Why offer the same evidence you dismiss?
Offline Any discussion about the existence of God, or the truthfullness of a certain religion centers around evidence. However, competing religions often cite the SAME evidence; thus theists simultaniously claim and dismiss the same evidence.
Christians, why do you claim the existence of the Universe is proof of your God, but dismiss it as evidence of Allah, Zeus, Oden, Vinishu, or the Flying Spagetti Monster?
Why do you accept the Bible's claim of being divinely inspired while simultaniously dissmissing similar claims within the the Koran and the Book of Mormon? (as well as every other "Holy Book")
Why do you dismiss miracles claimed by Mormons, Muslims, Hindu's, and Buddhists while demanding that your miracles be acknowledged as evidence of the divine?
How can you claim faith as "evidence" of your God, while ignoring the faith of billions of people who believe in different God's?
How can you cite answered prayers as proof of your God's divine intervention, while refusing to acknowledge answered prayers of Muslims as proof of the divine intervention of Allah? (side note: All Gods are very bad at answering prayers... as such all have a statistical success rate equal to chance. There is no statistical advantage for praying to one God as opposed to the another.)
Arguments for truth of any religion, or the existence of any God, consist primarily of demanding that your "evidence" be accepted without question, while identical evidence, presented by competing religions, is wholely dismissed.
Is there any honest argument for your God which you are not accepting on one side and simultaniously dismissing it with the other? Is there any evidence for your God which can not also be used to prove the existence of the God(s) from other current, or former, religions?
"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?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
- Login to post comments
Okay, it's true that other beliefs can share the same structure. You say "If someone actually believed this". Well, they did. And there are many other religions that believe exclusively their own way is the way to be saved and that christians and others are the ones decieving themselves.
I wasn't trying to make anyone sound stupid. I don't know where you got that. Maybe it sounded stupid to you, but I was trying to make a point about perception. You perceive that we actually believe in your god, even though you cannot know that. And I'm sure somewhere, someone thinks you are the one who is denying the "one true way" based on their belief structures. In my example, actual Norse religious beliefs.
Wow.
I'm impressed that you ask, "is that all you have to say to my reply?" when you have completely ignored quite a few questions with simple yes or no answers.
If I may, would you mind responding to the following questions from previous posts.
1) Do you HONESTLY believe there was a time and a place where slaughtering disrespectful children was right and good? Do you think the command to rip open pregnant women, slaughter old men, and keep virgin woman as sex slaves was EVER "just" or "holy?" (adamgrant) Yes or no.
2) The bloody cruel laws of the Old Testament were created by the same God who sacrificed himself to himself in the New Testament. Perhaps that's why Jesus said he didn't come to change "one jot or tittle" of the old law. He made it. He commanded it. He ordered it. Jesus/God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:.) (also adamgrant) Care to say if it was the same god or not? This is a yes or no question.
3) Pentecostals would say he never knew Jesus if he hadn't received "gifts of the spirit." You said he never knew Jesus because he spoke in tongues. Is there any definition of a Christian who turned atheist to which you wouldn't respond by claiming they were never "really" Christian?
You wrote words in response to this question, but you didn't answer the question. You wrote about one person. This is a broad question with a yes or no answer. If you answer yes, you should provide us with the definition you would accept.
You're perfectly capable of reading these questions and understanding that the answer is one of two words. Certainly you can expound on your one word answer as much as you like, but these questions don't leave room for a "maybe" answer. Would you mind returning to these unanswered questions before you accuse others of not answering yours?
Just to make it clear, would you mind posting a yes or no answer to questions 1, 2, and 3?
Thanks a bunch
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
"The unforgivable sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit has been interpreted in various ways, but the true meaning cannot contradict other Scripture. It is unequivocally clear that the one unforgivable sin is permanently rejecting Christ (John 3:18; 3:36). Thus, speaking against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to rejecting Christ with such finality that no future repentance is possible. Jesus had performed a great miracle of creation, involving both healing and casting out a demon, but the Pharisees rejected this clear witness of the Holy Spirit. Instead they attributed His powers to Satan, thus demonstrating an attitude permanently resistant to the Spirit, and to the deity and saving Gospel of Christ." - unknown quote.
as you see, AZ, this sin has absolutely nothing to do with anyone who has fallen away from the family. if someone actually commits this sin - if thats even possible anymore - they would've never been in the family to begin with.
