much later.
Baby's are born atheists: Most definitly! see above answer.
The bible is made up of true life events: Only in an extremly general sense.
Atheist are as a rule evil people: Nawh! Or maybe. I always planned to be evil but I never found the time for it.
Evolution is made up on fact based science: True!
Christians believe in god. I'm not all of that sure practicing christians actually believe in a god, they just seem to throw around that fictional jesus charactor has if if were a real person/god. Religion also gives them an excuse to hate their fellow man, and spread the hatre without guilt.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
No
Yes
Yes and no.
No
They claim so. I would say Yes based on what Christians told me.
Babys are born with sinful thought- Don't remember, it probably wasn't long after I started thinking but I don't even remember exactly when that happened. (I'm assuming you mean the christian version of sin)
Babys are born Atheist- fact
The bible is made up of true life events- fiction with perhaps a tiny bit of fact mixed in. Call it the worst historical fiction ever written.
Atheist are as a rule evil people- evil? Is there a such thing as evil? Fiction
Evolution is made up of fact based science-fact
Christian believe in god-fact
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Looks like we have some winners..
Becky, Jeffrick, and 100%
Acording to Crossover if a child is born and then dies minutes later he will go to hell. If he is born into sin and does not even have the chance to repent.
"Fact. They are born with a sinful nature."
"I cant say that I see any biblical evidence to go either way. The closest debate on this topic that I can think of it the debate of "lapsarianism". I would lean towards answering Fact, however I'm not sure that I know enough to answer either way for sure."
Can't see how you sleep at night.
Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…
I didn't say they'd go to hell. A baby deing before it had that capability to understand God would have a sinful nature, however for God to punish that would go against his loving and merciful nature. God chooses those he will save before they are even born, thus it is most likely (though not 100% garaunteed) that a baby would die and go to heaven.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
If he chooses who he will save before they were even born then what's the point in knowing god as your savior and praying. Man ya'll have some serious double standards.
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
Are you asking or accusing? I can't see how you would ask the question, then before you get the answer accuse.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
So if god has already chosen whether or not I am going to be saved then I am going to hell not because I have chosen not to believe in him but because he had some problem with me before I was even born???
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Is there a hidden message in your previous statement that I missed. Do I need to stare at it until my eyes blur and the answer will magically appear? If you think I was asking a question then I guess try and answer it to the best of your ability. You did say he chooses who he will save before they are even born. I'm just saying that if that is the case then theres really no point of praying and whatnot. I'm sure you're gonna argue you that though so ding ding ding, let's get ready to rumble!
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
Well, if you're looking to argue good luck. I've never met an atheist who could convince me to believe in another theological concept. Point being , you can't ask a question then accuse based on your assumptive answer to the question.
I'll break your original question down into two parts. 1) What is the point of knowing God? 2) What is the point of praying.
1) The answer is simple and is in the exact same verses that claim God's predestination. In Romans 8, it says "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son". Foreknew and conformed imply 2 things. 1) that God chose (along with predestined). And 2) that God made us know him. It's one of the basic points of Calvinism. Irresistible Grace. If God chose you, you will choose him. And in the sense of the word "know" as it is used here, isn't saying that God simply knew of us. It is saying God created a relationship with us. So what's the point? I guess really there is no POINT. It is, however, uncontrollable. If you do not know God then he didn't choose you. If he did choose you then you know him.
2) What is the point in praying if our destinies are already mapped out? God not only ordains the end, he ordains the MEANS to the ends as well. Part of the process he uses to bring his sovereign will to pass are the prayers of people.
Praying and growing closer to God aren't just ACTS. They are EVIDENCE as well. You can't say "Yay I accept Jesus. I'm not going to do anything, no praying, no fruit, not nothing. Ill just say I accept God and now I got heaven". So there is a point, but it's less about the POINT and more about the EVIDENCE to that point. If God chose you, you will know him. And just because God planned certain things, doesn't mean that there should be no prayer.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
By having sinful nature and not being saved sending a person to hell at the ripe old age of 85. The same then is true of a child. Or show me some passage that says: "bring me not your young, but rather your old and feeble"
Still doesn't mean I will believe it just what is the age cut off here. 6 maybe 16 I don't know.
