A New Start

[Ekimklaw]

Sorry I was a little cranky last night.

I become "emotional" sometimes. I cannot help but be aggravated with someone deliberately slandering a Book that I consider to be the word of God. Do you not understand that?

If I knew something that you held in very high esteem, I would NOT throw down on it. I might respectfully "disagree with" or come to a different conclusion, but I would NOT slander anything you truly love and care about.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
I understand your perspective and your obvious irritation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If anyone has ever mocked something [or someone] you love, then you truly do understand.

I can take it from people like Avatar and Lotuseatsvipers et al. because they are flamers and discontents.

But you... you seem to have some common sense. So when you do that it irritates me.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
It is not that I have any disrespect for you or your beliefs...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then please use a bit of decorum.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
...but that I see you begin from false assumptions and then everything else you say, no matter how emotional or aggressive, is invalid because your initial assumptions are invalid.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is your opinion that my "assumptions" are false. See? Your statement in and of itself is an "assumption". This is pot-calling-the-kettle-black.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
In other words because of your absolute convictions you are unable to view the scriptures objectively and dispassionately...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This could be reversed back on you also Cris, only you view scripture negatively. But no less subjectively and passionately.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
And since you ‘know’ them to be true then anyone who attempts to say otherwise must clearly be perverted, twisted or disrespectful, as you are trying to paint me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I never said you were "perverted" or "twisted". You were very "disrespectful" to me however.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
I understand your pride in being able to interpret your scriptures so that they support your perceptions of truth, and I did expect you to analyze my quotes as I said you would. But if god does not exist then everything you say is nonsense.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I posted the scriptures. You did not. The reader is able to draw his or her own conclusion. When one reads them they will see your misinterpretations and may conclude that you were less than honest in your assessments.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
The discussions of the scriptures have zero value until it can be shown that your god exists. Without that proof Christianity is pointless.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nothing anyone could say would convince you God exists. I have given you proof and you have sluffed it off as nonsense. My work is done in that regard. What else can I do? Regurgitate the arguments again? Show you some more that you will shoot down? You have a hardened heart. No person other than you can break it.

I have given you all the info I have. I have used logic. I have used science. I have used practicality. What else can I do? I cannot summon God as a genie. I cannot order him to perform on CNN for you. It is a question of faith and belief. You believe, or you don't. But don't pretend to tell me you are open minded. You aren't.

You base your views on empirical evidence. But sometimes things cannot be proven by empirical evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
But reason is used to determine truth, not the other way around. If you perceive you have determined truth without reason then you cannot know if you have achieved truth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This assumes that I do not use reason to find truth. This is a mischaracterization. If I use reason and find God, and I determine that I have found truth, who are you to say it is NOT truth?

The truth I follow comes from God. Not from man. However, in my mind God's truth is in perfect league with reason. In short, using reason I am convinced that God is... and that he represents "truth".


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
You should also be aware that the framers of the scriptures would have certainly known they were creating mythologies and would be fully aware that some people would see through their deceptions. So the inclusion of passages that say don’t listen to those who disbelieve is expected propaganda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again, do not misunderstand. Many passages of scripture are written for Christians. Not the unbeliever.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
But what you are really saying is that I must have faith first then I will be given the truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's right.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
In effect the use of reason never enters into the equation. Why then are you making such an issue of my biblical quotes about xtianity not using reason?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Because you lied about them. You have pulled things out of context and misrepresented them. I fixed it though. I posted the scriptures so people can read them for themselves and make up their own minds. Does that sound like I am against reason?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
Whether I am right or wrong? On one hand you are trying to claim that xtianity does use reason and doesn’t dissuade people from using reason...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That is precisely what I am saying.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
...and here you are saying that one must believe without reason.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No I say reason and then believe.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
So I say again xtianity does not include reason as its basis for its alleged truth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Christianity is a choice. You choose. There are two paths. The way of Jesus, and every other way. You MUST use reason to decide.

Do you routinely make decisions without reason? Neither do I. Implying that I chose to be a Christian without reason is false. This an atheistic presupposition designed to imply that Christians are mind-numbed fools blindly following. Not true.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
In your eagerness and pride to show your knowledge of biblical interpretations you appear to have missed the point of the argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You've mentioned pride twice. I consider pride to be an unwelcome emotion. I'll grant you "eagerness". I was eager to show how you mischaracterized the scriptures and me. I did not lose sight of the debate issue. I was offended.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
But that aside, your claim is that a holy spirit will reveal the truth of the bible when I believe without evidential proof, i.e. I must believe on faith first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is plenty of evidence to provide faith. Once you have faith you are home free. You already have faith. You just need to channel it to God and not atheism.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
This implies that once I fully accept these conditions in a genuine manner then all will be revealed while reading the bible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Good, good. Now you are understanding me.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
The issue still remains that reason is still not required.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oops. We slipped apart again. One more time. Use reason, then make a decision, then go with it. Did I say NOT to use reason? NO! I said:

U S E R E A S O N

Is that clear enough? Reason it out. But uh... use an open mind.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
The ‘truths’ that I will obtain will be through a spiritual revelation and your implication is that there is no other way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Correct.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
But will there ever come a time when I will not need faith but can depend on reason?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We must use reason of course. You seem to reject faith as a possibility in human logic. But faith is not so hard to understand.

When you take a flight somewhere, do you personally inspect the plane from stem to stern before takeoff? No. You have "faith" that someone has done that for you. You base this decision on the evidence (workmen in uniform, assurances by the company, FAA standards, etc)

