Why God Created Atheists?
Gosh Mr Noggin- that seems awfully closed minded and unreasonable of you.
Just to let you all know, I am pleased that this conversation has lasted this long - God was mentioned so many times. I love it!!! Thank you Lord! Okay, back to your normally scheduled tomfoolery.
So glad it's made your day, Renee! Now back to your pie-in-the-sky. Hope your dreams are realised!
Renee, I hope you don't mind me posting here. I was under attack by Mark, Jmc, Rad, artblack and the mob. I couldn't figure out where to jump in.
Jmc - with regard to grace and the new covenant: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. By "the law" is meant the moral law, as appears from the whole discourse following: this he came not to "destroy", or loose men's obligations to, as a rule of walk and conversation, but "to fulfil" it; which he did doctrinally, by setting it forth fully, and giving the true sense and meaning of it; and practically, by yielding perfect obedience to all its commands, whereby he became "the end", the fulfilling end of it. By "the prophets" are meant the writings of the prophets, in which they illustrated and explained the law of Moses; urged the duties of it; encouraged men thereunto by promises; and directed the people to the Messiah, and to an expectation of the blessings of grace by him: all which explanations, promises, and prophecies, were so far from being made void by Christ, that they receive their full accomplishment in him. The Jews (t) pretend that these words of Christ are contrary to the religion and faith of his followers, who assert, that the law of Moses is abolished; which is easily refuted, by observing the exact agreement between Christ and the Apostle Paul, Romans 3:31 and whenever he, or any other of the apostles, speaks of the abrogation of the law, it is to be understood of the ceremonial law, which in course ceased by being fulfilled; or if of the moral law, not of the matter, but of the ministry of it. This passage of Christ is cited in the Talmud (u), after this manner:
http://bible.cc/matthew/5-17.htm The challenge is that God's Word is foolish to the wise. In studying God's Word, you go from milk (simple things like salvation) to more complete doctrines. So the points you bring up are usually taught in Bible study classes that discuss passages before and after, as well as companion passages."Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (Mt 7:21)
Response - this must be taken in context wih what comes before.
Not every one that saith ... - The Saviour goes on to say that many, on the ground of a mere profession such as he had just referred to, would claim admittance into his kingdom. Many would plead that they had done miracles, and preached or prophesied much, and on the ground of that would demand an entrance into heaven. The power of working miracles had no necessary connection with piety. God may as well, if he chooses, give the power of raising the dead to a wicked man, as the skill of healing to a wicked physician. A miracle is a display "of his own power" through the medium of another. An act of healing the sick is also a display of "his power" through the agency of another. In neither of these cases is there any necessary connection with moral character. So of preaching or prophesying. God may use the agency of a man of talents, though not pious, to carry forward His purposes. Saving power on the mind is the work of God, and he may convey it by any agency which he chooses. Accordingly, many may be found in the day of judgment who may have been endowed with powers of prophecy or miracle, as Balaam or the magicians of Egypt; in the same way as many people of distinguished talents may be found, yet destitute of piety, and who will be shut out of his kingdom. See Matthew 7:21; 1 Corinthians 1:26; 1 Corinthians 13:1-3. In this last place Paul says that, though he spoke with the tongue of angels, and had the gift of prophecy, and could remove mountains, and had nor charity or love, all would be of no avail. See the notes at 1 Corinthians 13:1-3.
Matthew 7:15 is about people coming in sheep's clothing claiming to be prophets. What follows is a warning about these people. When you lift one Scripture out you take it out of context.The wise inherit honor, but fools he holds up to shame Proverbs 3:35
Words from a wise man's mouth are gracious, but a fool is consumed by his own lips. Ecclesiastes 10:12
The challenge is that God's Word is wise only to the foolish. Riddle 6:23Gosh - No one was "attacking," you unless you consider pointing out the division your beliefs cause as an attack.
But - I guess you need to do that don't you?
I see you have not actually responded other than to tell us that what the bible says actually means something other than the words written. That seems to be the usual response.Mark? Is that what you got out of that??? No problem! I was just getting read for devotion. I am remembered to bath you in prayer. If you are in the US, go to bed.
I'm glad my heavenly Father slumbers not nor sleep.
Get all of your Winter Solstice shopping done. Make sure you have presents for everyone. I stay away from the malls. My life is much less complicated this way.
thanks for the smiley tip!
I don't have a problem with god fanatics or anything of the sort. I just wonder what religion some of the people here follow. What book? What practice? How could you think one is right and all of the rest are wrong? Does this make any sense really or is it just that blind faith that makes people just keep on believin! Oh well, take your pick....