You were wrong. God always promises to keep his children in his hands - no matter how far they fall away.
You must please quote these "commands" so I know which verses you are talking about. Then we can put them into context. Were they really sanctioned by God? Or were they just recorded in the Bible? Remember, God didnt command or approve of every historical act thats written in the bible. And if God did command them: why did he command them? were they meaningless slaughters or righteous judgments?
Please, quote these verses and we can talk.
Cruel? Depends on your definition of cruel and in which context you are speaking. But other than that, you are absolutely right.
Precisely!
Amen!
yes, but he also hates, he is angry, and he is wrathful.
you falsely assume that love cannot include punishment or anger or suffering. whoever said pain or suffering was bad for us anyway?
um, im confused.
i did answer those questions. pretty accurately and clearly. now you're accusing me of not answering the questions because i didn't specifically write the words "yes" or "no"?!
i'll keep it simple for you:
2. yes. the god of the old is the same god of the new.
3. yes. one example has already been given, and that example was a personal contact.
The only question I cannot answer yet is question 1 because the premises of the question have not been fully defined yet.
Awesome!
Thank you. I'm sorry if I missed actual yes or no answers.
I don't want to speak for adamgrant, so I'll ask what I *think* he was asking in a different way that may make it more clear to you.
God dictated the laws to the Israelites. Among the laws he dictated were guidelines for selling your daughter into slavery, the death penalty for disobeying your parents, trying to convert someone to another religion, and doing any work on the Sabbath. In many instances, God instructed the Israelites to slaughter women and children, and to keep the virgin women as slaves. (Be sure when you're thinking about this that they had to determine the virgin status of women somehow... how do you think they did it?) Consider this passage from 2 Kings 2: 23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
Yes, God killed 42 children for calling a man "baldhead."
So, the yes or no question to you is this:
1) Do you believe these commands, decrees and actions are good and loving?
Thanks for your yes or no answer.
(edit: Sorry, I have been saying adamgrant wrote the questions. AZ wrote them, and adamgrant hasn't answered this last question yet. Curious... he's posted in a couple other topics, and hasn't had the time to just say yes or no... I'm patient. Maybe he hasn't seen the post yet.)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I don't buy this.
So, you are saying that since we could not have imagined these qualities ourselves, they were given to us by God, right? Does that mean that we understand them now? So, you understand the concepts of perfection and eternity?
I doubt you understand them in any intimate sense, as you are correct that in that sense we are incapable of understanding such things. So I'll interpret it that you now understand the word, because God revealed them to us. Let's analyze this.
Words are indexical; they refer to things. So when I say "perfect," as in "this sandwich is perfect," the term perfect refers to the state (taste, texture, etc) of the sandwich. But is my use of "perfect" appropriate? What does perfect mean?
From the wictionary:
Well, in what way is God "perfect"? Does God fit his own definition precisely? If you answer yes, you are using circular logic. By defining God and saying he's perfect as one of its attributes....you should get this point by now...
Does God have all it's parts in harmony with its purpose?
what parts? what are they and what do they do?
Is God thoroughly skilled and talented?
If God creates, does God create well?
Is God excellent and delightful in all respects?
I'd say no, but you might disagree
Is God complete in action?
meh...
Or do you mean that God is simply the best in all possible ways, a la the ontological argument?
Do you really know what the implications of saying that "God is perfect" are?
If you do, then you have a supernatural ability I do not. if you don't, then you don't know anything about God, you just like to propose a bunch of attributes and say that the collection of those words infers God. That's just silly.
Similarly for "eternal."
The point is that we don't really have an understandning of what these terms mean. And insofar as we do, we understand them indexically; that is, we use our understanding of precision, harmony, skill, talent, excellence, delightfulness, etc and project them beyond our ken. That is, we just apply the concept of "infinity" or "transcendent" to them and say that wherever our intellect and imagination ends, it keeps going beyond that (for ever and ever).
What does this mean? nothing. We can say that God is perfect and eternal, but that does not mean anything. They are signs (words) that point beyond the horizon, so they functionally point to no-where and to no-thing. If you don't understand how language does this all the time and that we use words the antecedents of which we don't have any actual understanding, then you really have no business in a discussion about such things.
That is, if you don't understand how imagination and laguage allow us to think about things, even "eternal and perfect things," that don't necessarily exist, then you have no place in a discussion of this sort.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Thank you, I didn't know there was a name for that!!
"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?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
Just curious... Can you provide any verses from the Old Testament laws which imply an expiration date? Is there any place where it says "Thou shalt not ... UNTIL..."
To my knowledge, the Old Testament has no verses which express or imply a termination to the law at any time.
Sure, Jesus could SAY he was there to "fulfill" the law, but if the law doesn't say it expires once "fulfilled" then there is no reason to think Christians wouldn't be obligated to abide by it.
Please provide Old Testament verses which demonstrate 1) That the law CAN be "fulfilled"... and 2) That the law cancels itself out at some point.
"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?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
I never said the truths of evolution was innate knowledge. I said the truth of no god was innate knowledge. And that's true. Religion needs to be taught to people. Children are not born believing on God, their parents instill those beliefs in them.
People have a tendency to see intelligence where there is none. How many times have you seen someone complaining about their car as if it had a mind of it's own. They'll say things like "talk nice to it" or "she's a moody one" or some other similar comment. Nowadays, most people do not really think their car is alive, but this tendency isn't a new development.
Ancient humans would've "seen" intelligence everywhere. It's only with our modern knowledge that we know lightening, storms, rain, the sun, the moon, the stars, earthquakes, etc. are no more alive than our cars.
If an ancient human were to somehow see a modern automobile, they would believe it was alive and intelligent. They would be wrong. Ancient human beings conceived of a "god" because they saw intelligence in other non-intelligent places. They were wrong.
God was conceived to answer questions which they didn't possess knowledge enough to address. "Magic" was created for the same purpose. (Truely, answering "God did it" explains events exactly as well as saying "It happened by magic.")
The idea of creation was brought about in the same way. Ancient humans had no idea how the world came to be, so they invented an explanation. They attributed it to the being they dreamed up.
This is why no one can provide an answer to the often asked question "What is a God?" No description can be given. No one can explain the physical differences between a God and an Angel, or Devil, or Demon. If all were lined up next to each other, how could you tell them apart?
"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?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
Adam, if a Muslim were to perform miracles of healing, and casting out demons, would you "reject this clear witness of the Holy Spirit" and "attribute his powers to Satan," like the Pharisees?
If so, how are you any better than they who have commited the unforgivable sin?
"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?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
The command to kill disrespectful children can be found in Exodus, right along side the other laws. (Exodus 21:17) Right after God explains the "right" way to sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7-11), but right before God says it's okay to beat your slaves as long as you don't kill them (Exodus 21:20-21).
These aren't situational events, these are commands which we are supposed to live by. There is no "context" error possible here. These are as clear as the ten commandments.
There are also numerous events in which God commanded his people to "utterly destroy" every man, woman, suckling, ox, camel, etc... (Read most of Joshua) Is there any time when this kind of wholesale human slaughter is justified?
The God of the Bible is cruel. It doesn't depend on your definition of cruel (unless your definition excludes human and animal sacrifice, genocide, bodily mutilation, and slavery).
"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?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
HAM, I am here!! I didn't see your post until last night and didn't have time to reply due to my work schedule.
To be honest, I'm going to have to give you 2 different answers because you have asked this question 2 different ways.
1) Are these commands, decrees and actions good?
ANSWER: YES. They are good, holy, and just because they came from a good, holy and just God who punishes evil and does not condone sin. There must be wrath. God's righteousness and justice are meaningless attributes if wickedness is not punished.
Your failure with this argument against the Christian God is that you suppose God had no reason to do such a thing, and that he killed many innocent people. However, the bible says that the people were so corrupted in sin that there was no hope for them. It was not just some arbitrary command that lacked reason. Those cities/people were so depraved that God killing them preserved the morality of His people. None of these people were innocent, not even babies (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). The children would have grown up the exact same as their parents and neighbors.
Look at Sodom and Gomorrah for an example. These cities were so lacking in righteous people that they could not be spared from total destruction (Gen. 18:22-33). Noah and his family were the ONLY ONES that were not totally corrupt on earth prior to the flood. These actions were good, because without them, the world would've destroyed itself with its wickedness. His goodness is seen in the hundreds of years God gave them to repent; justice is seen when their continual rejection of His grace is finally punished (Deut. 9:4-6).
Does God still command these large-scale murders today? No. Why? There is no reason to. The state of humans today is not as bad, and not as corrupt as it used to be. Which further proves my belief that evil deeds are ceasing to exist... slowly but surely.