There is something on www.evolvefish.com that said:
A man asked the christian, so let me get this strait if you hadn't told about Christ then I would have been OK. Christian, yes. Man, then why did you tell me
In your eyes everyone on the planet goes to hell unless they except YOUR god. Even kids
Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…
It's not a matter of knowledge but rather a matter of comprehension.
Deuteronomy 1:39 insist that infants have no knowledge of good or evil. Thought they may have a sinful nature at birht, they do not have the comprehension of that. There are more verses to support what I'm saying if you'd like.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
Crossover, you seem like a pretty decent and intelligent guy. How can you worship a being that selects certain people, apparently at random, to be saved while condemning other people to hell for eternity because he did not choose them???
I guess this take gets me over my issue of having to choose between heaven and grandma because apparently neither of us had a choice. I am an atheist because god made me one. Why? Does he flip a coin or something? Maybe he had something against my dog.
How can you describe a being that does such a thing as loving? Would you buy a couple dogs and decide to randomly beat one while giving the other TLC and goodies every day? I just don't get it. You are so honest about Christian beliefs but somehow miss the vileness of it.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
What is this sinful nature that you are refering to? Let's just say this is for the sake of argument that you place a child in a room or group them even with no interaction with the outside world. Where is the sinful nature? The only thing that would happen is that they would figure out how to repredues is this the sinful nature your refering to?
Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…
I'm not looking for an arguement however I do not remember saying " hey crossover, what's the point of praying and what's the point of exepting god as your savior".
Of course I did know you would come back with bible scripture rather than actual proof that prayer really does work. Theres another thread I posted on where the conversation turned into prayer for medical reasons. Prayer does not fix everything. As far as the baby going to hell senario, one in 3 pregnancies end up in miscarriage. Some cases, as well as my own giving someone false hopes of having a child. Now,as far as wanting to argue, apparently you were the one looking for one with statements you made about babies being born with sinful thought. Babies are not born with sinful thought they are born with instinct.Example: when they leave the dark warm womb into a cold bright birthing room, their instinct is to cry and squint their eyes.
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
Back to the point of this post:
You can't say that a child is born with sinful nature to be fact! You can say that they are born with no knowledge of sin. Remember this was fact or fiction there was not an option for I feel, or I presume.
Now if a child is born without sinful nature, and is also born Atheist... Well you see where I am going with this. I can say that out of all of the Atheist that I have met none where the killing crazy type.
There are some I am sure, but the list of crazy church going nut jobs that shot up schools out number them by the thousands.
Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…
Fact.
Unknown, no baby has ever affirmed or denied that s/he has no belief in God. Ask a baby if s/he believes in God and the answer you'll get is "goo goo gah gah", which is neither an affirmation nor a denial.
Fact.
Define "evil".
Fact and fiction. Evolution gets some things right, other things wrong.
Fiction. Christians believe in God with a capital "G"
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
Meaning of life what thoughts do these sinful children have?
Read the earlier post about locking them in a room. Is the natural desire to reproduce the sinful thought. I dont remember thinking of that until atleast 10 months or so. I mean really what sin does a child have. And by the book Christian would have to say that this child will go to hell for those sinful thoughts. Is this not bothering you at all?
Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…
They play with their wee-wee. Evidence enough of sinning for some christians.
And please, do not lump me in with the nut jobs. I do not and never have bought into being born in sin.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I am sorry about the nut jobs part, I just get pissed sometimes and let the old keyboard do the talking...
Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…
Nah, you have nothing to be sorry about. I happen to agree with you.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Fiction, they are born with the instincts of any other animal.
Fact, you can even wait around till they get old enough and ask them as long as religion and god have not been mentioned they wont know of any.
Fiction, not enough reality in the bible to consider it factual for any real purpose other than it's current fictional one.
Fiction, I as an atheist do not generally believe in good and evil, only productive and non-productive thought/behavior with few minor exceptions which have been ingrained by society.
Fact, it is based on observable evidence.