Christianity
Islam
Hinduism
Chinese folk religion
Tribal religions
Shamanism
Animism
Sikhism
Judaism
Spiritism
Confucianism
Jainism
Zoroastrianism
Shinto
Taoism Note 4
Wicca Note 5
Look at all of the clubs one could join. It's so nice to have options. Amazing to think that each one of these, along with many others still, think that they are correct in their belief and teachings. That itself is pretty comical!
This thread is still open?
....good to see people still can't get along
, sure does keep things interesting here on hubpages.It's good to see you back.... are you staying for a while, or busy on other Sites?
I planned on being back indefinitely, however am waiting to here back about something from the support team first and then we'll see what happens
.
No. He hasn't. All this was here for millions of years before we were. It will likely be here after we are gone. Then, it will all be gone. Sorry.
Closed mind, open mind, and so forth and so on…we become ‘circular’ with these opinions, mere opinions… and deflect the real issue or points.
Attitude is perhaps the most important factor to affect our personality, yet, our attitude is pretty much or can be another output of a ‘circular’ mechanism: just like the famous quote “ someone who does not read is better off than that who will not read” attitude will determine what we will ‘read’ from human affairs, then, circularly, what we have just ‘read/interpreted” will sway our attitude.
Is there a qualitative difference in the way we ‘experience’ reality? You bet!
A mental illness and a mental healthy guy, are they too far apart? It will obviously depend on… such a vast mixed-up set of causes…who will be to disentangle and come up with definitions? It will depend on how conservative the analyst is and how stuck to his/her points of views and … fears to lose control of his/her own convictions ) therefore…? Just as mental illness is not a simple thing, similarly, mental health isn’t either…
The ever present circularity when talking about God’s existence: to believe in God is a personal matter; to believe in the Bible message is another personal matter, regardless of proofs; to pretend to say that there is proof that God really exists because it is written in the Bible, is just not working for non-believers…they need their own kind of proofs for ‘validity’; their need is valid but the proof is in the pudding, and unfortunately, for us Xtians, the pudding is full of cultural context, genetics, illnesses, ways of interpret reality, personality type, upbringing, education, and a big long etc, which lead us to ask several questions: our behavior is set in motion because of our physiological needs or because of beliefs based in principles values etc or on both? Can we say that our state of mind (closed or open, healthy or ill, dogmatic or flexible positive or negative, etc) is determined by the past and so future is predictable? Or are there unconscious forces together with all that jazz? Who can deny this? Scientifically?
All these are topics I read in a e-text by Dr. C George Boeree We, here, have sort of talked about all this, but, nay, it is not doing it; I believe that this forum works like a shrink would in a private session: let us vent our frustrations about …well… you know…God and His elusive presence
Can science control : love, anger, awareness? Then do we make room for “spirituality” whatever that means to each and everyone who experiences it even when not aware of reasons? Scientifically? Your answer does not interest me; it’s your own business and your requirement to be true to yourself…not to me as I will never be sure of who you are or you be sure of who am I…in a inner-way of knowing I mean…in the mean time...cheersThe reason I can walk away from the religious, christian perspective now, is that I have done my "inner" questioning an searching, and have come to the conclusion that a non-acceptance of a judgmental god as believed by the christian does not suit my understanding or logic.
I am fully happy to consider there is no "judgment" of me, no "after-life" consciousness that I need to worry about here in the short time that is left for me.
People of "faith" can do their darnedest to try and convince me otherwise, but they will not succeed.... because my choice is my choice, period.
However, this choice has allowed me to allow the christian to have his/her belief(s) without judging them, provided....... they respect my choice. If not, I will defend myself against any prayers, supplication, presumption of superiority whatever.
I am also quite happy to read of good, sensible, informed, researched ideas that come out of the mind of persons like HeadlyvonNoggin, because I can "take it or leave it," and he knows and (I guess) accepts that with good grace.
And visa versa, of course.JCL, I understand you and agree with; in fact, it cannot be different of what you just wrote
If you see more closely, the need for judgements is more related to a type of personality: conservative (too attached to our way of seeing and feeling and analyzing); it's not about the behaviour of the others but to this need to 'control' the behaviour of others...nothing to do with the faith itself but with the way to do things around and being faith or no-faith just another element in the life of that controlling mind....And that maybe the most irritating thing that bothers others: that we see then that his/her faith is a fake because he/she is not living up to what is said to believe...I do not know how better express it...he/she does n ot follow that particular faith yet pretends to make others to follow it or judge them for not or even for following it but falsely...
Headly:
Again, I apologize that it’s taken me so long to reply. I’ve done research when I’ve had free time, but my free time is not as abundant as it used to be. I started a new job, got the flu and had to deal with a mass layoff at my previous employer all in the same time-span. Needless to say, my life has been a little hectic. Since I respect you and find you to be intellectually honest and thoughtful, however (at least for the most part, there are some aspects of both of us that could use some improvement, especially when we start devolving into frustration) your post required some attention on my part, and I didn’t want to mock or dismiss it out of turn, without devoting some time to it in depth.
