Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Cris said:
It's a double standard. Just like the Pharisees of Jesus' and Paul's day, some self-righteous people venerate the ancient prophets and blow raspberries at the modern ones. In other words, it's perfectly okay for Old Testament prophets to have many wives, because after all, they lived long ago. But introduce the element of time and immediacy and it's suddenly the worst, most sinful abomination ever practiced, one in which only lecherous and adulterous people would consider practicing.
I don't see TruthSeeker condemning Father Abraham for polygamy, yet he practiced it and was not condemned for it by God.
That's because the issue is not that it was sinful (it certainly has no reason for being exceptionally abominable), but that it was a novelty propagated under the banner of revelation, and accepted as such in specific contradiction to the New Testament.
It's simply easier for Mormons to treat it as an attack on their morality (and for anti-Mormons to use it that way) than it is to see it as an example of what Christians consider the danger of Mormonism: that novelty is justified by revelation and ancient precedent, rather than responsibly in recognition of the work of the Spirit (who has been an active and constant companion to Christianity since Jesus breathed on his apostles).
Since it was a central doctrine of Mormonism that has been retracted under pressure, it inevitably casts a shadow on other novelties. We see it as an issue of credibility rather than morality.
It's simply easier for Mormons to treat it as an attack on their morality (and for anti-Mormons to use it that way) than it is to see it as an example of what Christians consider the danger of Mormonism: that novelty is justified by revelation and ancient precedent, rather than responsibly in recognition of the work of the Spirit (who has been an active and constant companion to Christianity since Jesus breathed on his apostles).
Since it was a central doctrine of Mormonism that has been retracted under pressure, it inevitably casts a shadow on other novelties. We see it as an issue of credibility rather than morality.
'The real reason I cannot be in communion with you is... that to accept your Church means not to accept a given body of doctrine but to accept in advance any doctrine that your Church hereafter produces'. - CS Lewis
Last edited:
Jenyar said:
Likewise, Christianity was propagated under the banner of teachings and revelations, and accepted as such in specific contradiction to the Old Testament regarding the Law of Moses and circumcision. The first century Jews certainly saw Christianity as being in great contrast, perhaps even blasphemic, to their laws and scriptures.
Well, it needn't be seen that way. God said that if the saints were not allowed to practice polygamy peacably by the U.S. Government, they wouldn't be responsible to do so as a result. Polygamy may be reinstated after Christ returns.
It's a false analogy, because neither Joseph Smith nor any of his followers are Jesus Christ. If Jesus had not been resurrected, his teachings would have proven themselves false, and none of its consequences would have followed. It would not have been possible to understand circumcision as being of the heart, because the old covenant would still be in place. It's the resurrection that allows me to say that baptism is of the heart - not merely an external sign of repentance, like John's baptism, but something God himself did (Romans 6:3) with the Spirit. We practice water baptism as a sign of the new covenant, just like Jews practiced circumcision as a sign of the old covenant (Col. 2:11-12).Marlin said:
The teachings and revelations only had authority because they were grounded on Christ and his atonement, not because they brought anything new. The apostles exercized their duty of unlocking the gospel exactly as Jesus intructed them to. No tradition may set aside the commands of God, but any tradition is not necessary for upholding God's commands is man-made. Anything more places an unneccesary burden on non-Jews (Acts 15:28-29; Rev. 2:24).
Col. 2:20-23
Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
And what was God's command, as revealed in Jesus? "Love one another" (John 15:12). This is why God revealed to Peter: "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean". Christ had purchased the right for all men to approach Him, cleaning them with his blood. It was in response to the work of the Spirit that gentiles were also baptized with water (Acts 10).Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
What's the point? "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage" (Luke 20:34).
Last edited:
Jenyar said:
It is a good analogy, IMHO. The doctrines and principles revealed to Joseph Smith were directly from revelation from Jesus Christ. Joseph restored the true church of Christ under Christ's direction, so the analogy is true.
So did Joseph Smith.
Yes, they will not marry in the resurrection. If they are married while in mortality in the temple, then their marriage will last for time and all eternity.
Cris said:
Quoting Einstein will only get you this far--
"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."
A letter to Max Born, December 12, 1926, according to Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 414. ISBN 0-380-44123-3. This quote is commonly paraphrased as “God does not play dice with the universe.” , and other slight variants.
Also Attributed to Einstein are the following quotes ..
"Before God we are all equally wise — and equally foolish.