Why then is it considered unreasonable for a Christian to base his faith in God on the evidence he percieves, when in his mind they are no less sound? There are hundreds of examples of how we use faith everyday.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
It would seem that that is not the case as xtians always continue to emphasize the importance of maintaining and renewing one’s faith,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You think faith is easy? For the thinking (or reasoning) individual, it is sometimes very difficult to have faith. There is doubt. These doubts are reasonings. We wrestle with questions like anyone. Some cannot find sufficient answers and "fall away", while others remain strong in their faith. If we were mind-numbed robots we wouldn't need our faith renewed. But Christians have doubts like anyone.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
...in effect reason is never requested or expected, and actively discouraged in favor of the holy spirit’s revelations/guidance instead. My biblical quotes indicate this quite well I thought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But it doesn't request an end to reason. You picked sciptures that deal with many different issues. One is giving advise to Christians, one speaks of conditions at the time of the writing, certain heresies, etc. You implied that each of them was about reason, vis a vis the unbeliever, or prospective Christian.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw wrote:
Atheism is your religion. Cris, you are as religious as I am, but are too self-centered to realize it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
An interesting assertion. I understand your desire to slander atheism since that directly opposes your perceptions, but why is calling atheism a religion slanderous?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I do not agree with atheism. I do not slander it. Those are two very different things.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
You are trying to also equate me with you as both being religious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You exhibit "faith" in your "atheistic dogma". Your "God" is "human reason", etc. You debate those who do not share your beliefs in an effort to "prosyletize" them. In order to cleanse the world of misguided religious people. So yes, you seem very "religious". Sorry if it offends, but you are here using "atheistic apologetics", just like any good Christian would defend his beliefs.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
But I assume you see being religious as a good thing, xtianity is after all a religion. But if atheism is a religion and atheism is bad then doesn’t that imply that if xtianity is a religion then xtianity is bad. I know you don’t mean that, so I fail to see why you want to imply that I am religious or that atheism is a religion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The syllogism is way off as you realize. But I make the connection between you and religion, because you exhibit all the signs of a zealous religious fanatic defending his faith. I know "atheism" is defined as "no God". But your adherance to this philosophy has taken on almost "religious" tones.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
From Webster: Religion: the service and worship of God or the supernatural. Since atheism is the direct opposite of this how do you reason that atheism is a religion?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Also from Webster (and the meaning I used): religion - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
And what is wrong with being self-centered?

From Webster: Self-centered:
1 : independent of outside force or influence : SELF-SUFFICIENT.
2 : concerned solely with one's own desires, needs, or interests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You defined a synonym for "self-sufficient". I mean "selfish" (see meaning 2). There is a difference.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
This might be true of me but you imply it in a derogatory manner, why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Because you think you alone know the truth. Regardless of anyone else. I say I have faith that God's way is the truth. You cannot claim a higher source for truth that your own "grey-matter". Most people say things like "I am convinced" or "In my opinion", etc. But you speak as if you are *the* "fount of knowledge". To me that is selfish. Maybe "self-aggrandizment" fits better. Take your pick.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
It doesn’t seem relevant to the argument in the same way as claiming atheism is a religion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do you not hold to your views with ardor and faith? That's what I meant. Tell me you don't have faith.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
When you say ‘not the sole keeper of truth’, you seem to be implying that I am at least a keeper of the truth and that there are others. I’m sure you didn’t mean to compliment me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<chuckle, chuckle>


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
The term ‘open minded’ is used a lot here and on both sides of our debates. It seems to be used in a hypocritical manner in many cases. When one is accused of this there is often the childish tendency to respond in kind with the same retort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are not open minded. The difference between you and me, is you won't come out and admit it.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
But let’s examine what the term means –
From Webster: Open-minded: receptive to arguments or ideas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Are you saying that you are "receptive" to my views on God? (uh-oh... better look up "receptive")


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
My position as an atheist is that I am requesting theists to prove their claims;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sure make US do all the work. This is philosophical "skeet-shooting". But I'm the guy tossing up the "clay pigeons".



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
none have done so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


See what I mean? I have proven my claims. You just didn't agree with them. You could at least show me the common courtesy of saying "You have tried but I remain unconvinced", or something polite. But NO. YOu aren't convinced. Therefore in your mind NO ONE has proven their claims. Sheesh.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
I am on record several times in these forums as stating that if evidence can be shown then I am perfectly willing to follow the theist truths,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I will give you all the evidence I can possibly muster if you are interested. Contact me privately and I will round it up. It will take a while to get it all together, but I will do it, if you want. Let me know. If I post it, it will seem like prosyletizing.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
and in fact some of the claims for a fatherly figure and an eternal heaven are quite attractive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes they are.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
The theist position is quite different. The theist claims that a god exists and that that is the final truth. There is no openness to any other ideas or arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fair statement.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
This fits absolutely perfectly with the opposite of open-mindedness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I side with God on the question of truth. Don't take it personally.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
One could argue that the requirement for proof set by atheists is too difficult, but then if one is being asked to accept the ultimate truth of a creator of the universe then such extraordinary claims should be met with extraordinary evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The "extraordinary evidence" is a Book called the Bible which has existed for hundreds of years despite a myriad attempts to blot it off the face of the Earth by tyrants, Kings and dictators. Yet it remains. Open for all to read. Nothing hidden. Many have tried to discredit it... in vain. Christianity flourishes.

So you reject it.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
So to the undecided reading this, who is the more open-minded, the atheist who requests evidence before believing other ideas, or the theist who has already decided there is no room for other ideas?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is more accurate:

Study all the facts (for or against God) and make your decision. The choice is yours.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw wrote:
However after your display of prejudice and slander, as well as your self-indulgent narrow-minded attitude toward people of faith, you don't seem so level-headed anymore so I really don't care what you have to say about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
Interesting string of abuse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yeah. As I said. I was cranky last night. However I am bugged by you lack of courtesy to other points of view namely Christian. Maybe it was unintentional. I don't know. I can only go by what you write.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
You appear to be in some discomfort when dealing with a strong opponent, perhaps you have not met one before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A "strong opponent" is fine. But "fighting dirty" is wrong. Mischaracterization, and contextual tomfoolery is NOT appreciated by either side. So lets stop doing it. Okay?



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
Trying to deal with someone who has quite different perceptions should be considered a challenge; I certainly enjoy the challenge you present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Would I waste my time here if I didn't enjoy debating? No way. So yeah, I enjoy tangling with you. Gets my blood pressure up ssometimes when you misquote and practice contextual chicanery, but all in all, I enjoy it.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
But trying to disparage someone because they do not accept your perceptions and interpretations does nothing to increase your credibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


See? This is what I mean. I "disparaged" you for mischaracterizing scripture. NOT because you disagreed with me. It is fine that you disagree with me. You are free, and over 18. Right?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
No, your assessment is incorrect. My interpretations are different to yours. Your open hostility and emotionalism here is because you are not prepared to consider any other interpretations other than your own, you have an absolute conviction that you are right. This is another essential flaw to theist thinking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I posted the scriptures. Let the reader decide.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
Then you are offended very easily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I always get offended when something or someone I love is impugned unfairly.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
We are debating religious beliefs, why would I respect something that I consider to be erroneous?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You don't have to respect the beliefs. But please repect the one who believes it. It's called "courtesy". There is human being behind these words you know.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
That is like saying that one should respect a murderer’s belief that he should be free to murder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hmmm... you are equating me with a murderer. Not good.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
You are confusing respect for a person with respect for beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Okay, let me be plain. Let's show each other some common courtesy. Remeber the golden rule.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
My respect for you has not changed since I am more concerned with the institutions that have made you think the way you do, I see you only as an innocent victim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I am a victim? Of what? Contentment, fellowship, acceptance, and forgiveness? Make no mistake -- I am happy. If you thought I was here in misery, you misunderstood. I am a happy man.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
But I have seen no evidence that you respect my ‘beliefs’, and you have specifically stated that you consider atheism as sinful, how is that respect?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I respect you and you right to "beliefs" whatever you choose. I simply disagree with you on many points. God considers atheism sinful. I am a Christian, and therefore am subject to God. Being an atheist, you key off my beliefs, not vise versa. Without the theist, there is no atheist. Therefore, I EXPECT you to disagree. But lets be civil.


Thanks for reading this... pardon any typos... I'm very tired.


-Mike

 

[Cris]

Ekim,

Thanks for reading this... pardon any typos... I'm very tired.

Yes, you are up late. Otherwise your text looks fine, and a long post. You spent some time thinking about this I suspect.

Sorry I was a little cranky last night.

It happens, no big deal.

I become "emotional" sometimes. I cannot help but be aggravated with someone deliberately slandering a Book that I consider to be the word of God. Do you not understand that?

Yes I do. And here I should explain my position more carefully. I have come full circle. I was a devout xtian some 30 years ago when I was in my twenties. Since then I have studied more about the history of xtianity, its origins, and the development of the bible. Together with the origins of other religions and the reasons those religions begin. My studies of xtian origins included both xtian and non-xtian perspectives. The historical work of Q influenced me considerably, but the more critical works by Acharya S and Earl Doherty pretty much convinced me that the NT is essentially composed of myths. I very much doubt that a man named Jesus even existed.

I hope you see that our perspectives on the bible are effectively at opposite extremes. Where you see the bible in a very reverent and highly respectful manner, I see it as a set of texts collected, developed, and manipulated, to serve an overwhelming political purpose some 2000 years ago. I see it as virtually pure fiction developed for unscrupulous politicians. It has some wisdoms, granted, but even those I believe were plagiarized from earlier sources. From my perspective I can give no or little respect for this book.

Unfortunately, my perceived irreverence for something I consider effectively useless will upset devout xtians such as you. While I find it distasteful to upset anyone, I find no value in attempting to hide my true feelings about such an issue in such debates. I also show my distaste deliberately knowing it may well shock believers such as you so that you can understand that there are those who are very mush opposed to the beliefs you present. I also hope you might be able to comprehend a little of my position when I tell you these things. It is not out of any disrespect for you personally, but I have no respect for the bible, and it would be disingenuous of me to pretend otherwise.

So let’s be truthful with each other. You are convinced of your position and I am convinced of mine. I am certainly not in an undecided frame of mind and I see no prospect of my ever returning to xtian beliefs. When we debate we may well experience considerable friction simply because of our relative extreme positions to each other. And as I have observed in other debates it is often extremely difficult to separate the person from the beliefs. If I criticize a belief, which I think should be considered a valid technique in such debates, then the recipient will often see that as a personal criticism because they associate themselves so closely with the belief. They then feel understandably offended. I don’t see a satisfactory solution to that. My approach is to try to ignore the almost guaranteed torrent of abuse received in return.

If I knew something that you held in very high esteem, I would NOT throw down on it. I might respectfully "disagree with" or come to a different conclusion, but I would NOT slander anything you truly love and care about.

I deliberately take the opposite approach if I am convinced that the opponent’s belief is wrong. If I were to take another approach then I would be pretending whereas in truth what you hold in respect I hold in contempt. The problem again is that you should not take my contempt for the bible as contempt for you. And I understand that other non-believers will be unable to see the difference and I will never defend their actions. However, I do understand your position if I appear to take texts out of context. If that occurs then it is not deliberate as I think you believe it is. I’ll take more care anyway, and I think I can always make my point in other ways.

But you... you seem to have some common sense. So when you do that it irritates me.

Thank you, and I’ll try to avoid those tactics that you find troublesome.

I never said you were "perverted" or "twisted". You were very "disrespectful" to me however.

No disrespect for you was ever intended. Beliefs, books, and inanimate objects, I feel are fair game. Please be aware, as I think I have already stated, that what you hold in respect others might simply have contempt. These debates are not meant to be polite cocktail parties. We are dealing with hot emotional issues. If these things make your blood boil then I perfectly understand but that is the reality of the situation. I strongly and politely, as I can, recommend that you not take things quite so personally.

Nothing anyone could say would convince you God exists.

Having considered the issues since I was 14, around 36 years now, I suspect you are right, although I believe I would be open to very clear and obvious proofs. But for the moment I don’t even see a need for a god, so whether one exists or not is essentially irrelevant to the future of mankind.

I have given you proof and you have sluffed it off as nonsense.

That was unfortunate. However, I have seen all the alleged proofs you presented many times before, and I have seen them ‘trashed’ very convincingly. I felt the arguments against your proofs were well documented and I felt you should have been aware of them. However, I was experimenting with a more aggressive debating style when you arrived, and you just happened to be one of my first ‘victims’. Sorry for that. But really you don’t have any proofs. Try one again if you like and I’ll show you the arguments against in a more objective manner.

My work is done in that regard. What else can I do? Regurgitate the arguments again? Show you some more that you will shoot down? You have a hardened heart. No person other than you can break it.

That may be true as far as xtianity is concerned. I really do see xtianity as a truly lost cause, and irrelevant to the benefit of mankind, and effectively a dangerous institution.

You base your views on empirical evidence. But sometimes things cannot be proven by empirical evidence.

I disagree, but can you provide an example, that we could discuss?

It is 4:15 am and I need to sleep. I’ll return to the rest of your post later today if I can. Today is my first day back at work after my 3 week vacation. My two younger teenagers returned to the UK yesterday.

Take care
Cris

 

[lotuseatsvipers]

Ekimklaw

Here is LOTUS EATS VIPERS... yet another enlightened anti-theist who is not content to share his views with me, but must instead condescendingly mock and slander.

Funny, labeled me already... I'm not anti theist, I'm anti that 'crap' fest you spewed on us at the beginning of the thread.

I don't have any replies to your other statements because I don't see the point. I will ask a question though, why do you believe the bible is a divine infallible work of God, is there any reason? I'm over the attacks and slander, so an honost answer isn't going to be bashed, at least not by me.

 

[Cris]

Ekim,

Continuing. Part 2. Mainly faith and the need for evidence.

This assumes that I do not use reason to find truth. This is a mischaracterization. If I use reason and find God, and I determine that I have found truth, who are you to say it is NOT truth?

Because reason depends on facts and if you cannot provide factual evidence for God then you can’t base your claimed knowledge on reason.

The truth I follow comes from God. Not from man.

That’s fine, but how do you know? You claim the Holy Spirit, but how do you distinguish between alleged spiritual knowledge and a delusion? You can’t unless you have independent factual verification, which you don’t have. You are of course free to claim that your truth comes from god, but without some independent and verifiable evidence all you have is a baseless assertion.

However, in my mind God's truth is in perfect league with reason. In short, using reason I am convinced that God is... and that he represents "truth".

Reason requires facts; you don’t have any so I don’t see how you can possibly demonstrate reason in this context.

Again, do not misunderstand. Many passages of scripture are written for Christians. Not the unbeliever.

An alternative view is that one must be prepared to be brainwashed by xtian propaganda so that they do not question otherwise incomprehensible passages.

No I say reason and then believe.

But that is impossible if there are no facts. Reason depends on facts, without facts I feel no obligation to believe in xtianity first. What you are saying is impossible.

Christianity is a choice. You choose. There are two paths. The way of Jesus, and every other way. You MUST use reason to decide.

I do use reason extensively and xtianity has no factual basis making it impossible to choose if the choice is based on reason.

Do you routinely make decisions without reason? Neither do I. Implying that I chose to be a Christian without reason is false. This an atheistic presupposition designed to imply that Christians are mind-numbed fools blindly following. Not true.

But again without evidence you have chosen something that is not based on reason.

There is plenty of evidence to provide faith. Once you have faith you are home free. You already have faith. You just need to channel it to God and not atheism.

Religious faith means nothing more than believing something without evidence. It is the single most unreliable approach for discovering truth.

Oops. We slipped apart again. One more time. Use reason, then make a decision, then go with it. Did I say NOT to use reason? NO! I said:

I am using reason and xtianity fails the test.

U S E R E A S O N

Is that clear enough? Reason it out. But uh... use an open mind.

I am and you aren’t since you have no evidence. Use an open mind and combine it with logical reasoning. If reason shows a fantasy as it does for xtianity then an open mind has allowed one to question the issue and then logic allows a reasoned rejection.

We must use reason of course. You seem to reject faith as a possibility in human logic. But faith is not so hard to understand.

Religious faith is entirely outside of the realm of reason and logic. It is strictly illogical since it has no factual basis.

When you take a flight somewhere, do you personally inspect the plane from stem to stern before takeoff? No. You have "faith" that someone has done that for you. You base this decision on the evidence (workmen in uniform, assurances by the company, FAA standards, etc).

This is a very common misuse of the word faith. The word has multiple meanings and this one is out of context.

When faith is used in a religious context it simply means believe without evidence.

Your assessment of the term faith in the aircraft scenario is fine since it is based on evidence. In a religious sense there is no evidence and as such it is entirely irrational.

Why then is it considered unreasonable for a Christian to base his faith in God on the evidence he percieves, when in his mind they are no less sound?

Because the perceived evidence is illusory.

There are hundreds of examples of how we use faith everyday.

Yes and in most cases they will be based on real evidence and are hence rational.

You think faith is easy? For the thinking (or reasoning) individual, it is sometimes very difficult to have faith. There is doubt. These doubts are reasonings. We wrestle with questions like anyone. Some cannot find sufficient answers and "fall away", while others remain strong in their faith. If we were mind-numbed robots we wouldn't need our faith renewed. But Christians have doubts like anyone.

Your point demonstrates my point very well. If you have clear evidence then there can be no doubt. Without evidence there is no reason to believe. The difficulties you have when using faith to claim truth is that you have no solid factual basis so of course people will fall away and will constantly question their faith. It is like clutching at air, there is nothing solid to hold onto.

More to come.
Cris

 

[Ekimklaw]

Hey Cris,

I have enjoyed reading your 2 posts. They are very well-reasoned and even-handed. Thank you.

I understand that you have chosen to follow the path of empirical evidence ONLY. That is fine. As I have stated it is a choice. No problem.

I also understand what you are saying about emotions boiling up when an issue close to one's heart is impugned. I do my utmost to NOT lose my cool.

You have agreed not to take scripture out of context. Thanks. I will allow myself to be convinced that you did not really intend to take scripture out of context.

However, something to consider. It IS possible to criticize The Bible without offending the adherant. It is called "tact". For the sake of common courtesy (not pretense) let's use it. I vow I will be tactful from now on. (remind me if I falter )

This is a great opportunity. We provide each end of the spectrum. That to me is interesting.

(I will post a more substantive post tomorrow in terms of things to discuss. I just wanted to close the loop here.)

Take care,

-Mike

 

[Cris]

Ekim,

I'll also try to match your tone.

There is still a lot to cover, and I need to get more sleep this night. I'll also return tomorrow evening to continue.

Take care
Cris

 

[Ekimklaw]

Re: Ekimklaw

QUOTE]Originally posted by lotuseatsvipers


Funny, labeled me already... I'm not anti theist, I'm anti that 'crap' fest you spewed on us at the beginning of the thread.

I don't have any replies to your other statements because I don't see the point. I will ask a question though, why do you believe the bible is a divine infallible work of God, is there any reason? I'm over the attacks and slander, so an honost answer isn't going to be bashed, at least not by me. [/QUOTE]


Labels labels labels... some we like others we don't. "Crap-fest" huh? Cool term.

Did you notice I put this at the bottom of my post at the start of this thread?

"*note to Atheists - Sorry, I just wanted to give this fellow believer some advice. No offense ."

Whatever. You took a pretty good blindside dig at me you know.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lotuseatsvipers wrote:
ekimklaw, you sound rediculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was I supposed to do... say "Thanks." Hey, I was just taking up for myself. That's okay isn't it? You do that dontcha?

Anyway...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lotuseatsvipers wrote:
why do you believe the bible is a divine infallible work of God, is there any reason?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why yes Lotus, there is...

There are 10 reasons that I accept the Bible as the word of God.

1. It's unity.

Despite being written over the course of 15 centuries, (with a 400 year gap between the Old Testement and the New Testement) and the use of 40 authors (who were not all "writers" per se, but farmers, fishermen, a tentmaker, a soldier, and a doctor and a tax collector to name a few) and despite being written in many geographical areas (including Egypt, Persia, Rome, Israel, and Babylon.) and despite many different styles of writing (poetry, prophecy, letters, law, proverbs, etc.) it still holds together with an uncanny unity and with no contradictions.

2. Indestructability.

Despite political persecution (Diocletion set out to destroy ALL Bibles, and ALL Christians. He even erected a victory column proclaiming "Extinct Is The Name Christian". 20 years later Constantine became emperor and requested all remaining Bibles in the Empire. Soon over 50 were brought out of hiding.) it remains.

Despite religious persecution (in 1199 Pope Innocent ordered that all Bible be burned as it was against church law that any but the clergy have a Bible.) it remains.

Despite philisophical persecution (Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Nietche, etc.) it remains.


3. Historical accuracy.

The Bible was thought to contain hundreds of historical inaccuracies. This was before archeology became a major scientific field. When scientists becan excavating in the "Holy Land" time and again the Bible was seen to be vindicated as new discoveries confirmed the Bible's accuracy. Great scientists and scholars like Sir William Ramsay, William Albright, and Robert D. Wilson all proclaim the Bible's amazing historical accuracy. I will cite examples of several Biblical things that archeology has confirmed if you wish... otherwise... moving on...

4. Scientific accuracy.

The Bible, although NOT a scientific text, makes many scientific statements, which are all consistent with later scientific findings. Some include:

a. A spherical Earth (Isa 40:22)
b. The Earth is suspended in space (Job 26:7)
c. Innumerable stars (Gen 15:5)
d. Mountains and canyons in the sea (2 Sam 22:16, Jonah 2:6)
e. Springs and fountains in the sea (Gen 7:11, Gen 8:2, Prov 8:28)
f. Ocean currents (Psalms 8:8)
g. Water cycle (Eccles 1:6-7, Job 26:8, Job 36:27-28, Job 38:25-27, Job 37:16, and Psalm 135:7)
h. All living things only reproduce among their own kind (Gen 1:21, Gen 6:19)
i. Health and sanitation (There are many. See Deut. 23:12-13 for example. This deals with waste management. There are too many to list.)
j. Life-giving blood (Lev. 17:11) Early man had no clue as to what blood was or did inside the body. Some ancient scientists thought blood carried disease, not life. Thus the practise of "bloodletting" as a cure. This practise killed more than it healed for obvious reasons. But the Bible states: "The life of the flesh is in the blood".

5. Prophetic accuracy.

Down through history a lot of Bible prophecies came true. Here are some examples:

The prediction of a departure from the Christian faith (2 Thes. 2:3, 1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Peter 3:3-4) This is happening now. The Bible forsaw this.

Current events predicted. (see 1 Tim. 4:1-3)

Lies and hypocrisy are a given in politics. We are the victims of these powerful people who think lying is the best policy.

Seared concience. More and more crime, including murders, by people who just don't care. Look at all these horrible abductions of children. These people don't care who gets hurt.

Alternative lifestyles. Marriage is under assault! It is being attacked on all sides by the alternative lifestyle proponents. The homosexual lobby, feminists, and people practising recreational sex, free love, adultery, pederasts, pornography, etc. More and more marriage between a man and woman for life is being cheapened.

Vegetarians. The rise of alternative lifestyles has also brought things like vegetarianism, spurred by health concerns, or animal rights. Many vegetarians have a tendency to also embrace counter-culture practices. Not all, of course, but many do.

All these were predicted to happen.

Unification of world systems. (Rev. 13:4-8, 16, 17)

Europe united. Now an effort is afoot to unite the countries in Africa. 30 years ago, who would have thought that Russia would one day be allies with the U.S.A. This is all well and good, but the Bible predicts these unifications will be a step toward global domination under an evil tyrant. The internet and satellite TV make information travel faster than ever dreamed of. Even today, when the President of America gives a speech, it is seen and heard almost immediately world-wide.

All of this is predicted in the Bible.

The return of Israel after being scattered. (Isaiah 43:5-6) Israel returned miraculously in 1948, against all odds.

there are a host of other examples but I am tired...

6. It's universal influence.

The Bible influenced the world. Colonization, and missions led to nations founded on biblical principles. Most importantly America, who today remains the largest provider world-wide of humanitarian aid. The Red Cross and other Christian based mercy-organizations, not to mention hospitals, show the world what Christian compassion is about. (Luke 10:30-37)

7. The way it was preserved (copied with care).

No book in history has been preserved like the Bible. Today there are over 5,000 greek manuscripts of the New Testement alone. And with each older manuscript that comes to light the same thing is discovered. Consistency in copying word for word. 5000 copies of the Bible is amazing when you consider:

1500 years after Herodotus wrote his history there was only one copy left in the world.

1200 years after Plato wrote his classic work, there was only one copy left in the world.

Today we have only a few manuscripts from Sophocles, Virgil, and Cicero.

There are NO manuscripts of Shakespeare's plays in his hand. Those that exist were made from various scripts printed for the actors. Occasionally other printings are found, and there are always many variations.

8. Vast circulation.

The American Bible Society has produced over 900 million Bibles since 1816. It has been translated (completely) into over 240 languages. At least 1 book of the Bible has been translated into 1,250 languages. Almost everywhere on Earth you can get a Bible.

9. It's honesty.

As has been mentioned before, the Bible contains some unpleasantness. When honestly chronicalling human behavior as it relates to this sinful world, some unpleasantness is bound to be seen. If is wasn't there critics would complain that the Bible is sanitized. But the Bible is a "warts and all" book.