Fact, I assume most christians would believe or at least believe in belief of a god considering such a being is at the heart of their religion.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I'd have to point you straight to the scripture. No there are many that completely disagree with me on the idea of election, Calvinism is becoming a less popular view than it once was. However, I hold to it. As to why is it fair? As it says in what is to follow, does not the potter have control over what to do with his clay?
Romans 8
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
So, if you're assuming that a bunch of babies were to be put in a room with no outside contact they wouldn't ever sin, then how did anyone being sinning? If there is no sinful nature then how is there sin? Why doe everyone sin if not everyone has a natural tendency to sin? By my beleif if you locked them in a room, watched them grow up and gave them no contact with the outside world, by the time they could talk they would've figured out how to lie. How would they figure this out without having a sinful nature?
And I guess I should change my orignal answer to the question. Fact that Babies have sinful NATURE. But you didn't ask that, you asked if they had sinful THOUGHT. That I can't answer since I don't think any baby has effectively communicated their thought enough to express their sinful thoughts.
I think i should clear up some confusion that i have caused. Perhaps somewhere I wasn't clear, or perhaps somewhere I flat out messed up in saying something. But I'm not saying baby's are born sinning. I'm simply saying baby's are born with a natural tendency towards sin. It is in everyone's nature to tend towards that which is sinful. THAT is what I mean. NOT that baby's are born condemned atheist sinners. NOT that the second they leave the wound they are condemned to hell. Perhaps I wasn't clear, or perhaps I messed the hell up, but everyone seems to think that by sinful nature I mean they are born condemned sinners.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
If you locked a bunch of babies in a room with no contact with the outside world I'm fairly sure they would all starve to death. I think this would happen way before they got to a stage were they could either reproduce or lie.
I apologize. I misunderstood you and got to assumptive and bothered. That is my fault, and I am sorry.
But I would have to use the Bible to support the idea of prayer. There is no scientific way to prove prayer true or false since everything is too easily explained. You pray from rain and it happens, was it coincidence or prayer? You pray for rain and it stays dry, was it god saying no or proof that prayer doesn't work? there's no definitive proof. As far as the sinful thought thing, see my earlier post. I got mixed up. I answered the question as sinful NATURE and not sinful THOUGHT. There is a difference. And for that, once again, I apologize.
My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon
RatDog wrote:
"If you locked a bunch of babies in a room with no contact with the outside world I'm fairly sure they would all starve to death. I think this would happen way before they got to a stage were they could either reproduce or lie."
This was supposed to be hypothetical, but I do like the ration thought process. LOL
Crossover wrote:
"So, if you're assuming that a bunch of babies were to be put in a room with no outside contact they wouldn't ever sin, then how did anyone being sinning? If there is no sinful nature then how is there sin? Why doe everyone sin if not everyone has a natural tendency to sin? By my beleif if you locked them in a room, watched them grow up and gave them no contact with the outside world, by the time they could talk they would've figured out how to lie. How would they figure this out without having a sinful nature?"
One or two more statements like this one and i'm sure you be an Atheist.LOL. Good and bad people exists, I will not argue with that. It exists because it is thought, not because it is natural.
Again if we started a new civilization on another planet, and did not bring with us the gospel, but rather just rule that premoted good intention. Then where would your "evil" people come from.
Humans are born with needs, food, shelter, and procreation. In all to say that any of these are "bad, evil, unjust, ect..." is just plan rediculus.
Crossover wrote:
"And I guess I should change my orignal answer to the question. Fact that Babies have sinful NATURE. But you didn't ask that, you asked if they had sinful THOUGHT. That I can't answer since I don't think any baby has effectively communicated their thought enough to express their sinful thoughts."
Why would you change the answer we all know what you mean.
Again if you were to take one the worlds worst people say Adolf Hitler and gave him son, (again totaly hypothetical) and put him on that new planet, with no knowledge of his father, or his doings. Would he be a bad person? Only if someone thought him to be..
You see good and bad exists, but the notion that people are just bad by nature. NO that is not true. We are just products of our enviroment. Good intentions are natural, not evil. It is a taught process, not a thought....
Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…
My question wasn't questioning your interpretation of the bible. It is holding such a belief, how can you love god? If you believe there is a god, and he has the properties you have described here and in other threads how are you not disgusted by him? Basically I am saying it is possible to believe the god you describe exists but that does not mean you have to love him. So IF the god you describe exists, what redeeming qualities does he have? So far it sounds like he is arbitrary, cruel and abusive to humans simply because he has the power.
Most Christians I talk to simply deny the cruel things he does no matter how many bible verses you point out to them. You freely admit the things he does yet still maintain your love/worship of him. Why? It is kind of like the abused wife who freely admits her husband is abusing her but refuses to leave him. I just don't get it.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I already know what the Bible says God did. No need for you to copy and paste passages from atheist websites. Just answer this:
How do you know that what God does is cruel? What standard do you have to go on?
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
I consider choosing people before they are born to either be saved and thus destined for heaven which is supposedly great or not saved and destined to hell which is supposed to be horrible to be cruel.
I consider it cruel to damn people to hell for not believing in god when there is no evidence of his existence.
I consider it cruel to separate people from their loved ones by sending some to hell and others to heaven.
I consider it barbaric to send a loving great person to hell for not believing while allowing murderers and reprobates into heaven.
Those are all things I am told by Christians their god does. So I draw the conclusion that he is cruel. Do you think those actions are loving?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I didn't ask what you consider to be cruel.
I'm asking how you know that it is cruel. What standard do you have to go on?
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
How do you consider the claims of "god" to be cruel. Really did you just ask that. You know that we can "cut and paste bible cripture that by all meaning of the word are cruel. How do you know people are naturally "sinful" and by who's standards.
Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…
I am going by what you christians tell me because, according to you, I am not qualified to interpret the bible myself. As for my "standard" for cruel, It is cruel to inflict torture and pain especially for no good reason. You can either argue I am wrong in my claims of what you believe your god does or you can argue that they are not cruel. But if you think what I listed is not cruel then you are one sick twisted human being.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I didn't ask for your definition of "cruel". I'm asking where you get your definition from.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
Get the definition from whatever dictionary you want. As someone who was born and raised to speak English as my primary language I am quite comfortable with my use of the word "cruel". Are you arguing with my definition of the word cruel????? Why not try asking what the definition of the words "is" is. If you don't understand the big words I'm using you should probably grab a dictionary because I'm not going to explain each one to you. But just this once I will list a definition for you,
Cruel-
1. disposed to inflict pain or suffering: devoid of humane feelings
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
You can buy one from your local bookstore. Or you can even look it up on the Internet. Do you have any real substance to attack me on?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
That's not what I meant.
Dictionaries are written by people. Lexicographers gather sociological data in order to figure what people mean when they use certain words. It has nothing to do with the substance behind the definition, which is what I'm getting at. The definition you gave is an abstract. It does not tell us whether what God does is wrong nor does it really tell whether inflicting pain or suffering or being devoid of humane feelings is right or wrong. . If you are just going to stick to a vague definition like that, then it is morally wrong to fight back when someone is attacking you because doing so would inflict pain and suffering upon your attacker.. or it is morally wrong to be brain damaged and completely void of humane feelings.
My point is, you have no standard by which you can judge what is morally wrong and what is not. You've decided, arbitrary, to classify what God does as being cruel and you have no way of justifying that it actually is cruel beyond your subjective opinion.
We can stop now. I've clearly won this debate because you've evaded my question twice and then when you finally attempted to answer it, not only did you give a vague and useless idea, but you still failed to cite your standard. You have none. Some atheists are just easy to deal with and you are one of them. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you simply have not done your homework beyond checking out a couple of atheist websites (it's just so obvious that it is not funny).
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
All of the English language was made by people. I never made the claim that being cruel is morally wrong. I did not make any moral claim whatsoever.
No, my classification of your theoretical god as cruel is based on the series of points I made above about his behavior. Then I posted the definition of cruel I am using. Again, I made no claim that the cruelty is moral, immoral or amoral. I am not talking about morality at all. I simply stated that I would not worship a cruel god and my bewilderment that a decent person like crossover could worship him. It is no surprise to me that you would worship a cruel god.