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.
I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
Like I was saying...Quoting Einstein will only get you this far--Juxtaposed with his Theistic quotes. At any rate, his genius props up your suppositions, but also cuts you low to the ground.
I'm not as interested in what smart people said years ago, as I am interested in what they say now.
Cris said:
Hmm, at least according to Christ we can be ressurected, and also repent of our sins. According to you we're all basically F :bugeye:
*#@ d. Lie down, and stay down? This doctrine my friend is as empty as sin. And if you posess some sort of superior knowledge than that of your bretheren with regards to our collective deception, then it must be a blessing for you; But I believe your campaign to convince us of our own worthlessness will perish right along with all these hopeless ideas you sustain and propogate.Cris said:
Utter foolishness is just as savory as the hollow and lifeless doctrines that you give birth to. If we're all destined to be dust and return to chaos and dirt, then any classification of any sort as to the thoughts of men is equally worthless.... :bugeye: is it not?
Cris said:
Looks like these fellows focused all their energies on condemnation and overlooked Grace and Salvation. I wouldn't follow Christ if his doctrine were hopeless as these men paint it to be.... No one would. I'm sorry that you can't see the light that escapes your comprehension.
Nisus,
Einstein wasn't referring to a Christian style god. His religious perspective was pantheistic - i.e. the universe was a god that revealed itself through the laws of physics. Bear that in mind when you see such quotes - you will find that all his quotes are then quite consistent with his assertion that he is an atheist where Christianity is concerned.
Not so as you will realise if you study his religious perspective. I also quoted Einstein deliberatly in the hope that you would fall into that trap.
Last edited:
Nisus,
It is still fantasy and has no value unless you can show it otherwise.
No, it means we are on our own and there is no crutch to lean on.
Sin means nothing in this context. And all the evidence indicates this position is fact. I.e. you cannot demonstrate the existence of gods, souls, an afterlife, resurrections, heaven, hell, etc. These are all worthless fantasies.
Nothing superior is needed beyond not being gullible enough to believe fantasies are true.
You have things reversed again. It is the Christian who claims people are worthless and sinful and need redemption – that is the overwhelming Christian position, the reason why you believe you need a savior. I have made no statements claiming people are worthless, quite the reverse. I perceive us as having incredible potential to improve ourselves through technology and science, as I have extolled many times in these forums. If we can remove the blight and parasitic influences of religions like Christianity then we could make much faster progress.
Which I haven’t. So your argument is lost.
We are not destined for anything, that is a religious concept. What we do and achieve is up to us. Our purpose is what we choose for ourselves.
To believe you will achieve immortality and gain access to a heavenly paradise is the biggest con trick in the history of mankind. That somehow the ugliness of death is really a magical gateway to perfection. This is the essential evil nature of religions, that they convince the gullible that death is their best hope. If the devil were to exist then one couldn’t imagine a better scheme for him to devise than to have people believe in Christianity - the epitome of baseless false hope.
Cris said:
I'll interpret them how I will, others also. No need for debate. They're colorful quotes. Taken from different shades of his life. I don't think either side totally supports or reduces theism. Since they are relative to the time he spoke them. I'm sure being a scientist, his ideas were subject to change.
Cris said:
Well given that there isn't a timeline associated with these quotes I will just deduce that his thoughts on God, evolved alongside with his thoughts on the universe.
You can justify yourself, I suppose, under the context of your own perspective.
But I see no trap or snare =p Just your opinion.
No value? I assume you are speaking for yourself.Cris said:
What people determine valuable and beneficial to their own lives, is relative to the person.
Just as equally as they cannot prove, you cannot disprove. So neither is absolute.
Well since people can think for themselves and believe in what they want, many people find satisfaction and use religion as a crutch. Which either way it doesn't really matter how they get to the end, Cris, your point is the end we face, doesn't doesn't have any facet of discrimination, and that all of us are subject to the self same destiny.Cris said:
I simply disagree.
Cris said:
"Sin" I used, hoping you would recognize the religious conotations that the word has. Comparing your ideas and associating them to what I consider, hell, spiritual death, because to me your ideas are destitute and lonely.
You don't think people doubt or question? You don't think any religious people doubt or question? Wonder or ask why? We do, we look at everything with the same perspective or close to the same as you do at a point in time, we just don't embrace them to their lonesome end.Cris said:
If I have a choice to believe, or not believe in God, setting all religion aside-- I would still choose to belive in God, because I like the idea. It's facinating to me, it inspires me. Though you find this idea of little worth, I find it to be of value.