2) Are these actions loving?
ANSWER: this is a little tougher to answer. If you want a simple "yes" or "no" i'm afriad I cannot do that. This is not an either/or situation. We must define towards who it is loving. After all, love must have an object. If you mean was it loving towards the people that got killed, then by no means. it was an act of judgment against them. But, if you mean were they loving towards his people, then YES.
"It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Deuteronomy 9:5)"
"When the LORD your God cuts off before you the nations which you are going in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, 'How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?' (Deuteronomy 12:29-30) "
“However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites — as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 20:16-18).
The Israelites failed in this mission as well, and exactly what God said would happen occurred (Judges 2:1-3; 1 Kings 11:5; 14:24; 2 Kings 16:3-4). God did not order the extermination of these people to be cruel, but rather to prevent even greater evil from occurring in the future. It was a loving act and a merciful act for the greater good of the rest of mankind.
P.S. The Elisha-baldhead verse specifically is more than likely referring to a street gang of sorts of young men. hardly small, innocent infants. Jewish Old Testament scholars all believe that the verse implies they were threatening Elisha, with the intent of violence and death. Feel free to look it up.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
AdamGrant:
You actually consider that shit MORAL???!!???
Just because he's God that makes it OK? That is simply might makes right, and by that reasoning if Hitler would have won, he would have been a perfectly moral person. 
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
OOh... let me answer this for Christians... I know the answer...
(beginning to speak in a sing-song kiddie voiece)
Hitler's just a man, and man obeys God's Law
God is God, so God gets to do whatever he wants, because he IS the law.
Here's the proof:
1) The Bible says God is all-loving.
2) The Bible says God did some things that are immoral and evil
3) Since God is all-loving, these things are actually good.
4) (but only if God does them)
5) By acting immoral and evil, God is proving his own existence by breaking his own laws.
6) Therefore, God exists.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
So, back to the point... Would you mind doing one of two things?
Either:
1) Prove that the verse I quoted is inaccurate, and God wants you to blather on about how yes doesn't mean yes and no doesn't mean no. You can't prove it just by saying it ain't so. The verse doesn't seem to have any qualifiers on it about how we can't apply the verse to talking about God.
OR
2) Modify your answer to either "yes" or "no"
Thanks!
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
hambydammit,
when you actually start reading the bible in context then maybe we can have intelligent discussions about the bible. but as long as you twist its words, and take out bits and pieces to try to fit your own personal arguments against it, we really have nothing to talk about. This kind of tactic does not work. It's manipulative and deceiving. You will not be able to persuade any half-way intelligent christian of anything. I'm amazed at how many things in the Bible you guys criticise, when the bible doesn't really even teach it!
FOR EXAMPLE: in Matthew 5:33-37 Jesus was clearing up some false interpretations of lawful oaths. KEY WORD: OATHS. (Ham, were you wanting me to swear any oaths? If so, I didn't notice.) The jews thought that only some oaths were binding, depending on what men swore by (i.e. god, jerusalem, the earth, or their head). Jesus was saying that such disctinctions were in vain and that ALL oaths are binding. But beyond that, he was saying that men's words ought to be true and binding even without oaths. if men were truthful they would simply speak the truth and there would be no need for legal oaths. hence, "let your yes be yes and your no be no."
Please take notice that Jesus never said anything beyond "yes" and "no" is evil. he said it comes from evil, meaning that it is necessitated by the prevalence of untruthfulness. it is because all men have become liars that oaths and bindings had to be enforced. Jesus was simply saying to be honest in all regards of your life.
Not only is this verse irrelevant to our discussion, and not only did you pull it way out of context, but Scripture specifically teaches that we are to give a ready-defense for the faith and to convince, rebuke, and exhort (2 Tim. 4:2-4). In regards to defending the faith, the bible does not say "just answer with a yes or a no, and don't even try to offer reason or defense." Absurd!
Please, I suggest you no longer take scripture out of context.
hahaha. what a nutty premise and conclusion. If any christian in the world ever did believe this, I'm on your side on how completely ignorant and irrational it is.
What do you even mean by 'all-loving?' If you mean that God loves everything/everyone, i would disagree. The bible does not teach that. God says in Malachi 1:2-3, "Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated." The Psalms frequently mention God's hate towards certain things and people. God is loving, but he does hate. God is merciful, but he does punish. These aspects of his nature seem negative, but they are not in conflict with each other. They do not contradict (biblically, at least).