That is funny. You declare victory but have failed to address either of my points. You have not addressed my argument that god is cruel, instead you argue about morality which is not even at issue. Your theoretical god is either cruel or he isn't regardless of whether or not being cruel is moral. Nor have you suggested any reason why I should worship a cruel god. So if you want to argue I am wrong about god being cruel make your argument. If you want to argue that god is cruel but should still be worshiped, fine make your argument. If you want to start a debate about moral standards and whether or not being cruel is moral start a new thread. And you accuse me of not doing my homework. All you had to do was read a single thread and apply a little brain power.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
So inflicting torture or pain is cruel, but it's not morally wrong?
So if I do not think it is cruel, I am 'sick' and 'twisted', yet if I do not concede that these are morally wrong, then I am not sick and twisted?!
So you will not worship God, even though nothing he does is morally wrong?
LOL
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
Cruelty may or may not be morally wrong. I am not looking to discuss that. It is immaterial to my argument in this thread.
I didn't make the claim that nothing your theoretical god does is morally wrong. I find a lot about your theoretical god morally wrong. But my question to crossover was not about morality. It was about cruelty and a question of how he can worship a cruel god. If you think the things god supposedly does that I listed do not inflict torture and pain then you are sick and twisted. It takes a sick and twisted person to think that sending people to hell for not believing in god is not inflicting torture and pain. I also believe it is immoral but again morality is not the main issue I am addressing here. If you can't grasp that simple premise I am wasting my time with you.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
This is just your attempt to change the subject. You made the claim that God is cruel and that Christian are sick for worshipping him. The only context in which this makes sense is if what God does is morally wrong. You realize the trap you got caught in and now you are attempting to just change things around.
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
No I made the claim that YOU are sick and twisted. Not all Christians. Fortunately, you do not represent all Christians. It is cruel to kill an animal and eat it but it is not morally wrong. I would not expect the animal I kill to worship me. I expect it to run for its life or if it is capable to try to kill me first. I would describe a shark as cruel but it is absurd to claim a shark is immoral. I do not understand worshiping a powerful being that inflicts pain and suffering on us. You are the one changing the subject. Not once have you addressed my claims that god is cruel, nor explained why humans should worship him. Instead you are hung up on morality which I guess is what the theist website you want to cut and paste from talks about.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
First you state:
I consider choosing people before they are born to either be saved and thus destined for heaven which is supposedly great or not saved and destined to hell which is supposed to be horrible to be cruel.
I consider it cruel to damn people to hell for not believing in god when there is no evidence of his existence.
I consider it cruel to separate people from their loved ones by sending some to hell and others to heaven.
I consider it barbaric to send a loving great person to hell for not believing while allowing murderers and reprobates into heaven.
Those are all things I am told by Christians their god does. So I draw the conclusion that he is cruel. Do you think those actions are loving?
Then you state:
If you think what I listed is not cruel then you are one sick twisted human being.
Now you are stating:
No I made the claim that YOU are sick and twisted. Not all Christians. Fortunately, you do not represent all Christians.
Let's put your premises together:
(1) Christians tell me that they worship a God who does things that I consider cruel.
(2) Anybody who does not think of those things as being cruel is sick and twisted.
Now you are arguing that only I am sick and twisted. So let's try to reconcile this with what you've already stated. In order for you to be consistent, you'd have to believe the following:
(1) Christians worship a God whom they believe to be really cruel.
OR
(2) Christians do not actually worship the God that they tell me is their God.
On top of all this, you are saying that being cruel is not morally wrong, and yet this is your rationale for determining that one ought not to worship this God? Could you make any less sense?
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
Yes. Except it isn't necessarily only you who is sick & twisted, some other christians are with you. Although my statement about you being sick & twisted was really not a central part of my argument. It was more of a sideswipe and an indulgence in an ad hominem attack in retaliation to the random ad hominem's you have thrown at me. So grow up and get over it.
I was asking a question of Crossover because based on my previous conversations with him I consider him a reasonable and thoughtful person. So my question to him was Do you really worship a god that you believe is cruel? And if so why? I don't know what he thinks because he hasn't been back to respond yet. And I wouldn't lump all christians in together. Some might worship him and believe he is not cruel, either through ignorance or some weird way of thinking that what he supposedly does is not cruel. Others simply might not have ever thought of it in those terms. Some might believe he is cruel and worship him anyway. I don't know. That is why I was asking a question. To get an answer because I am genuinely curious. Not to make a particular point. My only real point through the whole conversation is that your theoretical god is cruel. Which you have not addressed in any way.
It is quite simple. Even if there were a god I'm not sure the concept of morality even enters the picture. Do you consider it immoral to kill or even torture ants? I never said my rationale for not worshiping god is because he is immoral. I do not believe that god even exists. So the main reason I don't worship him because it is foolish to worship something that you believe is non-existent. I am trying to understand WHY christians worship a god if they believe he is cruel. If you believe that cruelty is necessarily immoral then all the more reason not to worship him. But I am not interested in discussing whether or not your theoretical god is moral or whether or not cruelty is necessarily immoral. I don't care. It doesn't bother me if people are moral or immoral because I don't put much stock in the term.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Somebody get me a beer
I'm not repeating myself again.
Umm, you said that the Christian God did all of these "cruel" things and that I was stick and twisted for not thinking that these things were cruel. As such, you are saying that all Christians who do not find these things to be cruel are sick and twisted. Now an important premise that you left out is this:
Christians would not worship God if they thought he was cruel. I've never met a single Christian who says, "Yeah, God is cruel, but I'll worship him anyway." In fact, I can link you to an entire article from a Christian website (and Calvinist at that) arguing the exact opposite. Here you go:
http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-cruel.html
So yes, by your logic, all Christians would be sick and twisted because there is not a single Christian you can point me to who is going to acknowledge that God is cruel.
The whole point of your argumentation is to show that the Christian God is evil, cruel, and what not. My point is: you have no standard by which you can judge what is evil, cruel, or immoral. That is why you evaded my original question and I had to repeat it several times before you finally attempted to answer it.
You were using "cruel" in this pejorative sense, meant to demonstrate that the God of the Bible does things that are morally wrong. You are now trying to backpeddle and evade that point, but you've already painted yourself into a corner. You cannot justify why God is wrong. You simply take some generic definition of "cruel" and say that God is cruel because man defined "cruel" as X and God does X. It's like saying that God is a jerk because "jerk" is defined in the Homer Simpson dictionary as "someone who kills people". Well yeah, he kills people, but did you examine the context in which he does it? You've offered nothing of substance.
You are simply arguing from your emotions and trying to give Christians some sort of guilt trip for following God, when you yourself cannot even justify why God is bad (remember, you've already stated that being cruel is not immoral, so you cannot revert back to "cruel"
and, as a result, why it is bad to follow God.
That wasn't your question. Your question was the following:
It is holding such a belief, how can you love god? If you believe there is a god, and he has the properties you have described here and in other threads how are you not disgusted by him?
Then your question was:
So IF the god you describe exists, what redeeming qualities does he have? So far it sounds like he is arbitrary, cruel and abusive to humans simply because he has the power.
Basically, I can reformulate your question in following way:
God is evil because he is cruel, arbitrary, and abusive, though I do not necessarily believe that being cruel, arbitrary, and abusive is evil. So how you can worship him if he is evil, though he is not actually evil because I admit that the things which I've described are not actually evil, but you still should not worship him. Why oh why?
Again, that was not your question. Christians do not believe that God is cruel, abusive, or arbitrary. Those are qualities that you ascribed to him and you could not even justify how those apply to God. Realizing that, you changed everything around to say that you were not talking about morality, you are just using these generic definitions.
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
The standards of todays society deem the god of the bible to be cruel and unusual. We all go by societal standards like it or not the bible's standards are no longer useful, if they ever really were to begin with.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
According to Nazi Germany's standards, it was not cruel and unusual to commit mass genocide. Therefore, by your logic, the Nazis were not wrong.
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.