10. Life-transforming power.

Over the years, hardened skeptics, lonely and hopeless people, rich people, moral people and evil people have all been changed completely by the Bible. Countless times down through the ages people who were once skoffers have found true joy and peace through the Bible.

I have seen it myself. My oldest brother, for example, who was a wild young man in 1975 was an altogether different person in 1976. Gone was his smoldering anger, gone were the drugs, booze and cigarettes. Gone were his careless behavior toward his parents. He became a Christian. Since that day his life has been one long blessing. He is happy, content and full of joy. He often speaks with others about the anger he had in those days when he was "lost". It all started with a visit to church. He heard a scripture that resonated. As he began to study a Bible our Mom and Dad gave him, he eventually realized his real need was for Jesus. He is one of the most humble, gentle men I have ever known. A far cry from the long-haired wild young man he was. He is my role-model. A good father and a good husband to his wife.

I saw this transformation with my own eyes.

Anyway... THAT is why I believe the Bible is the word of God.

Thanks...

-Mike

Ps. again... pardon any typos...

 

[lotuseatsvipers]

Wow your replies are really wordy, lets get this over with.

Why you believe the bible is the infallible word of god and why I believe you are insane.

1. Unity:
it still holds together with an uncanny unity and with no contradictions.

Are you reading the same book as everyone else. There is an amazing, glaring contradiction between the old testament and the new testament.Old: God is vengeful and demands retribution, changes his mind often(I thought he was omniscent), takes the opinions of man and changes his opinion, destroys cities, burns sinners, well you get the point, he's not so nice. New: now god is the god of love, he seems like a completely different entity altogether. Completely different voice. The devil...Hell...Just huge glaring inconcistancies.
now I will get to some specifics, I am no biblical scholar (although I have read it many times) so I'm employing the help of some websites for this, as I'm sure you have done many times.

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

GE 4:15, DT 32:4, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The
Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing. NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15,
9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2
God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce. 2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I
called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and
quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils.
Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for,
and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the
fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks
are thrown down by him." 2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love. GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

GE 11:7-9 God sows discord.
PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.

MT 4:1-11, MK 1:12-13 Immediately following his Baptism, Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness resisting temptation by the Devil. JN 2:1-11 Three days after the Baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana.

GE 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30, EX 3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11, NU
12:7-8, 14:14, JB 42:5, AM 7:7-8, 9:1 God is seen. EX 33:20, JN 1:18,
1JN 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No one
has ever seen him.

GE 17:7, 10-11 The covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting. GA
6:15 It is of no consequence.

GE 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are
married and receive God's blessings. LE 20:17, DT 27:20-23 Incest is
wrong.

JN 10:30 Jesus and the Father are one, (i.e., equal).
JN 14:28 The Father is greater than Jesus.

JN 12:32 Jesus implies that all persons will be saved.
TI 2:3-4, 2PE 3:9 God wants all to be saved.
JN 12:40, AC 2:21, 2:39, RO 9:27, 10:13 Some will not be saved.
RE 14:1-4 Heaven will be inhabited by 144,000 virgin men (only?).

RO 2:12 All who have sinned without the law will perish without the law.
RO 4:15 Where there is no law there is no transgression (sin).

WEll we get the point. If you can't defend against ALL of them, don't bother with one. I recognize some(few) might be a stretch.

2. Indestructability.

Is this really rational? The Koran and many other religious texts are still here today, they must be 100% true. Also with any old philosophy texts, and any other book that has every been burned or attacked throughout history.

3. Historical accuracy.

According to the bible using generations of man the earth is about 6000 years old. HAR HAR.

And you take this(that archealogists say everything they discovered is in line with biblical history) as fact, Archeologists heavily debate this, obviously with the majority of 'Christians' on one side and the 'non-Christians' on the other side. You just choose to listen to the Archealogists on your side of the issue.

Would it at any rate suprise me if the old testament is historically accurate to a large degree considering it is a book written through those times by the people who lived it (most likely), no it would not suprise me. How does that prove it is of god?

4. Scientific accuracy.

Are you joking? I'm not sure if this is a joke or not.
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. "

So there is a big ocean floating above us?

a. A spherical Earth (Isa 40:22)
b. The Earth is suspended in space (Job 26:7)
c. Innumerable stars (Gen 15:5)
d. Mountains and canyons in the sea (2 Sam 22:16, Jonah 2:6)
e. Springs and fountains in the sea (Gen 7:11, Gen 8:2, Prov 8:28)
f. Ocean currents (Psalms 8:8)
g. Water cycle (Eccles 1:6-7, Job 26:8, Job 36:27-28, Job 38:25-27, Job 37:16, and Psalm 135:7)
h. All living things only reproduce among their own kind (Gen 1:21, Gen 6:19)
i. Health and sanitation (There are many. See Deut. 23:12-13 for example. This deals with waste management. There are too many to list.)
j. Life-giving blood (Lev. 17:11) Early man had no clue as to what blood was or did inside the body. Some ancient scientists thought blood carried disease, not life. Thus the practise of "bloodletting" as a cure. This practise killed more than it healed for obvious reasons. But the Bible states: "The life of the flesh is in the blood".

Most of these are huge stretches of the actual text but I will talk about a few.
c. so your telling me you can't look up at the sky and tell that there are a lot of stars?
d. It is quiet aparent that the ocean and waters are not 'flat'.
f. Another aparent thing. They had been using currents to sail throughout history.
h. hey wow, good job on that one, and I use my legs to walk and my eyes to see, and the sky is blue.
i. Ever heard of ancient chinese/shaman medicines often being proven to work by modern science. I guess they were divinely inspired too?
j. Wow that is an amazing stretch. I don't beleive for a second that every culture has 'drained blood' to heal, and plenty of cultures believed blood to be very special indeed. Did not some cultures drink the blood of a downed foe in belief that that the drinker would assume the deads 'powers'. many other things like this.

What about all the times in history the bible was proven through very brave people to be inaccurate as far as science is concerned? Were these only fault of hte 'interpreter', I am certain that is your answer, but why do you beleive your interpretations to be any better?

5. Prophetic accuracy.

Ya, and nostradamus was accurate too


I'm going to stop for now. Perhaps someone else will continue the cause. I see all of your other 'reasons' applicable to a thousand other things and not specific to the bible, so I could use your 'logic' to prove that hundreds of thousands of books are divine inspiration and infallible.

 

[Ekimklaw]

Dear Lotus,

I thought we were going to discuss this like adults. You actually kicked off your reply with these words:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
Why you believe the bible is the infallible word of god and why I believe you are insane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's real nice. Coming from you that is a complement.

Your condescending reply to my post does not merit a reply, but out of the goodness of my heart I will reply to a couple of items.

You seem to put great stock in the fact that the Bible is contradictory. Such is NOT the case. I could easily refute each of your assertions, but that would mean I would be using my valuable time to respond to you (an unkind person). But since you are so off base with your criticisms, I'll explain a few things.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong. Before he ate the fruit he was not subject to spiritual death. It did not mean he would drop dead physically the moment he ate the fruit. When he ate it, sin seperated him and God. The innocence and fellowship with God he had enjoyed up to that moment was "dead" instantly.



As for the common assertion that the God of the Old Testement and the God of the New are two different Gods, is clarified simply by an objective consideration of the different paradigms represented.

You fail to notice the times in the Old Testement where God is spoken of as loving and merciful. (see Deut. 7:8, 1 Kings 10:9, 2 Chron 2:11, Psalm 46:1, 103:8, Proverbs 26:10 to name a few) and the times in the NT when God's wrath is mentioned (see John 3:36, Romans 1:18, Collosians 3:6, Rev 19:15, for some examples)

The problem is this. God hates sin. He reserves his anger and wrath for sin. Therefore his anger and wrath are justified. Have you ever been justifiably angry? Then you understand.

During Old Testement times the Jewish people were subject to the Mosaic Law. This law was rigid and steadfast. True. It required strict observance of ceremonial customs.

The New Testement (Christ) ushered in the dispensation of Grace. Also, at that time the option to be a child of God was specifically offered to non-Jews (gentiles). Acceptance of Jesus was the new prerequisite, not adherance to the Law. This is a Christian belief. The Jewish people reject the "New Testement" and are therefore, in their minds, are still subject to the Mosaic Law.

You tried to oversimplify a very complex issue.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lotuseats... wrote:
JN 10:30 Jesus and the Father are one, (i.e., equal).
JN 14:28 The Father is greater than Jesus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


During his time on Earth Jesus temporarily set aside his complete God-ness in order to live among us. These two scriptures you selected display this. Jesus was not as "great" (mighty, powerful) as the Father for the time he was subject to the human physical body. Yet in the great scheme of things, he and the Father are one. Jesus was God in human form.

Anyway, I've spent enough time here on all this. You asked me why I believe in the Bible and I told you. You can take it or leave it.

Your assertions are marred by contextual problems driven by anti-Biblical bias. A common practice used by Bible slanderers... Not that you're one of those...

Have a good day,

-Mike

 

[lotuseatsvipers]

You are incredibly sensitive? Is there any reason why? sheesh.

like I said up there, if you can't show me how everyone of those is actually false, then don't waste your time with even one. I know that some of those were silly and easily refuted, but some are not so. Can you refute them all? I seriously doubt that.

And your idea of God of the old testament being only one that hates sin, but actually a loving God is....hmmm...I'll be 'nice' and just say I disagree. There was not even an established list of wrongs and rights at that time, he hated these people for sinning against him when they knew only of gods of pharoahs and what not, not of him. Do you see this as justifiable anger as you said.

He killed everything on the earth, when almost nothing knew of him (great flood), does this seem like justifiable anger?

I remember some otehr things but not specifics, wasn't he going to throw a fireball and burn the whole earth but some silly earthling concinced him to 'cool his wrath'. How is it that a human can outwit god, oh it was Moses I just remembered. Anyways, it seems to me an allpowerful allknowing god would have already known it was a bad idea...guess he was just testing moses huh.

I would appreciate your refutations of my listed contradictions.

goodday

 

[(Q)]

The problem is this. God hates sin. He reserves his anger and wrath for sin. Therefore his anger and wrath are justified. Have you ever been justifiably angry? Then you understand.

If God has anger and can hate, and man is created in the image of God, then anger and hate are perfectly natural states for man. Man can experience anger and hate and not worry about the consequences. It is not a sin to be angry or to hate.

Atheists reason anger and hatred are irrational and futile and do not belong in their morals. They understand anger and hatred will not benefit them in any way.

Which is justifiable ?

 

[Ekimklaw]

Originally posted by (Q)
The problem is this. God hates sin. He reserves his anger and wrath for sin. Therefore his anger and wrath are justified. Have you ever been justifiably angry? Then you understand.

If God has anger and can hate, and man is created in the image of God, then anger and hate are perfectly natural states for man. Man can experience anger and hate and not worry about the consequences. It is not a sin to be angry or to hate.

Atheists reason anger and hatred are irrational and futile and do not belong in their morals. They understand anger and hatred will not benefit them in any way.

Which is justifiable ?

If you hate evil then the hate is "good". If you are justifiably angry then the anger is okay. This isn't complicated.

Your question implies hatred applied willy nilly to whatever one feels hatred for. It is all about "justifiable" wrath.

And another thing, as an atheist what business is it of yours telling anyone what is irrational or futile? From what moral standpoint do you state this? Your "claim" has no more or less value than any other atheist's definition of what is "irrational". So it's no use getting on a high horse about right and wrong. Cuz you have no authority to proclaim anything. We're all just animals remember?

-Mike

 

[Xev]

Q:

Atheists reason anger and hatred are irrational and futile and do not belong in their morals. They understand anger and hatred will not benefit them in any way.

Well, Nietzsche was an athiest, more or less, and yet he practically deified enmity!

And hatred and anger do benefit me, and I am an athiest. I don't know where exactly to place them in my moral system, but I don't see them as bad things at all.

C'mon Q, you don't expect us athiests to have a consensus on anything!

