what is the purpose of repentance?

[Jenyar]

Arguing for the time thousands of years back being the only Sitz im Leben of Christianity is what many of us have the practical problem with, and this is where I think Christians should make a better effort in explaining.

For this is exactly what it comes across like: That Christianity's only Sitz im Leben are the events thousands of years back, while there is no present intersection of Christianity with life as it is known and experienced *now*.

It comes across like "There was once a golden time, that is now gone, and all we can do is look back with sorrow and think how fake and remote from truth our lives are nowadays".

Yes, such a romantic vision of early Christianity is very popular. The Mormon church is built on it, and many Christian churches hold these supposed "golden years" as an ideal.

But that's not what I was saying. While what we read in the Bible is only what happened then, it is by no means only valid for then. On the contrary. I argue that it's validity then is what makes it so relevant now. What Jesus' life, teaching and ascention meant then, is what directly gives us the hope, knowledge and faith we can have today.

It comes as no suprise that people demand that God is to make some miracles, or some divine intervention on a daily basis -- if we are to believe in Him to still be alive and caring for us.

So what is Christianity's intersection with life *now*? Where is its Sitz im Leben *now*?
Where is the intersection we can all see and based on which we can say that God is alive and well, and loves us -- and is everything the Bible says He is?

We don't live with those paradigms anymore, and it is the opposite of chronological arrogance - chronological victimization - to believe we "would have believed if it still happened that way". How many people refused to believe even when faced with Jesus himself or his miracles? Most.

Christianity's only relevance today is if what happened then really happened. This was already true 30 years after the events described there...

1 Corinthians 15:14-20
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. ... And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead...​

 

[Jenyar]

How are they baseless? Well? Did you not judge others when jesus specifically told you not to judge others? Did you not show contempt for your fellow human beings when jesus specifically told you to love thy neighbour?

He said you will be judged by the same measure as you judge others. But I don't see water judging them here. She has not in any way pronounced some kind of verdict on them, she pointed out what they are doing (thereby also making a commitment not to do it herself).

It nobody may point out inconsistencies, then no warning is ever possible. If we know something is wrong, we have a duty to speak out - not in judgment, but in the hope of correcting it.

 

[(Q)]

Jesus didn't come to bear certain tortures for us, He came to save our lives.

Horsepucky. If such a man existed and if the event of his death happened, he did it to become a martyr, nothing more.

 

[Jenyar]

It's seems to be your word against his.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Jenyar: It's seems to be your word against his.
*************
M*W: Well, Jenyar (Q) is alive and well and living somewhere on Planet Earth. Jesus is only a fig newton of your deluded imagination.

 

[SnakeLord]

He said you will be judged by the same measure as you judge others. But I don't see water judging them here. She has not in any way pronounced some kind of verdict on them, she pointed out what they are doing (thereby also making a commitment not to do it herself).

It nobody may point out inconsistencies, then no warning is ever possible. If we know something is wrong, we have a duty to speak out - not in judgment, but in the hope of correcting it.

Let's take a look at the end bit:

If we know something is wrong, we have a duty to speak out - not in judgment, but in the hope of correcting it.

As a result to this you would have had to have made a judgement over what is right or wrong - and that is a personal judgement that the people you then have a go at don't agree with. So when you say to them: "you're wrong, I'm speaking up about that", you are actually passing across the judgement that you're right and they're wrong, which is a judgement, and one you should not, and cannot be making.

Ok, in your mind you can be making it because "you know", what is right or wrong, but then so do they and they disagree with your version of right and wrong. So then who has the actual say over what is right or wrong? god right? In which case none of you have the right to be telling others what is right or wrong. What you are doing is pushing god aside and claiming yourself right on what is right, and telling everyone else they're wrong, (which is making a judgement), which is beyond your given rights.

 

[Voodoo Child]

But to be sacrificed in our place doesn't mean taking our place in hell - we were not created for hell

We weren't created for hell? God designed beings that couldn't possibly live up to his standards and put the damn tree right in their garden. And just to make sure they'd fall, he called it the forbidden tree and told them not to touch it.

It means bridging the gap through which we would have fallen away from God.

But now we have mixed metaphors; he was a lamb, now he's a bridge. Bridging the gap is not particulary sacrifical.

 

[water]

Did they go to hell?

Of course not, the place doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's say it does exist - in which case I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

Then the situation is indeterminate and we can't say anything about whether the people before the Gospel have gone to hell, or not.
We can also not say that God has doomed or punished those people. If they would go to hell, then yes, then they would be doomed, but now we don't know.

So you agree then that it's in the best interest of everyone to have never heard of jesus? As a result, there was absolutely no point in him coming to earth.

I'm glad we agree.

No, I don't agree.
History happened as it did, and we can't change it. We have to live with and in its consequences.

As for there being no point in Jesus coming to earth: We could then also argue that, well, it should have been better that all of existence had never happened in the first place.


“ Whether it is worth that Christians go around spreading the word: They are people, and they have their ethical system, just like anyone else. They do what they see fit. ”

Yes, I have seen how they trample over people and force themselves and their beliefs upon all within hearing range. Surely a large part of "love thy neighbour" is allowing them to have their own beliefs and not interfering unless they ask you to do so?

Such is life. Only the strong survive. Or are you against the principles of evolution, and think they are unfair?

If anything, one can look at the matter this way: One should not hate the shaping forces if one wants shape.
Resisting violence done in the name of God (which doesn't mean it is done by God) will make you stronger, and will teach you to know better.
The most important lessons of life cannot be learned while neatly sitting on your sofa.

A stress-free environment where no strife is demanded for the individual to survive, will make the individual a lazy, gullible, relativistic twat.

But of course, religious people don't honestly give a shit.

Be careful with making statements of totality.

Unanswerable question. Especially given that nobody is in heaven or hell yet - not until god goes about destroying the planet, raising people up from the dead and then judging them.

Then we can't talk about God dooming these or that people, can we?

How?
When has God proven to be unjust?

That's an entirely new debate of it's own. I will provide one small example that I'm sure will receive plenty of worthless attempts at justification. Anyway..

There is not one indication to suggest that a 1 day old child, 3 month old child, fox, kangaroo, or stick insect has the ability to be evil, or to be a sinner. And yet, regardless to that, god drowned them all without mercy.

How do you know that it was God who drowned them?

With his almighty power he could have saved the diplodocus's at least. They never harmed a fly, never broke his rules, never swore or hated their neighbours. No, they were just pleasant happy creatures enjoying the life they had been given.. That is until god decided he'd made a tremendous fuck up and annihilated every living thing on the planet - from tiny little children, to animals that had never caused harm to anyone or anything.

In the history of mankind nobody and nothing can rival god in the human kill count competition. But anyway, go ahead and justify the slaughter of babies.

What makes you sure that God is the killer?

I think that you have no faith in Him. But you are angry with God for letting the world be as it is. -- And if not that, then you believe that if there is a God, He is mean and unjust.
In which case, you are not referring to the biblical God; or you are saying that the Bible is lying about God.

All your arguments come down to you having no faith that God is anything like what the Bible says that He is.

Faith is for idiots, and what does the bible say he is?

Among other things, the Bible says that God is loving.

It is not anti-other-church propaganda. I gave a relevant example of how people take God's law into their own hands, and then claim it to be God's.

A rather pleasantly mannered way of saying other people's beliefs are bollocks, you're right, ...

This is actually the very nature of having an opinion, any opinion, anyone's. We hold on to our opinions because we think they are right. Which makes other people's opinions that aren't like ours, wrong.

and they're all doomed to hell, burn bastards, burn. I get ya.

While I do not think so, you must keep in mind that love is not a love dovey fairy tale either. {EDIT: I meant that *life* is not a lovey dovey fairy tale either, but I misspelled, oh, the Freudian fraud} It is a FIGHT for survival -- even though it practically looks like "merly living your life". The fight may be nowadays somewhat abstract, since so much of that fight takes place only verbally.
But if one wants to survive, this comes at the cost of someone else diminishing or perishing.
We live to win. This means that in this fight, there are winners and losers.

How are they baseless? Well? Did you not judge others when jesus specifically told you not to judge others? Did you not show contempt for your fellow human beings when jesus specifically told you to love thy neighbour?

I mean c'mon, if you're going to try and justify it then do so. Saying: "baseless accusation" is a pathetic excuse.

First of all, get this straight: I am not a Christian and you can't use those arguments against me the way you could use them against Christians. I do not subscribe to Christ's authority, and therefore, you can't hold me to it.

Secondly, expressing my opinion, which includes saying whether I think something to be right/wrong, does not mean that I am trying to impose it on anyone.
Albeit there is plenty of people who feel threatened by the mere existence of other people; there are people who feel threatened if others think differently than themselves.


* * *

But that's not what I was saying. While what we read in the Bible is only what happened then, it is by no means only valid for then. On the contrary. I argue that it's validity then is what makes it so relevant now.

Why? How can it be relevant now?

What Jesus' life, teaching and ascention meant then, is what directly gives us the hope, knowledge and faith we can have today.

But this is possible if we believe that what happened then is true.
How can we believe that? Most of the historical events are possible and have likely happened -- but this by no means suffices to put all your faith into it.

You say yourself,

Christianity's only relevance today is if what happened then really happened.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead...

How do you know?

What *present* evidence of that do you have?
Again, I ask:
What is Christianity's intersection with life *now*? Where is its Sitz im Leben *now*?
Where is the intersection we can all see and based on which we can say that God is alive and well, and loves us -- and is everything the Bible says He is?


* * *

It nobody may point out inconsistencies, then no warning is ever possible. If we know something is wrong, we have a duty to speak out - not in judgment, but in the hope of correcting it.

Why do you think we "have a duty to speak out"? Humans don't have the duty to be cooperative. Or do they?


* * *

As a result to this you would have had to have made a judgement over what is right or wrong - and that is a personal judgement that the people you then have a go at don't agree with. So when you say to them: "you're wrong, I'm speaking up about that", you are actually passing across the judgement that you're right and they're wrong, which is a judgement, and one you should not, and cannot be making.

Ok, in your mind you can be making it because "you know", what is right or wrong, but then so do they and they disagree with your version of right and wrong. So then who has the actual say over what is right or wrong? god right? In which case none of you have the right to be telling others what is right or wrong. What you are doing is pushing god aside and claiming yourself right on what is right, and telling everyone else they're wrong, (which is making a judgement), which is beyond your given rights.

... And I suppose this is one of the arguments against religion -- consider yourself to be right about something, and you have tresspassed against God.
So the alternative to this is to not be religious, so that you cannot trespass against God.


* * *

We weren't created for hell? God designed beings that couldn't possibly live up to his standards and put the damn tree right in their garden. And just to make sure they'd fall, he called it the forbidden tree and told them not to touch it.

Do you think God had a malevolent intent when He created?

 

[Jenyar]

Why? How can it be relevant now?

Because it describes events that takes place in and has bearing on the same world we live in now. It says God exists, acts and loves. It tells us how, when and where, and that there is "good news" for mankind. We are part of mankind, and I think it's safe to say it affects our lives if those things are true.

But this is possible if we believe that what happened then is true.
How can we believe that? Most of the historical events are possible and have likely happened -- but this by no means suffices to put all your faith into it.

Not into "it", into God - if you believe what Jesus said, you're not putting your faith in "events", but into a person. But if you go by the precepts of postmodernism, nothing "suffices" - it is either relevant to your life, or not. You either look into it, or you skip it and write off this particular part of history.

You say yourself,

Christianity's only relevance today is if what happened then really happened.
“But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead..."

How do you know?
What *present* evidence of that do you have?

How do you know anything? The Bible is a collection of documented evidence, and then there are the lives God changed and is still changing. Examine them, test them, ask around. Believe these people - or call them whatever you like: deluded liars, conspirators, hopeless mystics... Be honest to yourself about what you think.

Again, I ask:
What is Christianity's intersection with life *now*? Where is its Sitz im Leben *now*?
Where is the intersection we can all see and based on which we can say that God is alive and well, and loves us -- and is everything the Bible says He is?

Its intersection is in the way you live your life, and that life will become the best evidence you could have of God's love. If you don't believe it, you don't apply it, and it forever remains as irrelevant as some principle of quantum mechanics. God never enters your life if you are content to keep Him at a safe distance, and you'll never get to know Him better.

Why do you think we "have a duty to speak out"? Humans don't have the duty to be cooperative. Or do they?

I think we have a duty because I think it matters what people do and don't do. I could quote some wise saying, or a precept from the Bible, but it would be irrelevant to someone who doesn't believe in the God of the Bible, wouldn't it? I might get a moral atheist nod from one corner, a humanist nod from another, but in the end it's up to them whether they believe it really matters what we do.

If they don't care they don't have a duty to care. And who can force them? Nobody has to care. Love your children, don't love our children - no God, no accountability, no duty, just whatever you think applies.

 

[(Q)]

It's seems to be your word against his.

And that's where you're wrong. Its my word against those who assumed he died for sins. He never attested to that, did he?

Christians make a lot of assumptions based on what was written many years after his so-called death. They have conveniently filled in the blanks for their own purposes.

Jesus was no different than any other martyr.

If he was alive today, we would probably read about him igniting a bomb strapped to his body.

 

[(Q)]

The Bible is a collection of documented evidence, and then there are the lives God changed and is still changing

Funny how much of the so-called 'documented evidence' flys in the face of reality? Strange how those events in the bible took place in a time when nothing of our world was understood, in which miracles were common place and mythical beings abounded?

Where are they now?

 

[Jenyar]

And that's where you're wrong. Its my word against those who assumed he died for sins. He never attested to that, did he?

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

John 10:9-11; 17-18
I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”​

 

[Aborted_Fetus]

Repentance allows people to not feel bad about sins they have committed in the past and allows them to commit future sins knowing that they can just repent later.

"A Christian is a man who repents on Sunday for what he did on Saturday and is going to do again on Monday."

 

[(Q)]

Jenyar

You made my point exactly. Those words were written many years after the event, and not by the man who supposedly said them.

Your faith is not in Jesus, but in the faded memories of common men.

 

[Jenyar]

Repentance allows people to not feel bad about sins they have committed in the past and allows them to commit future sins knowing that they can just repent later.

"A Christian is a man who repents on Sunday for what he did on Saturday and is going to do again on Monday."

Repentance means "turning away from sin". That's not what you describe above.

 

[Aborted_Fetus]

What I desribed above is what MOST Christians do. They go sin all week and think it's OK because they can go to confession on Sunday and it's taken care of.

I admittedly use repentance and confession interchangeably, which I guess is technically wrong. I do this because confession is supposed to be the formal act of repentance. But if you committ the same sin every week and confess it every week, you aren't exactly "turning away from sin."

 

[ukmary]

Sure even if you believe in god we still sin. Jesus was supposed to have died for our sins. So why repent? Our sins were taken care of when he died on the cross for us. What good was jesus dying for our sins if we still have to ask for forgiveness through repentance? This, like god coming down to earth as jesus, is another example of redundancy to me. And what would happen if you died before you had a chance to repent for all the sins that you had committed recently? Are they automatically forgiven in heaven?

it is redundancy. It is silly and it doesn't make any sense because it was made up by humans.
As voltaire said, 'if God made us in His image we have more than returned the favour'
Now read a nice science book, something empirical.

 

[SnakeLord]

Then the situation is indeterminate and we can't say anything about whether the people before the Gospel have gone to hell, or not.
We can also not say that God has doomed or punished those people. If they would go to hell, then yes, then they would be doomed, but now we don't know.

And by admitting ignorance with concerns to what god might or might not do, and might or might not be doing, you actually end up showing the worthlessness of worshipping such a being. For all you know he could be leading you to a painful slaughtering merely because he get's off on it. With what has anyone to argue otherwise?

If you then tried to bring the bible into it, it is easily rebutted seeings that as a god it should most certainly be in it's power to lie, and to lie better than any human ever could. Have you not ever noticed how god of the bible has this seemingly unavoidable habit of exterminating his creation, whereas the serpent, (what some would call the devil), hasn't actually done anything other than give mankind the ability to recognise right from wrong?

You have the devil to thank for your morals. And then he was cursed and chained up for giving you the ability to discern right from wrong. What does that say about this being you worship? The minute another being intervenes and changes you from an animal into a thinking, considerate human being, god curses him and makes your life that much more miserable.

When it comes to crunch time, you don't know the first thing about this being that you are more than happy to sign your life away to. Even jesus, which most christians think was a being of peace and harmony, was in actuality here to cause grief, and will ultimately destroy all of mankind, and even this planet. As he supposedly said in the bible:

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a woman against her mother".

Did the one you hate, (the devil), ever make threats and anti-humanity statements like this?

And what of his 'sacrifice'? It was nothing more than a magic trick, a farce. You must know this given your beliefs of god not being able to die? You all praise his name saying: "jesus got himself killed for our sins", but the reality would be that he didn't. Three days later he sat up, shrugged it off and vanished in a puff of smoke. Where is the sacrifice? Like a con artist, he fooled you all good and proper.

I just hope you know what you're signing up for. As a general rule, it is very unwise to give your credit card details to some stranger over the phone. The same principle applies here.

No, I don't agree.

It's a bit too late to try and change your tune. The reality of it remains that you did agree with it.

As for there being no point in Jesus coming to earth: We could then also argue that, well, it should have been better that all of existence had never happened in the first place.

Certainly we can, but accidents will happen. Unless of course we were just made as god's cannon fodder.

Such is life. Only the strong survive. Or are you against the principles of evolution, and think they are unfair?

Certainly not, but we were debating biblical rules, not evolution.

A stress-free environment where no strife is demanded for the individual to survive, will make the individual a lazy, gullible, relativistic twat.

And what strife and stress would there be for a christian? Isn't the very tenet of christianity that one need do nothing other than love thy neighbour and love jesus? How 'demanding' is that? What strife would a christian go through to survive? After all, as the bible implies: god has got your back. All you lot need to do is sit down and let whatever happens happen. If you don't like what happens, the typical christian response would be: "god works in mysterious ways", and done with it.

Be careful with making statements of totality.

Or what?

Then we can't talk about God dooming these or that people, can we?

Now you're getting somewhere. As a result you can't talk about anything concerning god because for all you know he could be the biggest sadistic fucker in the universe.

How do you know that it was God who drowned them?

Because he says so. Try reading the bible, or were you only paying attention to the nice bits?

What makes you sure that God is the killer?

Read your bible.

I think that you have no faith in Him.

1) Faith is for idiots

2) I don't believe in him/her/it.

But you are angry with God for letting the world be as it is.

Angry at a non existant entity? Not at all, just angry at the incompetent nitwits that still believe in such caveman tripe. My personal views on the world is that it rocks. I love it, and while I'm upset I wont get the chance to explore space, I think the world is pretty much spot on, (aside from having to share it with religious people).

However, for the sake of debate, I argue from your side otherwise there would be nothing to talk about, and I like talking. You would say: "god this, that and the other", and I would say: "no such thing". And that would be that. While I do take that tone every now and then, it serves no purpose on a "discussion" forum.

then you believe that if there is a God, He is mean and unjust.

Well just for the sake of argument, let me adopt the christian attitude: Prove it wrong. Prove he isn't a mean, unjust, sadistic bastard. Well?

In which case, you are not referring to the biblical God

How do you conclude that?

or you are saying that the Bible is lying about God.

Are you saying some ancient nitwit who knew nothing about nothing actually knew more than you do? In your opinion why did god pay so much attention to ancient Israeli shepherds but not modern day people?

Among other things, the Bible says that God is loving.

Have you ever done a bible count? That is, a count of how many times god refers to an attitude or emotion he has?

If you check you'll find that god personally uses the words: jealousy, wrath, and anger many more times than the 5 or so times he actually mentions loving anyone. Although there the word love is used 280 times, a good 200 of those are him saying to love him, not vice versa.

So while you might have a couple of writers saying god is loving, you can count the times god actually says it on one hand. The same cannot be said for him deciding to show his wrath, anger and jealousy.

The devil never says he hates anyone. Ok, he doesn't say he loves anyone either, but the one thing he actually gave mankind was morals. god didn't give man morals, he gave orders and plagues, displayed his anger, wrath and jealousy, closed innocent womens wombs, sulphur bombed cities, drowned every man, woman, child and animal on the planet, and then proceeds to tell us all that he intends to destroy our planet and everyone living on it using a variety of sick methods - and even giving the supposed bad guy 1000 years of playtime.

And at the end of all that death and destruction, you get an eternity of worshipping at his feet.

While I do not think so, you must keep in mind that love is not a love dovey fairy tale either. It is a FIGHT for survival -- even though it practically looks like "merly living your life". The fight may be nowadays somewhat abstract, since so much of that fight takes place only verbally.
But if one wants to survive, this comes at the cost of someone else diminishing or perishing.
We live to win. This means that in this fight, there are winners and losers.

So strange to think that with all that power and with all that apparent "love", god made life so it's, how did you put it? A "FIGHT". Of course it wasn't always that way. Back in the early days people got along and co-operated, (Babel). god just couldn't stand mankind getting along so he purposely came down and put a spanner in the works just so humanity could not work as one, could not achieve that which man would have been capable of. And then, after making sure mankind couldn't work together or get along, the muppet then says: "love thy neighbour", while at the very same time saying his purpose is to "set a man against his father, a woman against her mother".

All the devil did was give mankind morals. No demands, no hypocricy.

First of all, get this straight: I am not a Christian and you can't use those arguments against me the way you could use them against Christians. I do not subscribe to Christ's authority, and therefore, you can't hold me to it.

Fair enough, my apologies. Are you a part of any religion?

Secondly, expressing my opinion, which includes saying whether I think something to be right/wrong, does not mean that I am trying to impose it on anyone.

Sure, and the same applies to everyone, including me funnily enough.

 

[water]

Because it describes events that takes place in and has bearing on the same world we live in now. It says God exists, acts and loves. It tells us how, when and where, and that there is "good news" for mankind. We are part of mankind, and I think it's safe to say it affects our lives if those things are true.

How long was it between Moses' receiving the commandments and Jesus' crucifiction and resurrection?
Maybe we are just impatient ...

How do you know anything? The Bible is a collection of documented evidence, and then there are the lives God changed and is still changing. Examine them, test them, ask around. Believe these people - or call them whatever you like: deluded liars, conspirators, hopeless mystics... Be honest to yourself about what you think.

Do you think that because someone says that God has changed his life -- that this automatically means that it was indeed God who has changed his life?
And if yes -- what exactly was God's doing in this? Was it God who gave the person a good job, beauty?
Or should I think that God gave something else which then in turn lead to getting a new job and becoming beautiful?

Its intersection is in the way you live your life, and that life will become the best evidence you could have of God's love. If you don't believe it, you don't apply it, and it forever remains as irrelevant as some principle of quantum mechanics. God never enters your life if you are content to keep Him at a safe distance, and you'll never get to know Him better.

But what if I apply principles that are identical with those proposed by Christianity -- only that I don't call them that way.
If I don't call something God's love, this means it isn't God's love?

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Not to be presumptuous, but: If someone doesn't feel called, does this in any way imply that he might be righteous?


* * *

it is redundancy. It is silly and it doesn't make any sense because it was made up by humans.

Well, wonderful. If something is made up by humans, it doesn't make any sense.
Quantum physics is made up by humans, therefore, it doesn't make any sense ...

* * *

And by admitting ignorance with concerns to what god might or might not do, and might or might not be doing, you actually end up showing the worthlessness of worshipping such a being. For all you know he could be leading you to a painful slaughtering merely because he get's off on it. With what has anyone to argue otherwise?

If you then tried to bring the bible into it, it is easily rebutted seeings that as a god it should most certainly be in it's power to lie, and to lie better than any human ever could. Have you not ever noticed how god of the bible has this seemingly unavoidable habit of exterminating his creation, whereas the serpent, (what some would call the devil), hasn't actually done anything other than give mankind the ability to recognise right from wrong?

You have the devil to thank for your morals. And then he was cursed and chained up for giving you the ability to discern right from wrong. What does that say about this being you worship? The minute another being intervenes and changes you from an animal into a thinking, considerate human being, god curses him and makes your life that much more miserable.

This amounts to the argument
"I will not believe or do anything anyone says, for I might be fooled."

It is like the fear that "even though Britney Spears may sound cool, it may be that it is all a hoax and she is actually making fun of her listeners. This is why I will not buy a Britney Spears album, neither will I listen to any of her music without caution".
I know people who refuse to listen to music, put pictures on their walls, read books -- because they are so afraid they might be fooled.


If God is evil and is not loving -- the worst for Him. And if I spend my life believing in Him and putting my trust in Him, but when I meet Him face to face He turns out to be a mean creature and condemns me to hell: I will still know that I have lived my life right and best as I saw fit. And that I could have not prevented Him acting whatever He will act.

When it comes to crunch time, you don't know the first thing about this being that you are more than happy to sign your life away to. Even jesus, which most christians think was a being of peace and harmony, was in actuality here to cause grief, and will ultimately destroy all of mankind, and even this planet. As he supposedly said in the bible:

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a woman against her mother".

Did the one you hate, (the devil), ever make threats and anti-humanity statements like this?

Seen superficially, those are "statements against humanity".
But the way I understand it, those verses say what happens when people make a decision and keep to it.

For example, I strongly disagree with my mother on certain things. No matter what, I will not concede, I will keep my side. Surely then, I am not being "loving". But keeping to what I believe is what makes me to be me, and giving up those beliefs for the sake of "having peace" someone else, and even if it is my mother, would be giving up on myself.
The sword is the decision that you keep to what you think is right.

I just hope you know what you're signing up for. As a general rule, it is very unwise to give your credit card details to some stranger over the phone. The same principle applies here.

If he *is* a stranger, that is.

It's a bit too late to try and change your tune. The reality of it remains that you did agree with it.

No, I don't agree, and don't force your interpretation on me.
I am not so idealistically fatalistic as to think, "Oh, it would have been better if the whole thing hadn't hapened in the first place." It is a way to relegate responsibility, and I refuse to do this.

Certainly we can, but accidents will happen. Unless of course we were just made as god's cannon fodder.

Then the worse for God. As long as my conscience is clear, I shall have nothing to fear.

Such is life. Only the strong survive. Or are you against the principles of evolution, and think they are unfair?

Certainly not, but we were debating biblical rules, not evolution.

They aren't mutually exclusive. To find effective ways to survive, one can apply biblical rules.

A stress-free environment where no strife is demanded for the individual to survive, will make the individual a lazy, gullible, relativistic twat.

And what strife and stress would there be for a christian? Isn't the very tenet of christianity that one need do nothing other than love thy neighbour and love jesus? How 'demanding' is that? What strife would a christian go through to survive? After all, as the bible implies: god has got your back. All you lot need to do is sit down and let whatever happens happen. If you don't like what happens, the typical christian response would be: "god works in mysterious ways", and done with it.

Well, I don't know how you came to those thoughts reading my paragraph ...
What I mean is that strife is good for you. Not that God wants you to suffer, but strife is good for you, for in a "stress-free environment where no strife is demanded for the individual to survive, will make the individual a lazy, gullible, relativistic twat".

For example, my experience with the Mormons was by all means unpleasant and negative. But I was actually forced to stand up for myself, and get to know where my strengths are. Had I lived in a stress-free environment, I would go on the way I was before I met the Mormons.
Note that even though I criticize them, I see them neither as a blessing, nor as a curse.

Isn't the very tenet of christianity that one need do nothing other than love thy neighbour and love jesus? How 'demanding' is that?

More demanding than you seem to know.
To love Jesus, to love God -- means to live by the precepts given in the Bible. Few can do it, for it is so demanding.

What strife would a christian go through to survive? After all, as the bible implies: god has got your back. All you lot need to do is sit down and let whatever happens happen. If you don't like what happens, the typical christian response would be: "god works in mysterious ways", and done with it.

This is a dreadful simplification.

To love does not mean to sit back and watch, and whatever happens, happens.

Be careful with making statements of totality.

Or what?

An empiricist should know better than to lightly make statements of totality.

Now you're getting somewhere. As a result you can't talk about anything concerning god because for all you know he could be the biggest sadistic fucker in the universe.

Again, if God should be as you say, then the worse for Him.

How do you know that it was God who drowned them?

Because he says so. Try reading the bible, or were you only paying attention to the nice bits?

Forgive me, but I will ask this personal question: When your son died, did you think it was God who killed him? Or that your son's early death proves that God is not loving?

1) Faith is for idiots

Next time you get into an elevator, insist that faith is for idiots. See if you will let the door close.

Angry at a non existant entity? Not at all, just angry at the incompetent nitwits that still believe in such caveman tripe. My personal views on the world is that it rocks. I love it, and while I'm upset I wont get the chance to explore space, I think the world is pretty much spot on, (aside from having to share it with religious people).

How is it then -- the world rocks, but 2/3 of its population being religious make you "angry at the incompetent nitwits that still believe in such caveman tripe".

You mean, you and a few others rock, but the majority sucks?

However, for the sake of debate, I argue from your side otherwise there would be nothing to talk about, and I like talking. You would say: "god this, that and the other", and I would say: "no such thing". And that would be that. While I do take that tone every now and then, it serves no purpose on a "discussion" forum.

Why do you like talking?

Well just for the sake of argument, let me adopt the christian attitude: Prove it wrong. Prove he isn't a mean, unjust, sadistic bastard. Well?

If I would set out to prove so, then this would most certainly just reflect my fears, but not God's nature.

In which case, you are not referring to the biblical God

How do you conclude that?

The God of the Bible is just and loving. The one you are talking about is not.

Note: To be just and to be good, one must be prepared to be cruel, and also act this way.

Take an example: Some people came to visit, and they had their dog with them. The dog went at our cat. I came running, chased the dog away, and I could have strangled the dog with my bare hands.
Seen from the perspective of my cat, my interference was most certainly a good thing. Seen from the perspective of the dog, it was a bad thing.
What am I now: good or evil?

or you are saying that the Bible is lying about God.

Are you saying some ancient nitwit who knew nothing about nothing actually knew more than you do?

Ah, your chronological snobbery again.

In your opinion why did god pay so much attention to ancient Israeli shepherds but not modern day people?

Because they acknowledged His authority. We do it rarely.
We like to blame God for all sorts of things, but we don't acknowledge His authority. How can you blame and accuse someone of doing something when you don't believe he could have done it?

Have you ever done a bible count? That is, a count of how many times god refers to an attitude or emotion he has?

If you check you'll find that god personally uses the words: jealousy, wrath, and anger many more times than the 5 or so times he actually mentions loving anyone. Although there the word love is used 280 times, a good 200 of those are him saying to love him, not vice versa.

So while you might have a couple of writers saying god is loving, you can count the times god actually says it on one hand. The same cannot be said for him deciding to show his wrath, anger and jealousy.

If you would judge my actions towards my cat only after what I have done in the presence of dogs and other people, then, oh then I am a mightily mean person.

The devil never says he hates anyone. Ok, he doesn't say he loves anyone either,

... in other words, he doesn't care.

but the one thing he actually gave mankind was morals.

Why do you think so?

god didn't give man morals, he gave orders and plagues, displayed his anger, wrath and jealousy, closed innocent womens wombs, sulphur bombed cities, drowned every man, woman, child and animal on the planet, and then proceeds to tell us all that he intends to destroy our planet and everyone living on it using a variety of sick methods - and even giving the supposed bad guy 1000 years of playtime.

And at the end of all that death and destruction, you get an eternity of worshipping at his feet.

Humans take so many things for granted. It is a shame.

So strange to think that with all that power and with all that apparent "love", god made life so it's, how did you put it? A "FIGHT".

Free will meets free will. It is usually a fight.

Life cold easily be lovey dovey -- but only when people wouldn't have free will.

All the power and love are nothing if you don't acknowledge them, and respond.

Of course it wasn't always that way. Back in the early days people got along and co-operated, (Babel). god just couldn't stand mankind getting along so he purposely came down and put a spanner in the works just so humanity could not work as one, could not achieve that which man would have been capable of. And then, after making sure mankind couldn't work together or get along, the muppet then says: "love thy neighbour", while at the very same time saying his purpose is to "set a man against his father, a woman against her mother".

They must have done very well, and have become vain. They have started taking things for granted.

All the devil did was give mankind morals. No demands, no hypocricy.

... proverbially, it is just the soul Satan demands ...

First of all, get this straight: I am not a Christian and you can't use those arguments against me the way you could use them against Christians. I do not subscribe to Christ's authority, and therefore, you can't hold me to it.

Fair enough, my apologies.

Apologies for what? For thinking me an idiot?

Are you a part of any religion?

No.

 

[SnakeLord]

This amounts to the argument
"I will not believe or do anything anyone says, for I might be fooled."

No it doesn't.

What it amounts to, is that if you don't know something, are in reality actually ignorant concerning it, then there is no value in just bowing down and worshipping it. The methods to be applied would be to find out about that something, and then - if all is good or to your liking, then bow down to it. It's about having knowledge of something before putting all your eggs in the one basket- because needless to say, you might be fooled.

It is like the fear that "even though Britney Spears may sound cool, it may be that it is all a hoax and she is actually making fun of her listeners. This is why I will not buy a Britney Spears album, neither will I listen to any of her music without caution".

Now that's just daft. In fact I would recommend it as "twonkiest" analogy of the century.

If God is evil and is not loving -- the worst for Him. And if I spend my life believing in Him and putting my trust in Him, but when I meet Him face to face He turns out to be a mean creature and condemns me to hell: I will still know that I have lived my life right and best as I saw fit. And that I could have not prevented Him acting whatever He will act.

Well, defeatist attitudes are quite common. I wonder why there's a need for it. Is it really too much hassle and effort just to find out the reality of the issue and thus have no need for complete guesswork?

Seen superficially, those are "statements against humanity".
But the way I understand it, those verses say what happens when people make a decision and keep to it.

Perhaps so, but the 'what happens' is clearly because of jesus. According to him, that's what he came here to ensure. To make certain that people would go against each other.

Again, did the devil ever threaten to make sure that people were set to go against each other?

If he *is* a stranger, that is.

See, there's the problem - and the reason you should read the first paragraph. People claim they know certain things about god because of what is said in the bible, and yet that very same book shows him to be the biggest single murderer in the history of mankind, prone to outbursts of wrath and anger at any given moment even upon the innocent, (Abimelech for one). By that alone, people should apply some caution and learn more concerning it.

Not to mention, without having read every single religious text in history, you could make no valid claims concerning the identity/identities of the supposed god/s. No religious man has ever established any validity as to why the god they worship is any more real than any of the other thousands of gods. Once again, it shows beyond any reasonable doubt that humanity knows nothing about what kind of being/s god/s are, and as such worshipping unquestionably is simple foolishness.

No, I don't agree, and don't force your interpretation on me.

Scroll back. I didn't force anything upon you. I asked you if you would agree that it would be better to have never known jesus. You said: "yes".

Fine, say you were mistaken and you actually meant no, but don't accuse me of forcing anything upon you. I did not make you say yes.

Then the worse for God. As long as my conscience is clear, I shall have nothing to fear.

Unless you're worshipping the wrong one heh?

To find effective ways to survive, one can apply biblical rules.

Sure, but my point still stands that we're debating biblical rules, not evolution. As a result there was no point bringing evolution into the question. I mentioned how christianity does not follow the "love thy neighbour" rule, but instead tends to trample on everyone. You then brought evolution into the question when it is irrelevant to my statement.

However, I fail to see how following the rule of 'love thy neighbour' instead of trampling all over them is a survival issue.

More demanding than you seem to know.
To love Jesus, to love God -- means to live by the precepts given in the Bible. Few can do it, for it is so demanding.

Well this is a sudden turnaround. A minute ago you were telling me it's all survival of the fittest, and indeed pointing out that one can forget rules and precepts in order to 'find effective ways to survive'. I fail still of course to see how ignoring 'love thy neighbour' would be classified as a survival issue, but it remains that you don't have to live by anything in the bible. Perhaps even more to the point is that you would only have to live by the things in the bible that you want to. You know that aswell as I do. Nobody stones witches to death, nobody even bothers getting circumcised. It's all too much hassle to bother with. So what precepts do they live by? I have yet to meet a christian that loves anyone, let alone their neighbour. So.. what precepts exactly?

This is a dreadful simplification.

To love does not mean to sit back and watch, and whatever happens, happens.

Well, the bible would state that it's not about works, but just faith. As a result, one of the bible precepts that you tell me christians supposedly live by, would be that it is simply a matter of sit back and watch - as long as you love god and have faith. Works are irrelevant.

Again, if God should be as you say, then the worse for Him.

I'm sorry I don't follow. How is it 'the worse for him'?

Forgive me, but I will ask this personal question: When your son died, did you think it was God who killed him? Or that your son's early death proves that God is not loving?

Actually no. An autopsy was performed and thus I found out the reasons for it. gods, leprechauns and invisible mice aren't an issue. If I was a believer, then surely I would think god killed him, or even 'know' that god killed him. In the bible god does mention that the firstborn are his. Given the medical reality that 2 out of 3 first time pregnancies end in the death of a child, (miscarriage), it would stand to reason that god is keeping true to his word.

As for being loving or not, I would have no illusions to think he would be loving whether my son died or not. All one needs to do is read the bible to see that god has an extreme habit of killing humans and displaying a wide range of emotions of which 'love' is the very least.

Next time you get into an elevator, insist that faith is for idiots. See if you will let the door close.

Sorry, I don't see what you're trying to get at.

How is it then -- the world rocks, but 2/3 of its population being religious make you "angry at the incompetent nitwits that still believe in such caveman tripe".

Note: I didn't say "people rock", I said: "the world rocks". Vast difference.

You mean, you and a few others rock, but the majority sucks?

Not at all, you just got confused thinking I was talking specifically about people, when I wasn't.

Why do you like talking?

The same reason a bird likes chirping.

The God of the Bible is just and loving.

Oh.. Where?

Note: To be just and to be good, one must be prepared to be cruel, and also act this way.

Strange how you now change 'just' and 'loving' to 'just' and 'good'. Couldn't argue the case with the word 'loving' sticking out like a sore thumb?

Take an example: Some people came to visit, and they had their dog with them. The dog went at our cat. I came running, chased the dog away, and I could have strangled the dog with my bare hands.
Seen from the perspective of my cat, my interference was most certainly a good thing. Seen from the perspective of the dog, it was a bad thing.
What am I now: good or evil?

Neither, you're just interfering with nature. However, if you had have grabbed the dog, that you claim to love, and drowned him for his actions, you would no longer be defined as loving.

Of course you might not particularly care about animals so let's use a more apt example: Let's say you have a son. He isn't a very nice person, he set house on fire, killed the neighbours dog, crashed your car and so on. Would you drown your son? Or, more to the point, would you stone your son to death? Is that, in your opinion, how to be loving and just?

You are aware that not only has god done this time and time again, but that he also commanded that you do stone your son to death if he's bad. Is this loving? Is god telling you to be loving?

Im sorry but if you think this shows 'loving', then you have a warped opinion.

Ah, your chronological snobbery again.

Instead of being pedantic, how about you just answer the question?

Because they acknowledged His authority. We do it rarely.

Bizarre notion. How many millions of god followers are there? Would it not be realistic to state that there are more god followers now than there were people back then? Your "we do it rarely" is utter garbage and you know it.

We like to blame God for all sorts of things, but we don't acknowledge His authority.

What's with the 'we'? There are millions upon millions of people that do acknowledge his authority. Sure, there are also people that don't, but the same was true in the olden days, but god gave them plagues, sulphur bombed them, drowned them etc. Well? Where is he now?

If you would judge my actions towards my cat only after what I have done in the presence of dogs and other people, then, oh then I am a mightily mean person.

What are you getting at? It's a strange statement considering that is exactly what you're doing. You're taking 5 mentions of love, ignoring the hundreds of times he mentions anything negative, and calling him a just and loving being. Seemingly you haven't even checked just to make sure he's loving, but claim him so anyway with all the contrary text hidden away safely from your eyes. You take the handful of times he mentions love to specific people, change it to mean everyone and anyone, and then talk to me like I have done something wrong for pointing out the opposing text?

... in other words, he doesn't care.

Well that's a leap.

So.. a being that annihilates mankind on a regular basis is in your eyes just and loving, whereas a being that doesn't say anything just doesn't care? What a perverse notion. If you take a look at the one action he performed, you would realise it is the one thing that has made man, man. It is the one thing that has separated us from the animals and allows us to be good, bad or indifferent. Without his aid, you wouldn't have the first clue of what 'good' means, and would only do things you felt like doing regardless. You would have no morals.

If he didn't care, there would have been no point giving you the best gift you've ever received, unless for some reason you think having no morals is better? Of course if that was the case, you wouldn't be here talking about god, because he would be meaningless. You could fart in his face without perceivable consequence, you could kill your wife merely for the sake of it, without consequence and so on.

Why do you think so?

Read your bible.

Humans take so many things for granted. It is a shame.

Such as?

Free will meets free will. It is usually a fight.

It is a fight because jesus came to ensure it would be, and prior to that god intervened to ensure it was harder for man to get along.

Life cold easily be lovey dovey -- but only when people wouldn't have free will.

Who's to say? We could say the people at Babel, who had free will, were getting along famously - but that annoyed god, and so he came down and made sure that they couldn't. He split them up and changed their language just so humans being able to work together would be a serious problem.

They must have done very well, and have become vain. They have started taking things for granted.

Ah, a quick fix excuse to justify god intervening with those you claim have free will and who were getting along and working together. And worst of all is you just made it up off the top of your head. god came down because he was worried that "nothing would be impossible for them". He didn't say: "shit, they've all become vain, even though they also get along, let us go down and teach them how not to be vain by making sure they don't get along, but actually use their free will to not have a lovey dovey life".

He purposely made it harder for mankind to progress and get along because he was worried that they could do anything.

So now technology is moving along at incredible rate, will he worry some more and cause us to nuke each other?

... proverbially, it is just the soul Satan demands ...

Just out of interest, could you please point out exactly where the devil says he wants or demands souls?