Atheists what is your proof?

[SolusCado]

Au contraire, it did not originate with the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

How do you know? The jewish quotes aren't dated?.

One doesn't need to ascribe to any particular teaching to know common sense when they see it.

I didn't say that you did have to ascribe to these theologies to believe it - I simply said that no logic, reason, or rational has been provided to justify the position. The best anyone has come up with is that slavery violates the "Golden Rule", which seems to originate in a number of religions (if not one in particular).

 

[birch]

Secondly, I am fully capable of separating my feelings from logic, so your comment doesn't even make sense. You know that I am lying when I say there is no logical reasoning because I don't condone slavery - even though I fully acknowledge that I don't condone slavery because of my personal religious beliefs? I thought we had already established that faith is not rational.

Oh, so you don't condone slavery because of any rational reason, just because you follow a doctrine that says not to.

so if the doctrine told you to jump off a bridge, i suppose you would do so or kill someone if it said so.

interesting.

 

[SolusCado]

Oh, so you don't condone slavery because of any rational reason, just because you follow a doctrine that says not to.

so if the doctrine told you to jump off a bridge, i suppose you would do so or kill someone if it said so.

interesting.

Basically, yes. Though the next logical question you SHOULD be asking is why do I follow that doctrine, and - as I have said previously - it is a doctrine I follow because everything it teaches falls in line perfectly with that which I see to be true.

IOW, this can all be boiled down to saying we all have an internal mechanism to know what's right and wrong. Atheists are content to stop there, and theists recognize those thruths in the theologies they follow, and thus follow those theologies - trusting that more truths will be revealed than those we can already see based on our internal mechanisms. This is the basis behind "spirituality".

 

[gmilam]

How do you know? The jewish quotes aren't dated?.



I didn't say that you did have to ascribe to these theologies to believe it - I simply said that no logic, reason, or rational has been provided to justify the position. The best anyone has come up with is that slavery violates the "Golden Rule", which seems to originate in a number of religions (if not one in particular).

Leviticus is estimated to be from around 1400 BC.
The concept of Maat from Egypt dates to around 2000 BC.

Maybe Moses learned it while he lived in Egypt.

 

[SolusCado]

Leviticus is estimated to be from around 1400 BC.
The concept of Maat from Egypt dates to around 2000 BC.

Maybe Moses learned it while he lived in Egypt.

That is actually quite likely. The Bible actually makes a point of noting that Moses was highly educated in the Egyptian ways.

 

[birch]

Basically, yes. Though the next logical question you SHOULD be asking is why do I follow that doctrine, and - as I have said previously - it is a doctrine I follow because everything it teaches falls in line perfectly with that which I see to be true.

if that were true, you would not say that you don't condone slavery. you stated that the old testament is the word of god but not the new testament, the old testament has examples of slavery that is condoned. your "personal" feeling of not condoning slavery is not in line with the bible. i think this is why you personally don't subcribe to it but don't cite it as immoral either.

besides, you never give explanations of why you don't or do condone slavery which is convenient. you accuse others of not having rational reasons which have been given. however, your "personal" or vague feelings are somehow valid enough for you to not condone slavery which is hypocritical. also, i did ask you a number of times why.

interesting.

This is the basis behind "spirituality".

basis of spirituality is not just religion. atheists are not just content to 'stop' there. that is why they question and speculate as well as try different solutions and discover.

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

Because I'm not that concerned with it. The same reason I haven't given thought to what color hair Christ may have had. It doesn't matter to me.

Why aren't you concerned about the fact that god allowed slavery ? Why would you not be concerned about the god you are worshipping ?

Would you worship him if he made you sacrifice your mother ? Or children ?

so the question you are really grappling with is why didn't God just hand everything out at once, and the answer to that is because that isn't the way God operates. He gives us what we need when we need it.

And you know how god operates ?

Just more apologizing to me.

That's fine, though the golden rule originated in the Bible... Sooo, you're really just agreeing with us theists on that one.

And this is what irks me the most SolusCado.

You are perfectly willing to accept the good, but immediately excuse or ignore the bad.

In this way you are proving to me that you are not in the least bit serious about scrutinizing your beliefs and what they are based on. It's just acceptance and then make things fit.

As I said before, it's not what fits but what doesn't that you should be questioning.

For example, these two together, regardless of the time, are in conflict.

1) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
2) slavery allowed and specified

Or these

1) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
2) Genocide allowed and specified

Your god specifically told man to enslave, rape and kill others in his name and yet at the same time asked us to follow the golden rule.

This is such a slippery slope that nobody who scrutinizes it can climb to the top. Yet it is passing through you easier than a camel going through the eye of a needle.

I'm glad you made that statement so that I didn't have to. I agree that the conflict between beliefs that cannot be proven one way or another is a useless expense of our thoughts and energies, and I think that getting people to be tolerant of each other's beliefs is a more effective approach than trying to wipe out other's beliefs.

Well I realize that you are intelligent SolusCado and that you don't condone or agree with slavery, rape or genocide or any other horrible acts that man perpetrates on each other.

I am also not trying to wipe out your belief in god as I have explained before.

But I do think you are too easily wiping away what us agnostics/atheists see in the religious texts that don't line up with what we now understand, and since this book has been declared divinely inspired then we are correct and just in questioning it and not swallowing everything without doing so.

And although I won't speak for all of us (agnostics/atheists) I would suggest that most don't buy the idea of god not knowing that slavery, genocide and the like are wrong and god should have known this and instructed as such, regardless of the timing.

No, you have YOUR answer. Mine is that (again) God gives us what we need when we need it. As I stated before, Christ's teachings (which I also believe to be of divine inspiration) DO stand in opposition to slavery, so you cannot say that it is allowed by the God of the Bible. You can only say that it WAS allowed at one time.

So this raises two questions.

What good is the bible to us now if we have moved past the thinking of thousands of years ago ?

Why hasn't god come back to give us an updated edition ? and why doesn't it continue to update it as needed ?

Ok, that's three.

Oh, one more.

Why didn't he just get it right in the first place to avoid having to keep coming back ?

Originally Posted by jpappl
You are the only one who can do that in the end. If you are unwilling to challenge yourself then it doesn't matter. ”

It is through challenging myself and the beliefs with which I have been raised that I have come to the positions I have.

Do you think that it is possible for you to believe in god but also believe the bible is flawed. IOW, man wrote the bible and just f8cked it all up because he was ignorant, as we are ignorant to humans 400 years from now, well let's hope so.

Is that a possibility for you ?

If by commanding war, you are referring to the initial settling of the "Holy Land, I would point out that this is an example of my statement. God wanted to provide a place for "His People" to prosper and grow, and the physical sufferings of those who were conquered wasn't terribly relevant.

Aren't we all gods children ?

"his people" suggests that your god only cared about those who believe in him. Yet he created us all.

Originally, you stated that god created all time, which is a different conversation entirely, but to make one point. If god created all time at once and knows all and all of time then he created humans just to be destroyed by other humans, knowingly. Hmmn

Have you wondered about that ? If so who of us are just here for your entertainment ?

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Can you not think of any others to question ? ”

I have never come across any contradictions, only misunderstandings, incomplete quotes, and flawed logic that led people to THINK they had uncovered a contradiction.

The book is what it is. Therein lies the problem. We are not getting any new information from god, we are not getting updates and revisions. At least that anyone would take seriously.

Why is that ?

If we are to understand that it was written for that particular time.

So my question then is: Is the bible for all time or just the time it was written ?

I never suggested anything close to the notion that God wouldn't know, but rather that God had reason to not tell us at that particular point in time.

Have you considered that statement as a question ?

Why didn't god tell us at that particular time that slavery was wrong ?

Frankly, this too is in alignment with my position (and basically the same thing you will learn in modern Christian Theology) - which is to say that it wasn't until the coming of Christ that "we mere humans " COULD "see a more righteous way". IOW, whether you realize it or not, it is quite possibly God talking to you that makes you so certain of things such as "slavery is wrong". (Of course, there is cultural reference that comes into play as well, so it was more likely God talking to the first people who fought to end slavery than you - but perhaps not. I am not God and don't know what he says to whom.)

Maybe. God has never spoke to me. I would be far less likely to follow someone who said god told me this was the way then someone who claimed after thinking about this idea they have come to a conclusion and this is why using logic and reason.

For example, one day we may never put animals in the zoo. We may say that a zoo is a prison. In fact I wrote a song about, wanna hear it here it goes:

"How would you like to be
Caged in a world so free

A zoo is a prison."

(copyright protected)

But we haven't reached that point. And then what about all the animals we eat ?

We when look at religious texts, are they for all time as they should be or only for that time. Hopefully you have commented based on the questions above, so no need to comment here.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
And again the arrogance statement. I am saying and have been saying that god should have known and thus instructed us that it was wrong. I am not claiming infinite knowledge, you are claiming your god has infinite knowledge.

Think about it. ”

And I am saying that God not telling us something at a specific point in time does not justify you saying "God should have known and thus instructed us". Of course God would have known - but it may not have been the best time to tell us. Kind of how you don't teach a five year old about sex.

Yes god would have known. Why he did not tell us is the question ?

And there is no good answer.

 

[Emil]

Yes, as I said - both sides. Your point?

I only half agree.

 

[SolusCado]

if that were true, you would not say that you don't condone slavery. you stated that the old testament is the word of god but not the new testament, the old testament has examples of slavery that is condoned. your "personal" feeling of not condoning slavery is not in line with the bible. i think this is why you personally don't subcribe to it but don't cite it as immoral either.

Here we go again. Not forbidding does not equal condoning. If you can find some dictionary that says otherwise I will acquiesce on that position. Until then, stop playing semantic games. It's dishonest. As for the divinity of the New Testament, I don't have to believe it is the divine word of God to follow it's teachings. The New Testament IS the blueprint for Christianity. Christianity does not in any sense condone (or even allow) slavery. Thus, I do not condone slavery.

As for not calling it immoral, where did I say it WASN'T immoral?

besides, you never give explanations of why you don't or do condone slavery which is convenient. you accuse others of not having rational reasons which have been given. however, your "personal" or vague feelings are somehow valid enough for you to not condone slavery which is hypocritical. also, i did ask you a number of times why.

Sure I do. I don't condone slavery because Christ commands us to love one another. Enslaving someone isn't showing them love. What about that is vague? Or exclusive to myself?

basis of spirituality is not just religion. atheists are not just content to 'stop' there. that is why they question and speculate as well as try different solutions and discover.

Ok. Then why haven't you managed to get any further with your explanation as to what makes slavery immoral? Christianity gets to a solid stopping point: Christ commands us. The best I've heard from you is essentially a religious quote.

SolusCado,
Why aren't you concerned about the fact that god allowed slavery ? Why would you not be concerned about the god you are worshipping ?

I feel like I've already answered this question. God (and I) is/am not concerned with physical sufferings. It is the Kingdom of God that I want to be closer to, and personal health/wealth isn't terrible relevant to that.

Would you worship him if he made you sacrifice your mother ? Or children ?

If that somehow fit into a theology that made sense to me, yes. However, that hypothetical is so ridiculous that it is almost pointless. It MIGHT be more applicable if the same God actually ORDERED slavery. Then you would have a picture of a God that I would not follow. But none of those scenarios apply, so your point is, well... pointless.

And you know how god operates ?

Insomuch as the Bible describes it, yes.

Just more apologizing to me.

Of course. You still refuse to acknowledge the character of the God described in the Bible, so any further descriptions of said character are going to sound like excuses - because you have a picture of God in your mind that is NOT Biblical, and you somehow think that it is the Christian God. Where you got that idea, I am not entirely certain - but the fact that when presented with the ACTUAL Biblical God you refuse to accept it as such leads me to believe you aren't interested in any kind of truth or reality anyway, just in arguments. I will only entertain those for so long.

And this is what irks me the most SolusCado.

You are perfectly willing to accept the good, but immediately excuse or ignore the bad.

Because you see something as bad doesn't make it "bad". You seem to have an extremely limited view, one in which everyone should be happy and still live in the Garden of Eden. But that leaves us no opportunity for righteousness. It leaves us no opportunity for good. It leaves us as animals. That to me is NOT good.

In this way you are proving to me that you are not in the least bit serious about scrutinizing your beliefs and what they are based on. It's just acceptance and then make things fit.

I scrutinize all the time, and adjust my beliefs to make things fit. You just haven't provided anything that doesn't fit yet. Probably because you are still operating under a misconception of the character of God. You can keep pointing out things that don't fit with your conception, but since that is neither my conception, nor in line with the Bible, you haven't actually pointed out anything that doesn't fit.

As I said before, it's not what fits but what doesn't that you should be questioning.

Ok; fine - show me something that doesn't fit.

For example, these two together, regardless of the time, are in conflict.

1) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
2) slavery allowed and specified

I've said before - not instructing people to not do something at a specific point in time, and then later instructing them to do something, is EXACTLY the way one teaches. Consider again the example of sexual education. A five year old is not ready for such education. A fifteen year old is. That my I didn't learn to not have unprotected sex at five, but then later, at fifteen, DID is completely normal and to be expected. Why then would you expect a different scenario here?

Or these

1) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
2) Genocide allowed and specified

Same as above.

Your god specifically told man to enslave, rape and kill others in his name and yet at the same time asked us to follow the golden rule.

Ha! That isn't true at all. If you are going to make such claims you should back them up with scripture.

This is such a slippery slope that nobody who scrutinizes it can climb to the top. Yet it is passing through you easier than a camel going through the eye of a needle.

Nice reference. Although once again - I refer you to everything I've just said.

Well I realize that you are intelligent SolusCado and that you don't condone or agree with slavery, rape or genocide or any other horrible acts that man perpetrates on each other.

I am also not trying to wipe out your belief in god as I have explained before.

But I do think you are too easily wiping away what us agnostics/atheists see in the religious texts that don't line up with what we now understand, and since this book has been declared divinely inspired then we are correct and just in questioning it and not swallowing everything without doing so.

It is because so far you haven't actually presented me with anything I haven't heard before. These misconception about the nature of God were things I learned about 15 years ago. You haven't revealed any great thing for me to stop and consider. Not yet anyway.

And although I won't speak for all of us (agnostics/atheists) I would suggest that most don't buy the idea of god not knowing that slavery, genocide and the like are wrong and god should have known this and instructed as such, regardless of the timing.

Then again I ask, why is it that we apply such time education to children?

So this raises two questions.

What good is the bible to us now if we have moved past the thinking of thousands of years ago ?

Why hasn't god come back to give us an updated edition ? and why doesn't it continue to update it as needed ?

That is explained in Christianity. Christ was the final messenger, and we no longer need God to speak through only certain people. We are all now capable of hearing God. Whether we choose to listen is of course up to us.

Ok, that's three.

Oh, one more.

Why didn't he just get it right in the first place to avoid having to keep coming back ?

I once again refer you to everything above. We are children, spiritually, and God has taught us what we need to know as we have grown. God has allowed us to make mistakes, because - just like in children, some lessons are best learned by making those mistakes.

Do you think that it is possible for you to believe in god but also believe the bible is flawed. IOW, man wrote the bible and just f8cked it all up because he was ignorant, as we are ignorant to humans 400 years from now, well let's hope so.

Is that a possibility for you ?

Yes. I did in fact come to the realization/conclusion that the NT is not the flawless, inspired word of God, but it didn't stop me from being a Christian.

Aren't we all gods children ?

Yes, but the Israelites were His "Chosen People," which, as I've ALSO already explained, I suspect meant there was a genetic ability to commune with God that at that point in time only existed in the Israelites.

"his people" suggests that your god only cared about those who believe in him. Yet he created us all.

Yes, you are correct - I should have used the term "Chosen People".. I apologize.

Originally, you stated that god created all time, which is a different conversation entirely, but to make one point. If god created all time at once and knows all and all of time then he created humans just to be destroyed by other humans, knowingly. Hmmn

Yep. And as you say, yeah - that is another conversation entirely.

Have you wondered about that ? If so who of us are just here for your entertainment ?

Yes, I have wondered. And came up with no clear-cut answers. Perhaps we are all just a giant ant farm for God. Perhaps the spiritual growth we are given the opportunity of experiencing does in fact actually raise us up to a level of peers to God. Perhaps not. I did conclude that I won't know until I die. Althought it wouldn't surprise me if other texts (Gnostic, Buddhist, or something else entirely) provides an answer - and I continue to read and learn such things.

The book is what it is. Therein lies the problem. We are not getting any new information from god, we are not getting updates and revisions. At least that anyone would take seriously.

Something that Christian Theology has no problem with. Every Christian minister I've ever heard has taught that we are ALIVE in Christ. That our walk with God and the Holy Spirit is a daily, living, thing. Dead texts only provide us insight into the character of God, but it is through our daily lives that we experience Him.

Why is that ?

If we are to understand that it was written for that particular time.

So my question then is: Is the bible for all time or just the time it was written ?

I've answered that question countless times, but to be clear. The Old Testament was for the time up to the coming of Christ. When Christ came, the game changed.

Have you considered that statement as a question ?

Why didn't god tell us at that particular time that slavery was wrong ?

I've provided countless possible reasons already, and in this post I have provided several analogues to human/child development to show that we have a reflection in real life that answers the question.

Maybe. God has never spoke to me. I would be far less likely to follow someone who said god told me this was the way then someone who claimed after thinking about this idea they have come to a conclusion and this is why using logic and reason.

I'm not convinced that you would know if God had spoken to you or not. You don't even understand who God is - there is no reason to think you would recognize him speaking to you.

For example, one day we may never put animals in the zoo. We may say that a zoo is a prison. In fact I wrote a song about, wanna hear it here it goes:

"How would you like to be
Caged in a world so free

A zoo is a prison."

(copyright protected)

But we haven't reached that point. And then what about all the animals we eat ?

We when look at religious texts, are they for all time as they should be or only for that time. Hopefully you have commented based on the questions above, so no need to comment here.

You read my mind!!

Yes god would have known. Why he did not tell us is the question ?

See above. This question clearly doesn't bother me as it does you, but I would pose the same question to you regarding parents and children. Why don't parents just lay out all the rules their three year old will ever need as soon as the child is old enough to talk? Or better yet - as soon as the baby is born? Why not just given him/her every rule as soon as they come out of the womb?

And there is no good answer.

I think mine is pretty damned good.

 

[James R]

SolusCado:

The dictionary defines atheism as "the doctrine or belief that there is no god". So perhaps atheists, by and large, don't know what they are.

Or perhaps atheists didn't write the dictionary. Or perhaps the definition of atheism has shifted over time. Or perhaps the writers of the dictionary didn't understand the nuances of the modern atheist position. Or perhaps the writers of the dictionary recorded how the majority of the population (i.e. theists) define atheism, and not how atheists themselves define it.

Think about it.

 

[birch]

Not forbidding does not equal condoning.

Yes, it is. you are also using tricky language. if i allow animal cruelty, i am essentially condoning it. if i allow thievery, then i am condoning it. if i allow something which i can do something about or be against, then i am condoning it. if i am making no stand against it, then i am condoning it to whoever wants to do it. not being aware or not having control is not condoning but allowing or not forbidding is being aware and thus condoning. any sane and honest person who understand cause and effect as well as all these factors would see that clearly.

there is no further use in discourse with you, you reason in ways that are not understandable or logical, even in a court of law.

 

[quadraphonics]

Here we go again. Not forbidding does not equal condoning. If you can find some dictionary that says otherwise I will acquiesce on that position.

That is pretty much the dictionary definition of "condone," in every dictionary I've ever seen.

Sure I do. I don't condone slavery because Christ commands us to love one another. Enslaving someone isn't showing them love. What about that is vague? Or exclusive to myself?

The part where millions of Christians openly practiced slavery for centuries without any sense that they were contradicting Christ's commands.

Ok. Then why haven't you managed to get any further with your explanation as to what makes slavery immoral? Christianity gets to a solid stopping point: Christ commands us.

Christ is not recorded as ever having said anything whatsoever about the social institution of slavery. Getting him to so command requires multiple leaps of inference and interpretation on your part.

You still refuse to acknowledge the character of the God described in the Bible, so any further descriptions of said character are going to sound like excuses - because you have a picture of God in your mind that is NOT Biblical, and you somehow think that it is the Christian God. Where you got that idea, I am not entirely certain - but the fact that when presented with the ACTUAL Biblical God

Most Christians are not Biblical fundamentalists. You could make the exact same criticisms about the concept of God held by large swaths of practicing Christians. Unless you're going to go all fundamentalist and start declaring that mainstream Christianity is false, you've got little room for this line.

I once again refer you to everything above. We are children, spiritually, and God has taught us what we need to know as we have grown. God has allowed us to make mistakes, because - just like in children, some lessons are best learned by making those mistakes.

Begs the question of why an omnipotent God would create children that require education via mistakes and suffering in the first place.

I'm not convinced that you would know if God had spoken to you or not. You don't even understand who God is - there is no reason to think you would recognize him speaking to you.

Exact same thing could be said about you. Whence your authority to dictate the nature of God to people?

See above. This question clearly doesn't bother me as it does you, but I would pose the same question to you regarding parents and children. Why don't parents just lay out all the rules their three year old will ever need as soon as the child is old enough to talk? Or better yet - as soon as the baby is born? Why not just given him/her every rule as soon as they come out of the womb?

Because babies don't work that way, and parents can't alter that fact. That is a poor analogy for an omnipotent being, who could just as easily have created perfection at the outset.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado:
Or perhaps atheists didn't write the dictionary. Or perhaps the definition of atheism has shifted over time. Or perhaps the writers of the dictionary didn't understand the nuances of the modern atheist position. Or perhaps the writers of the dictionary recorded how the majority of the population (i.e. theists) define atheism, and not how atheists themselves define it.

Think about it.

Yes, it is. you are also using tricky language. if i allow animal cruelty, i am essentially condoning it. if i allow thievery, then i am condoning it. if i allow something which i can do something about or be against, then i am condoning it. if i am making no stand against it, then i am condoning it to whoever wants to do it. not being aware or not having control is not condoning but allowing or not forbidding is being aware and thus condoning. any sane and honest person who understand cause and effect as well as all these factors would see that clearly.

there is no further use in discourse with you, you reason in ways that are not understandable or logical, even in a court of law.

Well, let's just toss out the English language altogether. If we aren't going to be bound by the definitions of words, then let's just call everything you DO believe in "God", or I'll call everything I believe in "Science" and we will all just agree.

Orrr... We could stick to the meanings of the words we are using and continue from there. Condone and allow for instance. "Essentially" the same things isn't actually the same thing, is it? If it were, then why insist on using the word condone in the first place? Because condone helps you make your point, and "not forbid and that point in time" does not. I have yet to hear a response to my analogy of children, which is a pretty basic premise to Christianity (that we are children to God, and treated as such).

EDIT: I apologize - jplappl DID actually address the analogy below - and I have responded there.

That is pretty much the dictionary definition of "condone," in every dictionary I've ever seen.

Then why not provide a reference? For the record, dictionary.com defines condone as "to disregard or overlook". While I will acknowledge that God overlooked slavery at one point in time, that doesn't mean it stands as a universal condoning of slavery. Once again, I refer back to my children analogy.

The part where millions of Christians openly practiced slavery for centuries without any sense that they were contradicting Christ's commands.

I'm sorry - are you saying the actions of others makes Christ's commands vague? If the law says murder is illegal, and a bunch of other people murder, does that somehow make the law vague? Of course not. Once again, it would appear that you wish to judge a theology based on the actions of its followers, instead of its written tenants. You can not do that any more than I can judge the laws of our country because so many people break them. To call it illogical is an understatement. Why do atheists constantly do this? I don't get it.

Christ is not recorded as ever having said anything whatsoever about the social institution of slavery. Getting him to so command requires multiple leaps of inference and interpretation on your part.

I thought we were all already in agreement that the command to love one another excluded the concept of slavery. Is enslaving someone loving them? If not, then how can you possibly suggest that Christ thought slavery was okay?

Most Christians are not Biblical fundamentalists. You could make the exact same criticisms about the concept of God held by large swaths of practicing Christians. Unless you're going to go all fundamentalist and start declaring that mainstream Christianity is false, you've got little room for this line.

Umm, yes - mainstream Christianity has a TON of things wrong with them. And for what it's worth, once more, the Bible actually predicts this. (In Revelations, it is stated that countless people who believe themselves to be Christians are in fact "lost" souls.)

Begs the question of why an omnipotent God would create children that require education via mistakes and suffering in the first place.