The Bible does not say God did evil or immoral things. He never breaks his own law, Jesus never even broke God's law. In fact, every action of God's (especially with punishment) is based solely on his law. To suggest that the bible shows God breaking his own laws is un-warranted. You cannot prove that anywhere. I dare you to try. OH! But please, only yes or no answers from now on.
God killing people moral? I never said it was moral, I said it was JUST, HOLY, and GOOD. It's neither moral or immoral, its the response to their immorality.
Might does not make right. But, God makes right. The issue here is that it appears to you that God partakes in evil deeds because he commanded people be killed. he even commanded his Son to be killed (what a jerk, right?) You think that God breaks his own laws, and contradicts himself.
But, imagine for just one second, if you will, that this God does exist. Suppose the teachings of his character in the Scriptures is correct (most wise, most holy, sovereign, just, almighty, etc). Based from this understanding the doctrines in the Bible go from being pure "babble" to pure truth. Starting from that premise, there are no more seemingly-contradictory verses. rather, everything makes sense. it's the only religion that flows logically and rationally.
Would you agree that if this God existed, and if he was most holy, most wise, sovereign, almight, and all creation was dependent on Him that he deserved to be feared and revered? Would you agree that if this God existed and if he was truly just, and most holy, that then - and only then - he would have the right to deal with mankind as His infinite wisdom dictates?
It is from this premise that you must look at the Bible to see if it is contradictory or not. Because it is the premise that the Bible sets forth about God's character and attributes.
I asked you to show me how it's out of context. That was one of the choices.
Instead, you have decided to attack me personally (ad-hominem... isn't that the logical fallacy?) and then walk right into another logical trap.
Here's the passage in question.
So, this passage brings up a real problem for you. (Clever how I laid a trap for you and let you bring this up, eh?)
Is Jesus speaking literally, or metaphorically? If he's speaking literally, you better hope you never get called to testify in court, eh? What about owning a home? Or a lease? Every time you sign a legal document, you're swearing an oath. Car? Forget it.
Jesus couldn't be speaking literally, could he?
If he was, then he wasn't omniscient, because he couldn't forsee that it would be impossible for Christians to live in the 21st century without swearing oaths.
So maybe Jesus was speaking metaphorically. If he was, then he wasn't talking about "oaths" specifically. He was talking about a lifestyle. In life, he is saying, speak simply and clearly, for you have seen how the lawyers and politicians use rhetoric to cloud up simple issues!
If my original argument had been that Jesus told Christians never to make oaths, so Christians can never own anything on credit, you'd have said I was taking it out of context, and that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about a lifestyle. Now that interpretation is causing you to do the olympic backpedal on a simple yes or no question that you don't want to answer because you'll have to admit your silly little god is an evil dick.
adamgrant, you're the one who uses whatever context suits your conclusion. You're being a hypocrite.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Bullshit.
You have to change definitions every twenty seconds to defend your god.
Justice? For this word to have meaning, there has to be a standard. God's justice is arbitrary, so it's not justice. Holy? This word is like "faith." It's nonsense unless you buy the lies. Good? as opposed to what? Bad, or evil? Who is it good for? Was it good for children to be stoned to death for talking back to their parents? Not for the kids, for sure! For the parents? I think not. What a rotten, loathsome son-of-a-bitch god was for forcing parents to stone their own children for something that every single child in the history of the world has done! What a completely evil, hideous, and malevolent asshole!
You're defending this supposed being by saying that he is good?! But that good means something different for him than for us? Yeah, it does. It means EVIL
No.
(See. I can do what you can't, because i have logic on my side.)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Wow, what a disturbing post. If it WAS proven that your god existed and had done all that stuff, i would not think it is "JUST, HOLY, and GOOD." I would NOT agree "he deserved to be feared and revered and had the right to deal with mankind as His infinite wisdom dictates."
Man, oh, man, what a jerk he must be. That's like beating a child to within an inch of their life for not eating their brussels sprouts. Or a dictator killing people for going out past curfew.
I had a friend whose dad used to say(jokingly, I hope....) "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it." Is that ok?
Just 'cause your god has supposedly better judgement, that makes acts of evil okay? Oh, but they aren't evil, they're "just". Because god makes up the rules of what just is. Just like a dictator or an abusive parent.
Jeez, disturbing. If it was ever proven that your god existed, adamgrant, I'd have to think long and hard about serving someone who treats their followers like that. Good thing that'll probably never happen.
You have an almost insane ability to twist logic so that only your irrational belief matters.
That argument I wrote IS your argument, you just don't recognize it when you reduce it down to simple "yes and no" style statements. Ok, it's possible you haven't said the exact words "all-loving" but you can substitute any of your words in there.. just, holy, good, whatever. The argument's still ridiculous.
And you are quite correct that it's a nutty argument.
So, how about this:
Thou shalt not kill.
Did we not reference sodom and gomorrah just a while ago? or was that another thread? Anyway, that's a lot of people.
The flood? Everybody on earth save Noah and his posse? That's pretty nasty.
What about Lot's wife? Turned into a pillar of salt for turning her head around? Nasty way to die, I'd say. Hand of god was definitely implicated.
I really don't feel like going on, because you're going to tell me that these aren't really examples of him breaking his own commandments because he can break his own commandments because he's good and just and holy, so his commandments don't apply to him.
Circular logic is so boring.
Oh, wait! I just thought of the answer! It's so simple. "Thou shalt not kill" is not a law. It's a commandment. Geez. If only I remembered the adamgrant philosophy of argument "When proven wrong, redefine the word."
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Adam,
If the attributes of God, as have been discussed here, were held by any person in the world, would you even want them as a friend (let alone worship them)?
Would you want to spend time with this person? Would it matter if this person was really nice to you but was cruel and merciless to those who he didn't liek?
If yes, then I don't want to spend time with you and your friends.
If no, then why would you want to kiss this God's ass to spend eternity with this asshole? Is it because you want to be on the inside and want to avoid the violence that this God gives out like candy on Halloween? That's just fear. it's the kind of behavior that makes people not stand up to actual evil. That is, when people threaten, some fight back and others side with the evil to stay out of harm (like Heidegger did when the NAZIs came around). That kind of cowardess would make you the pet of many a bully in the real world, so why is it different with God?
Personally, I'll take my chances. Even if Christianity might be true, I think my chances are good that the devil might have something better for me. Afterall, the only evidence I have that the devil is actually bad and that hell is torture comes from the words of people who follow a meglomaniacal, violent, and extremely jealous asshole. Not the kind of information I usually trust.
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
hold up, now. be fair. if you pay any attention to the dates and times of these postings, youll see that you posted that reply at 13:28 and I posted mine at 13:40. Even though it appears to come after yours, I had not seen your post yet because I was still writing mine! I didn't know you had asked me to prove it was out of context. instead, i was going ahead and doing it anyway.
By the way, I did prove you took that verse out of context and I guess I'll have to further prove that you are wrong again...... Man, I love red herrings!
If this was a trap, it was the weakest trap i've ever been in and the easiest i've ever gotten out of.
Jesus never commanded people to never take oaths. It's nowhere in the text. You are just reading into it for your little spins, pal. The oaths Christ condemned were the ones that didn't envoke God's name. It says not to swear by heaven, jerusalem, the earth, or your head. When the Jews swore by those 4 things they regarded them as violable. But jesus was saying that those swears were pointless, and that men should be truthful at all times. (hence, let your yes be yes and your no be no.) However, this never contradicts that we can make oaths unto God. Read Deut. 10:20.
Also, if you had've read the bible, and weighed all the scriptures instead of a few verses, you would've known that Christ himself took an oath!!! Matthew 26:63-64. Therefore, Christ never taught that we should never take oaths. Quite the contrary. He was refuting the false interpretations of oaths, much like i'm having to do with you.
again, please stop taking scripture out of context if you wish to combat it.
If your only problem is that I didn't answer your questions with only a "yes" or "no", then tough luck. I'm not obligated by you or to the bible to limit my answers.
Don't want to answer? I did answer them! Have you not read any of my posts?!! Were the killing acts in the Old Testament good? YES. Were these acts Loving? Yes, towards the Jews. No, towards the ungodly. I suggest you stop lying about me. I answered your questions with yes or no answers. If you didn't like that i expounded on them, tough. Or, perhaps you didn't like the answers because you know that if you lived during those times that you would've been one of the ones killed. I do not wish such a thing upon you, and I know that I, too, would've been one of the ones killed. But our anger cannot let us get in the way of weighing ALL evidence of scripture.
So far you've tried using Scripture to refute Scripture. So far, you have failed. The bible says God is just, and must punish sin. The bible says that God punished some races of people due to their total corruption in sin. No contradiction. The bible says that God is loving. The bible says that God loved his chosen people that he had some races of people killed due to their total corruption in sin to perserve the goodness and morality of his chosen people. No contradiction. You simply have God utilizing both attributes at the same time, towards different people for different reasons. No contradiction.
When did i change defintions? i have no idea what you are talking about. You asked me if i thought God's commands to kill sinful people in the Old testament were good or holy. I said yes, and they were just. I never said they were moral. But they weren't immoral either. It's neither. His love and his justice are responses to our morality or our immorality.
There is a standard. God laid the rules out from the beginning. Since you are using Scripture, i will ask you to prove with Scripture that God's justice is arbirtrary. You will not find it.
Keep in mind, the law was given to the jews, and the jews only. The old testament laws were not applicable to gentiles. the law was brought to condemn sinners and for them to realize their need for a savior. The law was also brought (and the strict rules) so that his people would live righteous lives, in proper relation to God, becase he chose them as the nation that would deliver the world's messiah.
Were the deaths of children good for the children dying? No. were they good for the parents who lost kids? no. But these laws on disobedient children were as a tutor, to teach the disobedient nation of their fallenness and for them to be rightly related to him, walking in righteousness. you may not like it, I certainly don't like it. Which is why I thank God every day for grace and for Jesus, who already paid the price for me being a disobedient son.
Maybe you don't like God's plans or law, but you cannot scripturally prove any contradictions in him or his nature. You cannot prove that he is evil or arbitrary. You don't believe in absolutes or standards, so by what right do you even call his actions evil? You have no ground to stand on if you don't think there is an objective right or wrong.
God had reasons for those killings, and the bible gives clear reasoning that makes sense.
logic exists in a person, and you deny that person with every word that comes from your mouth. My friend, you are not in good standing with logic as of now.
Perfect! Here we go. The Hebrew word used here is ratsach, which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Which is why modern translations of the Bible say murder, rather than kill. This is according to my Strong's Hebrew Lexicon, and after some searches on Google, many other language scholars agree.
Here's a quick copy and paste from a website discussing the same issue:
"We need to determine if God committed murder (i.e., killed people without cause). The Bible is quite clear that God has killed people directly (the most prominent example being the flood) and indirectly (ordered peoples to be killed). If God ordered or participated in the killing of innocent people, then He would be guilty of murder. Let's look at two of the most prominent examples.
THE FLOOD. According to the Bible, God killed every human except Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives in the flood. Were any of these people killed unjustly? The Bible says specifically that all people (except Noah and his family) had become corrupted. Not only had all people become corrupted, but they were continually plotting evil! So, the Bible indicates that no innocent people were killed in the flood.
GOD ORDERED KILLINGS. What about when God ordered Joshua and his people to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan? What crime could be so great that entire populations of cities were designated for destruction? God told Moses that the nations that the Hebrews were replacing were wicked. How "wicked" were these people? The text tells us that they were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods. So we see that these people were not really innocent. For these reasons, God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed.
The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really not as general as the King James version would indicate. The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing - murder. Although God ordered the extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice. Did God destroy the righteous along with the wicked? In an exchange with Abraham, God indicated that He would spare the wicked to save the righteous. He demonstrated this principle by saving righteous people from Sodom and Jericho prior to their destruction. The charge that God indiscriminately murdered people does not hold to to critical evaluation of the biblical texts."
Wow. How wrong you are about me! I love how you pride yourself in logic, yet assume so much about someone you don't even know and then place hasty generalizations among a group of people you can't understand. Great use of rationality, buddy.
You are right, I'm going to tell you that they aren't examples of God breaking any commandments. The Scripture is very clear on that. For you to continue to claim otherwise shows complete lack of knowledge on the Biblical teaching and pride that won't allow you to admit you are wrong.
But I am not going to say that God can break his own law! How ridiculous!! His law comes forth from his own nature and his being, he cannot go against it. The bible does not teach that he is above the law, or that he can break it. There is no instance of him breaking the law. I do not know of any christian that believes such, and if they do they are being very unbiblical. please find some fault or contradiction with the doctrines of God as outlined in the Bible to make your case, rather than idiotic statements that you've heard from some christians.
Why did God need to command his chosen people to carry out his dirty work? God used the "angel of death" to kill the first born of all Egypt without requiring anyone to get human blood on their hands. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah without commanding people to slaughter other people. God even drowned most of humanity without ever asking Noah to take up arms.
Why would this "loving" God command his chosen people to slaughter women, children, and animals? (I guess the camels would've ended up serving other gods too...)
But... if you believed you were commanded by God to rip open a pregnant woman, or to bash your neighbors children against stones - you would do it without thinking twice. Don't tell me "God would never command me to do that..." Because we BOTH know that's a lie. God commanded it before, and he may command it again.
Would you, adamgrant, slaughter pregnant women, children, and old men because they practiced a religion different than yours if God commanded you to?
I disagree. The actions are not even loving toward his own people. God had the ability to do away with the "evil" people before his chosen ever came to the promised land. He didn't.
Surely during the slaughter many Israelites were injured and probably killed... And those who lived had to witness and partisipate in barbarious acts, and the cruel torment of fellow humans - who committed the "evil" sin of following the religion of their birth... and failing to worship a god they had never heard of.
What about the virgins taken as slaves? Later on God stops requiring genocide, and he allows the Israelites to kill all males (regardless of age) and all non-virgin women (can you imagine how they tested this... I doubt they took anyones word).
Was it "just" and "good" to collect sex slaves (and sacrifice many of them to the Lord) just because God commanded it?
Sounds like their adding to the text again. There is nothing in the verses which imply a street gang, or anything of the sort. Of course, changing the context is a tactic Christians only allow other Christians to use.
"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?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
But, do YOU agree? Would you consider it murder if I killed my next door neighbor, and his his children, and his dog, etc... because they worshipped a different God?
"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?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
You are so full of crap, adamgrant.
I'm done with this argument. I do thank you for your yes or no answers. They have proven to all logical thinkers that you have no concept of logic. You don't see that, and I'm sad about that, but there is nothing else I can do.
There it is, in plain english.
Your problem is that you've gotten so involved in your argument that not only is the irrationality of it blinding you, but your pride is making you say completely stupid things just to avoid admitting you're wrong and you've been believing a shitty myth your whole life.
I know you're not going to believe this, and that makes me sad. You're going to say that I'm the one who's delusional and missing the obvious truth, and you're going to accuse me of lying or twisting facts, or not understanding greek, or something.
I'm giving up on trying to show you the errors in your thinking. I do hope you stay on this board, because you're a shining example of the brainwashing that makes religion so powerful, and it's possible that someone else will see your arguments in all their ridiculous splendor and question their own belief because of them.
In any case, it's impossible to debate someone who is not willing to debate logically, so I bid you good day, and adieu.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
adamgrant,
I've noticed you haven't responded to most of my posts lately...
I've asked you to provide Old Testament verses which indicate that the old law had an expiration date, or that it COULD be fullfilled - you haven't responded.
You asked several times how the idea of a "god" or "creation" could be invented... I provided an explanation - you haven't responded.
I asked if a Muslim were to perform the same miracles attributed to Jesus if you would "reject this clear witness of the Holy Spirit" and "attribute his powers to Satan," like the Pharisees? And if so, how are you any better than the Pharisees who commited the unforgivable sin?
I listed verses for some of God's cruel commands, including killing disrespectful children, selling your daughter into slavery, and beating your slaves (all of which occur only one chapter after the beloved 10 commandments). I'm waiting for you to explain how such cruel commands could be given by a "loving" god.
I also asked if there is ANY time when the wholesale slaughter of every man, woman, child, ass, ox, and camel is justified... and what about keeping only the virgin women alive and offering some as a sacrifice to the Lord, is there anytime when keeping sex slaves is justified?
I don't know why you've ignored my previous posts, but I'm hoping you'll respond to the questions above. I'm interested in hearing your answers.
"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?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
The premise has been fully defined, I'm interested in hearing your answer now.
If the god of the OT is the same god of the NT, then he's not "the same today, yesterday, and forever" as he claims. He changes his mind. The Bible is wrong somewhere... either god isn't the same, or Jesus is not the god of the OT.
The example given is invalid. The question asks for a definition of a Christian who turned atheist, NOT an atheist who returned to his former religion. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, let me try again. Can you provide a description of a FORMER Christian, who is now atheist, whom you wouldn't blindly dismiss as having never "really" been Christian?
"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?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
Me thinks adamgrant has run away... Perhaps the questions became too difficult.