As long as you are going to deal with humans and freedom of will you have to factor in that there will always be people that believe in God, or some form of a divinity or deity. You can't eradicate this nature of ours.
Cris said:
You don't understand Christ at all in my opinion. Nor his doctrines. Because I see them in a totally different light, then what you just said.
Cris said:
I really never felt I was arguing.
Cris said:
I meant it in the most simple application, where we end up and what becomes of us. Death is our end, according to my interpretation of what you say. So if we're all just destined to a simple death and nothing becomes of us, I don't see why you are so opinionated.
Cris said:
I don't believe I have acheive immortality, I already feel that I know I am immortal. Though I know I can die physically, I've yet to experience it. So long as I can think, I will be alive, flesh or no flesh.
Nisus,
To be fair - Einstein's perspectives are a tricky issue. At the height of his time to come out and declare oneself an atheist would have been social, politcial, and career, suicide. As with many public figures what they say in public is often very different to their private perspectives. I've researched Einstein a great deal and he was fairly consistent with his quotes, but I think he knew very well how people would mis-perceive them. He had a sense of humor.
Moving on ....
To be fair - Einstein's perspectives are a tricky issue. At the height of his time to come out and declare oneself an atheist would have been social, politcial, and career, suicide. As with many public figures what they say in public is often very different to their private perspectives. I've researched Einstein a great deal and he was fairly consistent with his quotes, but I think he knew very well how people would mis-perceive them. He had a sense of humor.
Moving on ....
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787)
"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State."
Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to S. Kercheval, 1810)
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God."
-- Thomas Edison
Moved on I did.
Godless
Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787)
"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State."
Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to S. Kercheval, 1810)
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God."
-- Thomas Edison
Moved on I did.
Godless
Nisus,
It is a sales trick. Create the illusion of a need and then sell an unnecessary solution. You have been hooked, stung, and sold.
No, I was seeing this in terms of the entire human race. If everyone chose to believe that fantasies were true then that sounds like a recipe for extinction, or simple mass suicide, as some religions groups finally decide.
Understood but it wasn’t a relative consideration. But I do fully appreciate that those who have trouble dealing with the stress of every day life, or who have trouble facing their inevitable non-existence will look to religion to give them a sense of hope. The effect can be soothing and can result in less stress. Others of course are racked by the guilt that religions often inspire.
But I wasn’t claiming a disproof on this. My point here is that your beliefs are fantasies. That is a factual observation and will remain so unless you can prove your claims as true. In the same way that the Lord of the Rings was a fantasy unless you can show it was true.
I understand, but why not deal with life as it actually is rather than behave like a cripple?
To a point. But while the religionist will accept this as inevitable and look to a supernatural exit, which I see as a defeatist and fatalistic perspective, I and many like me are actively looking to solve the problems of involuntary death through science and technology. It is the very real difference between “there is nothing we can do so let’s not try” and “how do we solve this problem”.
There is nowhere that says that truth must be pleasant. But creating and believing in the fantasies of gods so you can feel happier is surely just simple delusion.
I understand. It takes tremendous courage to accept that the truth is not pleasant, and few people face that – hence two thirds of world take the perceived happier route and believe in gods instead.
I understand it very well. I prefer to seek truth instead.
I am hopeful that through science and technology that will change and people will come to see that a belief in a god is as meaningless as believing that the world is flat. The major breakthrough is likely to be the full understanding of how the brain operates and the final elimination of any doubt concerning the soul concept. Without that concept theism will simply be irrelevant.
In Christianity it is necessary to demean each person so that they will accept the need for saving. It is a fundamental Christian tenet that everyone is a sinner. I’m sure you will agree with this. Having established that then the next phase is to offer a solution – hence the glowing wonderful loving Jesus with wondrous moral principles holding a heavenly paradise as a reward and solution to humanities sinful nature.
It is a sales trick. Create the illusion of a need and then sell an unnecessary solution. You have been hooked, stung, and sold.
LOL – I meant in the debating sense.
Because I sense there is a solution that we could realize sooner if religion wasn’t in the way.
Unfortunately no one has yet shown that anyone has ever survived death in any form. And given that countless billions of people have died one would think that if there was an afterlife that there would be some indication, although I agree that is not necessarily so.
Last edited: