Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

If it walks like a duck, dictionary definitions aren't needed.

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

djbt wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Why don't you pick just one for now, and we can discuss it. I am happy to address these one at a time, but I'll be happy to let you make a suggestion as to where to begin.

An excellent suggestion.

The charge against the God of the Bible is vengefulness.

The prosecution will now calls its first witness - Frank Apisa...

Frank Apisa wrote:
As for "vengeful...

...I submit the first of the so-called 10 commandments:

"I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments
for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate
me, down to the third and fourth generation." Deuteronomy 5:9

I further submit:

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." [Deuteronomy 13:13-19]

I submit:

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' [Exodus 31:12-15]

I've got plenty more...but I'll save 'em.

venge·ful
adj.
1. Desiring vengeance; vindictive.
2. Indicating or proceeding from a desire for revenge.
3. Serving to exact vengeance.

vengefulness
n
1. a malevolent desire for revenge

I admit without reservation that the god of the Bible is, according to my understanding of the definition of the terms in question, both vengeful and given to vengefulness, with the following clarifications/exceptions:

1) That my admission is contingent upon the definitions given above, found at dictionary.com.

2) That the definitions above are based upon the following definition of "vengeance", also found at dictionary.com:

"Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution."

2) That the use of "vindictive" in definition 1 (adj) above does not apply to the god of the Bible, as it carries the connotation of "evil".

3) That the use of "malevolent" in definition 4 (n) above does not apply to the god of the Bible, as it carries the connotation of "evil".

I

So is it your position that under no circumstances can of the god of the Bible do "evil"...or that under no circumstances can it be judged to do "evil" things?

Let me be sure you understand that question.

Apparently you are of the opinion that "evil" can be "understood." The fact that you see certain subtlties of "vengeful" as carrying the connotation of "evil"...seems to indicate this.

So...my question goes to this: Certain deeds can be connoted to be "evil" if done by humans. Certainly killing off significant segments of the human population (Hitler killing Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals; Saddam killing Kurds and Sunnis, for example)...can be, and often are, connoted to be "evil" deeds.

Are you saying that the god of the Bible...if described as committing such atrocities...

...a) is not doing evil...or...

...b) should not (or cannot) be judged to be doing evil?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Implicator wrote:
djbt wrote:
Implicator wrote:
Why don't you pick just one for now, and we can discuss it. I am happy to address these one at a time, but I'll be happy to let you make a suggestion as to where to begin.

An excellent suggestion.

The charge against the God of the Bible is vengefulness.

The prosecution will now calls its first witness - Frank Apisa...

Frank Apisa wrote:
As for "vengeful...

...I submit the first of the so-called 10 commandments:

"I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments
for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate
me, down to the third and fourth generation." Deuteronomy 5:9

I further submit:

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." [Deuteronomy 13:13-19]

I submit:

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' [Exodus 31:12-15]

I've got plenty more...but I'll save 'em.

venge·ful
adj.
1. Desiring vengeance; vindictive.
2. Indicating or proceeding from a desire for revenge.
3. Serving to exact vengeance.

vengefulness
n
1. a malevolent desire for revenge

I admit without reservation that the god of the Bible is, according to my understanding of the definition of the terms in question, both vengeful and given to vengefulness, with the following clarifications/exceptions:

1) That my admission is contingent upon the definitions given above, found at dictionary.com.

2) That the definitions above are based upon the following definition of "vengeance", also found at dictionary.com:

"Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution."

2) That the use of "vindictive" in definition 1 (adj) above does not apply to the god of the Bible, as it carries the connotation of "evil".

3) That the use of "malevolent" in definition 4 (n) above does not apply to the god of the Bible, as it carries the connotation of "evil".

I

So is it your position that under no circumstances can the god of the Bible do "evil"...or that under no circumstances can it be judged to do "evil" things?

Let me explain my position, since you asked

First, it is my position that the god of the Bible is never described in the Bible as *committing* evil. That is, the Bible never explicitly or implicitly states "and then god *did* [moral] evil". I make the clarifications of "did" and of "moral" for reasons that I am sure you are aware of.

Second, it is my position that the god of the Bible can be "judged" as doing evil things, as there are a variety of definitions of the word "evil" that people doing the judging (such as yourself) tend to use. The question that arises from this is obviously "what standard is actually binding on this god, if he exists"? It seems obvious to me that the only binding standard if he exists as described in the Bible (which is why I continually clarify that this is the god "of the Bible" I speak of) is the standard he sets for himself, and that he reveals to us in the Bible.

Quote:

Let me be sure you understand that question.

Apparently you are of the opinion that "evil" can be "understood." The fact that you see certain subtleties of "vengeful" as carrying the connotation of "evil"...seems to indicate this.

I think that evil can be understood, yes. Furthermore, I don't see the god of the Bible being revealed to be evil by the only standard that would be binding on him if he existed. There are all sorts of standards that might be binding on him if he didn't exist, but if he didn't exist, then obviously they really aren't binding after all, but for a different reason.

Quote:

So...my question goes to this: Certain deeds can be connoted to be "evil" if done by humans.

Sure, both from human standards as well as the Biblical standard. But just because both human standards and the Biblical standard (yes, I assume one objective Biblical standard here for the sake of argument) agree on how these deeds are to be judged, they only agree on how they are to be judged if they are performed by humans. That is, the law that the god of the Bible lays down is a law for man, and not a law for this god - he lays down a different (albeit very similar in principle) law for himself. Now I know that certainly sounds like "do as I say but not as I do", and to some degree that is true, but the reason *why* this makes sense is to be found in the analogy of the "speeding" cop I have tried so desperately to get you to discuss with me.

(BTW, this god doesn't really just "lay down this law" as I have stated above - it is more appropriate to state that both of these laws of right and wrong, for man and for him, emanate from his nature. That may see like "the acts of God are good by virtue of the fact that he did them", but in practice it is not that at all.)

Quote:

Certainly killing off significant segments of the human population (Hitler killing Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals; Saddam killing Kurds and Sunnis, for example)...can be, and often are, connoted to be "evil" deeds.

They are indeed evil when judged by many different humanistic standards, and are also evil when judged by the Biblical standard. Then again there are many humanistic standards that would not judge these acts to be evil.

Quote:

Are you saying that the god of the Bible...if described as committing such atrocities...

...a) is not doing evil...or...

...b) should not (or cannot) be judged to be doing evil?

Neither, and both, although my response is probably closer to answer b.

This god is not doing evil because he should not (cannot) be judged as doing evil by the same standard you would judge Hitler or Saddam. IOW, what makes his act "evil" would be an evaluation of his act against a standard of good vs. evil. Since the Bible is that standard (if it is true), for both man and God, then what is revealed in the Bible is what ultimately tells us whether god does evil or not.

Now let me add to this, to be sure you pick up on some things that might be getting hidden.

The picture I have painted of the god may, at first, be one that leads you to conclude that this god can do just anything, but that is not what I am saying at all. The god of the Bible has revealed that there are many things that he is unable to do (we can save for later the obvious discussion of omnipotence that comes from my comments). So, if the Bible were to say, for instance, that this god could not lie (which it does), and then it also revealed that he did lie, then that would be a problem, because this god would have contradicted himself.

Now obviously this god *could* contradict himself, if he wanted to - but the reason I say this would be a problem is because many other elements of the Bible would no longer make sense, if this god could (and did) contradict himself.

Furthermore, the Bible reveals that this god has reasons for what he does - that is, he does not act in an arbitrary manner. Now, you may judge these "reasons" as lacking, but when evaluated within the entire construct of the Bible, I believe it can be shown that these reasons make sense, given what the Bible (as a whole) says about this god, and if (and only if) he really exists.

I look at it this way. If we treat what the Bible says as a theory, and are faithful to that theory while evaluating it, the theory is sensible. However, if we take certain parts of that theory and evaluate it in such a way as to ignore other elements of the theory, we will almost always find fault with what we are evaluating. That's what I meant earlier on when I said the Bible is systematic - if you don't accept it all, then you cannot rationally accept any of it.

I

(p.s. I appreciate the change in tone that this discussion has taken, and I truly hope it stays as cordial as it currently is. I can play the other game all day long, but it is in my opinion a waste of time.)

0 Replies

The bible is not a "theory." It's a fictional story or comic book with miracles that can only be described as ridiculous.

0 Replies

"...as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, 'Go up, you baldhead; go up you baldhead!' When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number."
2 Kings 2:22-24

So... the god of the bible is a cosmic policeman, doing his duty, just speeding through and whacking people?

Wow. Nasty little bugger. Why would someone want to worship that? Except out of fear of getting whacked?

Quote:

Implicator wrote:
if the Bible were to say, for instance, that this god could not lie (which it does), and then it also revealed that he did lie, then that would be a problem, because this god would have contradicted himself.

You got a problem:
Ezekiel 14:9
"And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel..."
II Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Oh, and he tells Samuel to deceive Saul (1 Sam. 16:2). "And the Lord said unto Samuel, . . . fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons. And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it he will kill me. And the Lord said, Take a heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord."

0 Replies

This will be a very limited response to your last post. I'll try to cover the other items at some point...but I think it was important to deal with this particular issue.

Implicator...you wrote:

Quote:

Now I know that certainly sounds like "do as I say but not as I do", and to some degree that is true, but the reason *why* this makes sense is to be found in the analogy of the "speeding" cop I have tried so desperately to get you to discuss with me.

Okay...I think I will discuss that analogy (and your follow up comments) with you at this time...although I have lots of concerns about doing so in what I consider a premature setting. I have lots of issues with that analogy...which I still consider defective to the point of uselessness...and we can discuss the problem and see if indeed it helps me to understand what you are saying here. Let's see where it goes.

Here is the analogy:

Quote:

Let's say our discussion is about a guy who *you* claim is breaking the law by driving in excess of the speed limit. Now you make this claim to a group of people who think the world of this fella. They say to you "hang on now Frank, there is more to this guy than meets the eye!" And you say "I don't care about any other claims you make about him, other than this one claim - that he drove 95 mph in a 65 mph zone last Tuesday. He has clearly broken the law!"

You claim that since he drove 95 in a 65, and since the speed limit is 65 then it is oh so obvious (and the logical conclusion to boot) that this man is guilty of breaking the law.

It is at this point that this group of people drops the bomb. "Frank, this guy is a police officer, and he was pursuing a bank robber on the interstate last Tuesday. That is the reason he was driving as fast as he was. He was justified in doing what he did, based on his qualifications, his position of authority, and the circumstances at hand."

Well...if the first paragraph had represented that the people discussing this with me...and who think the world of this fella...had never actually seen the guy...and if they thought the guy, through some unexplained mechanics, had a great deal of influence over important areas of their lives such as their prosperity and their well-being...and that the guy had access to everything they were going to say during their discussion with me...and that what they had to say to me might be colored by concerns about that...

...you might be getting closer to a reasonable start to the analogy.

And instead of having them say that he was a police officer chasing a bank robber on the Interstate...they had said, "Although we have no clear and convincing evidence that he is a police officer...we are going to insist that he is a police officer. And, we are going to guess that he was chasing a bank robber" although we do not know for a fact he was...and even if he wasn't...he had some other perfectly good reason for speeding that if you could know it (which you can't) you would consider a valid reason for saying that he was not really breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit...

...you would be getting closer still.

Quote:

See the problem here? If this fella is *really who they say he is*, then your argument loses all it's punch. If he is really a cop, who was chasing the "bad guy" in the line of duty, then it should be clear to see that he was not *unlawfully* exceeding the speed limit. But if you choose to ignore *the entire* story that these people present, then you are misrepresenting what they say.

Well...I can tell you that I have studied the Bible in great depth...and that I have, over several decades, engaged in numerous debates and discussion on it with some very learned people...including ecclasiastics...and, respectfully as possible, Implicator...that it is presumptuous to suppose that I an simply choosing to "ignore the entire story."

I most definitely am not. Nor am I misrepresenting what they are saying.

Many of them are saying exactly what you are saying....which, reduces to "God can do no wrong...so anything he does has an explanation even if we do not know what it is. And no matter how evil and barbaric it might be to us lowly humans...we are insisting that there is a reason for the god to do it...and we are insisting that the god is not doing evil."

But that is not truly argument. That is rationalization, at best...and probably a lot less.

Quote:

You are, in fact, erecting a straw man of their beliefs about this fella. Not only are you not going to convince them that this man broke the law, you are probably going to get them upset at you for not considering the very parts of the story that makes this fella's excessive speed totally acceptable.

No...and Yes.