Sigh... I'm talking into a vacuum here. This is the LAST time I will repeat myself. Either move on or get left behind. God created a universe with 'children' who have the capacity to "fall short of the glory of God". Anything less would make us lesser beings - simple animals. God created children that can make mistakes so that we can experience the glory of overcoming and learning from our mistakes. There is nothing gained if there is nothing risked.

Exact same thing could be said about you. Whence your authority to dictate the nature of God to people?

Very true, and I am sure there are plenty others who claim that I don't understand God either. My only authority comes from the Bible itself. I'm not making this stuff up. Have I said anything about the nature or character of God that you believe to NOT be represented in the Bible? Let me know where and I will provide you verses that are the basis for said characterizations.

Because babies don't work that way, and parents can't alter that fact. That is a poor analogy for an omnipotent being, who could just as easily have created perfection at the outset.

See above. We would be lesser beings if he did not create us with the capacity for failure.

 

[SnakeLord]

We would be lesser beings if he did not create us with the capacity for failure.

god cannot "fail", therefore god is a "lesser being" than he would be if he had the capacity for failure. Your statement is redundant.

God created a universe with 'children' who have the capacity to "fall short of the glory of God".

Incorrect. By being designed and created as anything other than perfect means it's not a matter of "falling short" but being "incapable of rising to". Put it this way: If we could possibly be god, we'd be god. We cannot possibly be so, because we're not god. It's not about "falling short" but by being designed as "less than".

In Revelations, it is stated that countless people who believe themselves to be Christians are in fact "lost" souls

Establish that you are not who it refers to. Surely you cannot expect anyone to listen to you until you can establish that fact? Kindly do so now.

 

[James R]

SolusCado:

Well, let's just toss out the English language altogether. If we aren't going to be bound by the definitions of words, then let's just call everything you DO believe in "God", or I'll call everything I believe in "Science" and we will all just agree.

I think you have a mistaken impression about what a dictionary is. Dictionaries don't bind anybody. They record how words are commonly used. If the usage changes, the dictionaries need to catch up.

The first dictionary I looked at just now, by the way, gives two meanings of "atheism":

1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Now, I imagine that any reputable dictionary you look at (Oxford English, Webster, Macquarie etc.) will give similar definitions.

So, you make yourself look silly if you deny the usage recorded by definition 2.

Then why not provide a reference? For the record, dictionary.com defines condone as "to disregard or overlook".

My dictionary has "excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with". More complete than your definition, but then again I suspect you're picking and choosing the same way you did for "atheism".

I'm sorry - are you saying the actions of others makes Christ's commands vague?

Got a bible reference to where Christ said slavery is wrong and shouldn't be allowed - particularly where he commands people not to keep slaves?

I thought we were all already in agreement that the command to love one another excluded the concept of slavery. Is enslaving someone loving them? If not, then how can you possibly suggest that Christ thought slavery was okay?

So you're saying that while Christ didn't actually command people not to keep slaves, you're allowed to read such a command into his other words. How much interpretation of Christ's words do you think is acceptable, generally? Quite a bit, it seems.

My only authority comes from the Bible itself. I'm not making this stuff up.

No, just interpreting things to suit your pre-formed opinions, it seems. Like conveniently forgetting various definitions of words when their meaning doesn't suit you.

It is a Christian trait to be disingenous, or in general do you think openness and honesty is a better look for a Christian?

 

[SolusCado]

god cannot "fail", therefore god is a "lesser being" than he would be if he had the capacity for failure. Your statement is redundant.

God actually CAN "fail"; it is the nature of his perfection that he won't. This is an area people often stumble over. God's omipotence gives him the power to do anything. His perfection prevents him from doing anything that isn't perfect. On the other hand, we - as created beings - would be essentially angels if God did not give us the capacity for failure (and more importantly, the ability to overcome that failure). We would be bound to His Will alone, and thus lesser creatures. God is bound to no one's will but his own.

Incorrect. By being designed and created as anything other than perfect means it's not a matter of "falling short" but being "incapable of rising to". Put it this way: If we could possibly be god, we'd be god. We cannot possibly be so, because we're not god. It's not about "falling short" but by being designed as "less than".

This extension of your argument is flawed in the same way the first statement is. You are thinking of the alternative to our current state as a godlike state, which is not possible as a created being. There would always be someone/something that is greater. Rather, the alternative to our current state would be a "mindless" animal.

Establish that you are not who it refers to. Surely you cannot expect anyone to listen to you until you can establish that fact? Kindly do so now.

Ha! You would have to have a relationship with God to recognize one. To attempt to establish such a thing to you would be a waste of everyone's time.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado:
I think you have a mistaken impression about what a dictionary is. Dictionaries don't bind anybody. They record how words are commonly used. If the usage changes, the dictionaries need to catch up.

Fair enough, and frankly that is the same premise to my suppositions regarding the common interpretations of the Bible.

The first dictionary I looked at just now, by the way, gives two meanings of "atheism":

1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Now, I imagine that any reputable dictionary you look at (Oxford English, Webster, Macquarie etc.) will give similar definitions.

OK; I will back down. Though I still think the original point that was made regarding the attitudes of atheists was valid, at least in the respect of those atheists who do in fact vocalize their position routinely. (I recognize that there are probably countless atheists who never really talk about it, and couldn't be considered militant or aggressive in the least. I actually started a thread on this subject a while ago, so there is no reason to continue here.)

So, you make yourself look silly if you deny the usage recorded by definition 2.

Agreed, and I don't deny it.

My dictionary has "excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with". More complete than your definition, but then again I suspect you're picking and choosing the same way you did for "atheism".

I simply picked the first definition listed on dictionary.com, as I noted in my post.

Got a bible reference to where Christ said slavery is wrong and shouldn't be allowed - particularly where he commands people not to keep slaves?

I already presented the reasoning by which Christ does not condone slavery. If you do not believe that is valid, then say so.

So you're saying that while Christ didn't actually command people not to keep slaves, you're allowed to read such a command into his other words. How much interpretation of Christ's words do you think is acceptable, generally? Quite a bit, it seems.

It isn't "reading into" anything. It is a logical conclusion. If I tell you that gravity on earth accelerates objects at 32 meters per second squared, I can then calculate the speed at which different objects dropped from different heights will hit the ground. Doing so isn't "reading into" the initial formula. It is using the initial formula to answer other, more specific questions. And so it is with Christ's command to love one another.

No, just interpreting things to suit your pre-formed opinions, it seems. Like conveniently forgetting various definitions of words when their meaning doesn't suit you.

See above.

It is a Christian trait to be disingenous, or in general do you think openness and honesty is a better look for a Christian?

An insult that has nothing to do with any position, and thus no response is warranted.

 

[dhcracker]

Leviticus is estimated to be from around 1400 BC.
The concept of Maat from Egypt dates to around 2000 BC.

Maybe Moses learned it while he lived in Egypt.

Actually, everything is dated 1200bc and up Your figure is a biblical figure, historical data says 1200bc, davids kingdom was around 1000bc. There was probably an exodus but not of 600,000 people, Israelites are probably a mix of Caananites some of which came from egypt and picked up the Midians god Yawhe which is mentioned by seti 1. Also we know the conquest of Canaan didn't happen as advertised, though Jericho was destroyed around 14-1500 bc the other cities had mostly collapsed and were destroyed sometimes hundreds of years prior. It looks like there was a revolt of the lower class against the upper class, and they took to the hills. They became known as the Israelites by 1200bc and I bet around that time started forming their identity thought the books compiled into the torah.

We know Solomon died 5 years before Egypts conquest of Israel, and we also know the date of that conquest was around 930bc from Egyptian sources. And btw this info comes from Israeli archeologists.

 

[birch]

one must consider though, a factoid when the golden rule was first written down is one matter but it is not any proof that even millions had not had that revelation or understanding on their own.

so, in essence, that is no proof that the understanding first occurred in a particular location.

even many children come to or in some cases are born with an innate understanding. we usually call them "nice" kids or people.

 

[gmilam]

one must consider though, a factoid when the golden rule was first written down is one matter but it is not any proof that even millions had not had that revelation or understanding on their own.

so, in essence, that is no proof that the understanding first occurred in a particular location.

even many children come to or in some cases are born with an innate understanding. we usually call them "nice" kids or people.

Bingo!