 

[Ekimklaw]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lotuseatsvipers wrote:
You are incredibly sensitive? Is there any reason why? sheesh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes there is. Simply put... I have been attacked so often by atheists that I have evolved a sort of "missile attack" reaction. When I am "maligned" I launch a counter offensive. Hey I don't know you. Once I get a feel for your personality, I will be able to tell if you are joking, joshing, kidding, whatever. Until then, for all I know you are a virulent anti-theist. Remember in terms of debate standards and decorum, there is no restriction for you... you have no moral standard by which you are judged. I on the other hand can't be arrogant, use foul language, abusive words, ad hominem attacks, etc. Because, after all, I represent my Christian faith (not that I'd use those tactics, but I'm making a point here). So... I compensate by being a fairly defensive. Don't mean to offend. After all, it was you who called me insane. Didn't you? I'll debate you. Heaven knows I enjoy a good debate.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lotuseatsvipers wrote:
like I said up there, if you can't show me how everyone of those is actually false, then don't waste your time with even one. I know that some of those were silly and easily refuted, but some are not so. Can you refute them all? I seriously doubt that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sir, that is an unfair request. All or nothing? Reverse it and maybe you'll understand. I could write a whole bunch of scriptures and ask you to refute all of them.

Do not forget the notion of decorum.

I could refute them. But it is very time consuming. I worked for 4 hours on that post about the Bible. 4 HOURS! And my labors were rewarded with mockery and nit-picking. Can you see that I'm not real thrilled about spending 4 more hours writing another post for your entertainment? Sorry.

I'm concerned about you to having to endure another "crap-fest".


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lotuseatsvipers wrote:
And your idea of God of the old testament being only one that hates sin, but actually a loving God is....hmmm...I'll be 'nice' and just say I disagree.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That was pleasant. You disagreed politely. No one is hurt, and each of our stances are clear.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lotuseatsvipers wrote:
There was not even an established list of wrongs and rights at that time, he hated these people for sinning against him when they knew only of gods of pharoahs and what not, not of him. Do you see this as justifiable anger as you said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If you read the story carefully, you will find that Pharoah was warned many times. Eventually God even resorted to plagues as signs that He meant business. Pharoah rejected all offers.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lotuseatsvipers wrote:
He killed everything on the earth, when almost nothing knew of him (great flood), does this seem like justifiable anger?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's true that, as far as we know, Noah had no officially written code or "established list of wrongs and rights ", yet God found favor with him. Because it says Noah alone followed God's will. We can safely assume that the same way Noah was privy to God's will, so other people at the time were also. Perhaps there was a written code that simply is not mentioned in the Bible. Bottom line? The people rejected God. Certainly God's standard for behavior at that time was based on whatever knowledge people at that time had of His will. The world became depraved. God ultimately chose to start over.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lotuseatsvipers wrote:
I remember some otehr things but not specifics, wasn't he going to throw a fireball and burn the whole earth but some silly earthling concinced him to 'cool his wrath'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



????



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lotuseatsvipers wrote:
How is it that a human can outwit god, oh it was Moses I just remembered. Anyways, it seems to me an allpowerful allknowing god would have already known it was a bad idea...guess he was just testing moses huh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


?????


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lotuseatsvipers wrote:
I would appreciate your refutations of my listed contradictions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When I have the time I will.


Gee. It's not easy being the only Christian on an atheist board.


-Mike

 

[Xev]

"Yes there is. Simply put... I have been attacked so often by atheists that I have evolved a sort of "missile attack" reaction."

Check your pm's, luv.

"????"

Likely referring to the time whassisname bargains with God over the sparing of Sodom and Gommorah - the whole, "would you spare the city for 5 rightous men" thing.

Or lotuseatvipers is stoned.

Sir, that is an unfair request. All or nothing? Reverse it and maybe you'll understand. I could write a whole bunch of scriptures and ask you to refute all of them.

Well, I'm so nice, sweet and kind - *Xev snickers* - that I'll do it.

"GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

"GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years."

Adam obviously boinked Eve once they realized that they were naked. Thus - okay, bad joke.

Christians often say that Adam died spirtually that day. Tony1 says that since Adam lost his immortality, and "a thousand days are as one with the lord", that Adam effectively died in "God time".

"GE 11:7-9 God sows discord.
PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord."

God is obviously going through adolescence and hates himself. Watch out! He's gonna re-write the Bible to be lyrics from Marilyn Manson songs.

Seriously, that refers to God splitting languages, not exactly sowing discord.

"GE 17:7, 10-11 The covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting. GA
6:15 It is of no consequence."

Difference between NT and OT. Jesus changed all of that.

"GE 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are
married and receive God's blessings. LE 20:17, DT 27:20-23 Incest is
wrong."

Those verses do not condemn the marriage of a man to his half sister.

"JN 12:32 Jesus implies that all persons will be saved.
TI 2:3-4, 2PE 3:9 God wants all to be saved.
JN 12:40, AC 2:21, 2:39, RO 9:27, 10:13 Some will not be saved.
RE 14:1-4 Heaven will be inhabited by 144,000 virgin men (only?)."

Those dudes are only singing around the throne or something.

 

[Zero]

Awesome, that was funny.

 

[lotuseatsvipers]

Sir, that is an unfair request. All or nothing? Reverse it and maybe you'll understand. I could write a whole bunch of scriptures and ask you to refute all of them.

You don't see the difference? My stance does not require an all or nothing, I can change my values any time I want, in any degree required and nothing will be lost. If there is but one disgreement in the Bible then you lose your whole cornerstone.

If you read the story carefully, you will find that Pharoah was warned many times. Eventually God even resorted to plagues as signs that He meant business. Pharoah rejected all offers.

I wasn't even referring to one specific event, I was broadly stating that God punished people who didn't even know of his will for going against his will. Your defense of this was incredibly weak...."well maybe they did know his will in their hearts or something! Tee hee!"

Sorry about the ramblings in the last post, not high(don't smoke), but something was definitely wrong. I'll get that checked out...

Those dudes are only singing around the throne or something.

 

[Xev]

Sorry about the ramblings in the last post, not high(don't smoke), but something was definitely wrong. I'll get that checked out...

Well let he who has never bogied roll the first joint!*

Seriously, my post doesn't make much sense either. 3am after a 11 hour shift, well.....



*I think I'm damned for this joke.

 

[Increan]

If people are getting into bible contradictions I have a 30 page book on just that, all scriptures taken right from the bible itself. It is a book full of loopholes and mistakes. It's quite pitiful that somewhat intelligent people follow such a flawed piece of literature.

 

[lotuseatsvipers]

Sounds interesting, share some of its better points in a new thread.