Yes I am going to get them upset...but, No, not for "not considering the very parts of the story that make this fella's excessive speed totally acceptable"...but because I will not accept their guesses about why everyone should blindly accept some kind of reason why the fella's excessive speed is acceptable.

Okay...I'm gonna rest and let you respond...and take take the issue up again after your response.

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

Second, it is my position that the god of the Bible can be "judged" as doing evil things, as there are a variety of definitions of the word "evil" that people doing the judging (such as yourself) tend to use. The question that arises from this is obviously "what standard is actually binding on this god, if he exists"? It seems obvious to me that the only binding standard if he exists as described in the Bible (which is why I continually clarify that this is the god "of the Bible" I speak of) is the standard he sets for himself, and that he reveals to us in the Bible....

...The picture I have painted of the god may, at first, be one that leads you to conclude that this god can do just anything, but that is not what I am saying at all. The god of the Bible has revealed that there are many things that he is unable to do (we can save for later the obvious discussion of omnipotence that comes from my comments). So, if the Bible were to say, for instance, that this god could not lie (which it does), and then it also revealed that he did lie, then that would be a problem, because this god would have contradicted himself.

Well, it certainly does seem like you are saying that God can do 'just anything'. If we only have God's actions to use to decide how God should behave, then clearly God can do no wrong. But, as I've been arguing in the 'God and good' thread, to use God as the standard of morality make God amoral.

Note even if God says 'I should not lie', maybe that's a lie, and really it's fine for God to lie. There's a get-out clause for any action - if your own actions are used to define right and wrong.

So, I would argue, if you want to use the God's actions in the Bible as the standard to judge God by, then you must conclude that God is amoral, like a rock or and river. So while must ignore the 'evil' connotations of words like vengeful and jealous, you must also ignore the 'good' connotations of kind and loving.

0 Replies

Why would anyone follow a religion that romanticises torture (the crucifixion)?

Or wear a symbol of torture apparatus around their neck?

Or follow a god that was said to torture and murder his son?

If the bible is a fantasy novel (and you can't get more fantisical than zombies rising from the dead, magic acts etc) - then the god spoken of comes out looking like the altermate bad guy.

If god exists - why doesn't he just prove it and stop all this nonsense?

Because he can not... he isn't there. The bible is nothing more than propaganda, written for its own gain at its own time.

Isn't it about time we evolved to leave behind superstition?
Isn't it about time to take responsibility for ourselves and the world we live in?

Such a waste of human potential if we all sat around waiting for 'judgement day'

THIS is judgement day - and no god is part of it. Its up to us to decide what is right and what is wrong. Or are we going to be slaves to some (probably Roman) insane dictator for another thousand years?

The age of Pieces (the fish - symbol of Christianity) is over. Now comes Aquarias - water - symbol of the subconscious.
We have it in us to give up worshiping idols and start looking inside of ourselves for the answers.

I'm sorry Frank - got a bit off topic there, but to free ourselves from the shackles of religion - now THAT would be a great victory.

0 Replies

I like the way christians twist "good and evil" to fit their own belief system. They repeatedly tell us "god is good," because they see how god cared for the people. The great mystery is faced when they don't see god's evil in the same light. They say, "god can do anything, because he created us." DUH!

0 Replies

Yeah, well I'm always amused by the myopia of faithless, "educated" men - to each their own....

0 Replies

ENDYMON Wrote:

Quote:

Why would anyone follow a religion that romanticises torture (the crucifixion)?

Or wear a symbol of torture apparatus around their neck?

Or follow a god that was said to torture and murder his son?

If the bible is a fantasy novel (and you can't get more fantisical than zombies rising from the dead, magic acts etc) - then the god spoken of comes out looking like the altermate bad guy.

If god exists - why doesn't he just prove it and stop all this nonsense?

Because he can not... he isn't there. The bible is nothing more than propaganda, written for its own gain at its own time.

Isn't it about time we evolved to leave behind superstition?
Isn't it about time to take responsibility for ourselves and the world we live in?

Such a waste of human potential if we all sat around waiting for 'judgement day'

THIS is judgement day - and no god is part of it. Its up to us to decide what is right and what is wrong. Or are we going to be slaves to some (probably Roman) insane dictator for another thousand years?

The age of Pieces (the fish - symbol of Christianity) is over. Now comes Aquarias - water - symbol of the subconscious.
We have it in us to give up worshiping idols and start looking inside of ourselves for the answers.

I'm sorry Frank - got a bit off topic there, but to free ourselves from the shackles of religion - now THAT would be a great victory.

First of all, Christians do not romanticize the crucifixion. It is a scared thing to us. It exhibits to us just how much God and His Son loved us.

Wearing a cross is a symbol of our faith.

I don't recall any zombies rising from the dead in the Bible. Perhaps you are speaking of Lazarus? He was not a Zombie. He was Christ's cousin and he died and Christ rose him from the dead. There is a difference between "magic acts (as you call them) and miracles, as they are performed by God.

You want God to just prove He is there? Who are you to ask God to do that? He created you, you did not create Him. I don't think I'd want a God that had to prove Himself to me. Wouldn't make Him better than any other human now would it?

And oh yes, He's there, you can take that to the bank. Propaganda? It's own gain? Gain of what?

Faith is not superstition. And oh yeah, time to take responsibility for our own actions? You got that right! So, just remember that when you find out that the things you thought were superstition and the things you did because you as a human being did not believe was wrong are pointed out to you by God. Then, you will be taking the responsibility for your own actions.

And Christians don't just wait around for judgment day, you know. We all have lives and we try to live those lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

And if you think THIS is judgment day, you'd better hang onto your hat because when the Judgment Day does come, you are in for a big surprise.

And unfortunately, looking inside ourselves for the answers is what got this world in the mess it is in now.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

You want God to just prove He is there? Who are you to ask God to do that?

Well, MA, since your god supposedly does want us to know what pleases and offends it and what it expects of humans...it seems to me that Endymon's request is not nearly as presumptuous as you seem to think it is.

Respectfully, MA...if your god wants us to know all that stuff...why did it share the information in a way that causes as much difficulty and talk about misinterpretation as this stuff does?

The god supposedly created the entire universe. Are you telling us that it cannot share information about its existence (since it seems to want to)...and about what pleases and offends it (since it seems to want to)?

That is a valid question.

Quote:

Faith is not superstition.

Yeah...in this case, it is. Or at least, it is not different enough from superstition to be considered to be meaningful different.

Quote:

And oh yeah, time to take responsibility for our own actions? You got that right! So, just remember that when you find out that the things you thought were superstition and the things you did because you as a human being did not believe was wrong are pointed out to you by God. Then, you will be taking the responsibility for your own actions.

But why do we have to depend on someone like you to tell us what the god expects of us? Why is it not clear...in an unambiguous way? Keep in mind...it is not just we agnostics and atheists who have difficulty understanding the "revelations"...you "firm believers" are all over the place on dozens of issues. AND FOR GOOD REASON...because the supposed revelations are themselves "all over the place."

Quote:

And Christians don't just wait around for judgment day, you know. We all have lives and we try to live those lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

And if you think THIS is judgment day, you'd better hang onto your hat because when the Judgment Day does come, you are in for a big surprise.

This is a prime example of religion being superstition.

0 Replies

Frank, I saw a bumper sticker the other day that reminded me of you...

It said : In the even of Rapture, this car will be without driver.

I said, "Frank would just love that!!" :wink:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
You want God to just prove He is there? Who are you to ask God to do that?

Well, MA, since your god supposedly does want us to know what pleases and offends it and what it expects of humans...it seems to me that Endymon's request is not nearly as presumptuous as you seem to think it is.

Respectfully, MA...if your god wants us to know all that stuff...why did it share the information in a way that causes as much difficulty and talk about misinterpretation as this stuff does?

The god supposedly created the entire universe. Are you telling us that it cannot share information about its existence (since it seems to want to)...and about what pleases and offends it (since it seems to want to)?

That is a valid question.

Quote:
Faith is not superstition.

Yeah...in this case, it is. Or at least, it is not different enough from superstition to be considered to be meaningful different.

Quote:
And oh yeah, time to take responsibility for our own actions? You got that right! So, just remember that when you find out that the things you thought were superstition and the things you did because you as a human being did not believe was wrong are pointed out to you by God. Then, you will be taking the responsibility for your own actions.

But why do we have to depend on someone like you to tell us what the god expects of us? Why is it not clear...in an unambiguous way? Keep in mind...it is not just we agnostics and atheists who have difficulty understanding the "revelations"...you "firm believers" are all over the place on dozens of issues. AND FOR GOOD REASON...because the supposed revelations are themselves "all over the place."

Quote:
And Christians don't just wait around for judgment day, you know. We all have lives and we try to live those lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

And if you think THIS is judgment day, you'd better hang onto your hat because when the Judgment Day does come, you are in for a big surprise.

This is a prime example of religion being superstition.

God does share the information. It is up to us whether to accept it or not. Some do and some don't.

Fairth (to me) is not superstition. It is just what it is, faith.

If you read the beatitudes, they tell you what God expects of you so you don't need me or anyone else to tell you.

Prime example of religion being superstition? Hmmm. Remains to be seen I suppose.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

And if you think THIS is judgment day, you'd better hang onto your hat because when the Judgment Day does come, you are in for a big surprise.

I believe that we are all in for a suprise. That the human race has not evolved enough to understand reality, let alone what happens after death. I'm not worried. I'm at peace with myself. If, when I die, some bloke has me tortured or put into the flames of purification, I'll wait to be rescued by tinker bell.

Why worry about what I think anyway? You're sorted, right?

As for asking your god (or any god) to show itself - why not? What's the problem? Let one god show us evidence and we can all stop fighting and go home. Surely a real god would want that?

0 Replies

ENDYMION wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:

And if you think THIS is judgment day, you'd better hang onto your hat because when the Judgment Day does come, you are in for a big surprise.

I believe that we are all in for a suprise. That the human race has not evolved enough to understand reality, let alone what happens after death. I'm not worried. I'm at peace with myself. If, when I die, some bloke has me tortured or put into the flames of purification, I'll wait to be rescued by tinker bell.

Why worry about what I think anyway? You're sorted, right?

As for asking your god (or any god) to show itself - why not? What's the problem? Let one god show us evidence and we can all stop fighting and go home. Surely a real god would want that?

I'm sorted? Which means?

Like I said, I don't want a God that has to prove His existence to me. I am a mere mortal being that sins. God is immortal and perfect. Now, who should prove what to whom?

And God does show Himself, every day in so many ways. If you are blinded to that, then I submit that is your responsibility and not God's.

0 Replies

That's the crux; there is no god. People's imagination after being exposed to the bible god left the realm of reality, facts, evidence, and science.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's the crux; there is no god. People's imagination after being exposed to the bible god left the realm of reality, facts, evidence, and science.

Are you for real? You make these statements that there is no God. Yet, you keep asking Christians to prove there is one. I see absolutely no proof backing up your claims.

0 Replies

MA wrote:

Quote:

God does share the information. It is up to us whether to accept it or not. Some do and some don't.

You claim your god shares the information...but it is obvious that folks like you pick and choose what you will accept as legitimate information and what you think is bogus.

If your god truly wanted to share the information...it should be able to do so in a way that obviates the need for that kind of stuff.

Here are examples I have used many times before...of "information" your god supposedly shared with us:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13

"If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to
his father or mother, and will not obey them even though they
chastise him, his father and mother shall have him apprehended
and brought out to the elders at the gate of his home city, where
...his fellow citizens shall stone him to death." Deuteronomy 22:18ff

"When you march up to attack a city, first offer terms of peace.
If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you,
all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor.
But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you
battle, lay siege to it, and when the Lord, your God, delivers it
into your hand, put every male in it to the sword, but the women
and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth
plunder you may take as your booty and you may use this plunder
of your enemies which the Lord, your God, has given you." Deuteronomy 20:10

Are you prepared to say that this information is correct...and that you think this is advice we should take to heart? Are you telling us that YOU think this is what we should do?

And why do you consider it appropriate or logical to arbritrarily pick and choose what you will "believe" and what you will "not believe?"

Quote:

Fairth (to me) is not superstition. It is just what it is, faith.

Well...obviously you feel that way. But I suggest it is more like superstition than you want to acknowledge.

Quote:

If you read the beatitudes, they tell you what God expects of you so you don't need me or anyone else to tell you.

Why? Just because they are in the Bible?

The examples I gave above are also in the Bible.

Are you saying that we can simply read those passages...and we can use the words as written as reasonable advice?

C'mon, MA. You know you do not feel that way.

0 Replies

It's almost impossible to prove a negative. In the case of your god, it's 100 percent impossible if we follow the information in the bible.

0 Replies

Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know