Firstly, I think there are some problems with things on a definitive level. You told me that this was your personal hypothesis, but after looking at your post, it doesn’t seem to fit the definition of a hypothesis at all. At best, it’s only a theory. A hypothesis, by definition is:
1) A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
2) A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
Scientifically speaking, a hypothesis can be tested, and your claim by default cannot be. How do you work to prove it? How is it tested, repeated and peer reviewed? It can’t be. It’s simply your theory of how things MAY have happened, and I see no way to move forward to develop it further, rather than spinning your own interpretation of the bible to suit and custom-fit your theory.
Secondly, I think you’re guilty of a lot of revisionism – like most Christian apologists that I’ve encountered are. I don’t fault you for that – almost every aspect of Christianity is open to interpretation, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Not to succumb to an argument from authority, but your position is almost unheard of in your own community. I believe that, were it more probable, that it would be accepted by Christian apologists and used in their debates – and it’s not. That leads me to believe that there it stands (or falls) on very flimsy ground.
Thirdly, I believe that your entire premise is going about things in the wrong way. You’re starting with a conclusion and working backwards, rather than starting in the beginning and following the evidence to its conclusion after research, study and combined efforts with others. Science doesn’t work that way. You can twist almost anything to mean whatever you want if you start backwards. I’m sure that you’d use the same argument if I worked my way backwards to the big bang theory – or whatever plausible theory I chose to define the origins of the universe. I, however, am content to say that I don’t know how the universe initially began – or if it began at all. For the most part, I find that theists like yourselves are the ones that are obsessed with tracing everything back to the beginning. “I don’t know” is not an accepted or acceptable answer, because you have an underlying need to insert a god into the gaps – instead of just admitting that some things are unknown – and may always remain that way.
Genesis offers a lot of wiggle room. Since there’s no proof of a global flood, however, or a jewish captivity in Egypt, or many of the other fantastical stories found within it, I am willing to go a step further and say that it is entirely untrue. It’s a mythological origin story of the jewish people. It made them feel connected with the power they related to – the power that governed them. The power that they gave all of the credit to when the achieved certain victories, but none of the blame when things went awry. It taught them that they were evil and morally bankrupt people that needed a god in order to be “right” instead of acknowledging that deity to be the one that made them wrong to begin with. It’s fantastical.
In later posts, you have made great efforts to distinguish your god as a spiritual being, and therefore cannot be proven or equated with physical things. That goes back to one of my original statements to you - one that I will reiterate.
Either a god exists, or a god does not exist. We agree on that.
If a god exists and does not manifest in the physical world, that god is INDISTINUISHABLE from a god that does not exist at all.
If a god does manifest in the material, physical world, there should be ample evidence of his existence. There isn’t. Using a book supposedly written by that god to justify itself and its god’s existence is not proof by any standard of measure. This god supposedly intervened in the course of human existence. He is capable of miracles like stopping the earth and flooding the entire world. Yet none of these acts can be demonstrated. Magnificent, extra-ordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence, and I’m sorry, but there simply isn’t any.
I could go into more depth about the original Hebrew used in Genesis if you’d like. I’d be happy to talk theology and scripture in depth with you. But ultimately, I find your proposed hypothesis to be a theory that is not only unsupported within your own community, but unsupported by any evidence either.
You recognize that the traditional interpretations of genesis don’t make sense – and that is a good thing on your end. Instead of questioning things as a whole, however, you spun it to fit the dissonance in your mind – to make it make sense to you. I don’t fault you for that. I do, however, implore you to follow things to a rational conclusion.
If you want to check some other sources out, try talkorigins.org. the sight has a huge FAQ page and archive that may lead you on your way to further discovery and answer some of the lingering questions that you seem to have.This sort of posting I like! It's generous, considerate, objective, respectful and obviously can lead us on to better discussion.... Thank you.
Shut up!
I am sick of religion threads being shoved in my face.All you have to do is click unfollow...and then not click on any future religious threads. The only one who can shove them in your face...is you.
The 2 most useful 2-letter words in the world: um.... No !
Yes, they are useful of course, but...
as with many other 'useful' fixes in life, people do not acknowledge them and/or will not 'read' any of the two partes involved the 'n' and the 'o'...hence.... a lot of patience and circularity takes on...
When we 'reply' it's perhaps more about sharing or correcting the ideas... bt really it is very possible that we over react too depending if certain vocabulary'jargon is used... However, it's always challenging to 'argue' blindly...blindly? yes, well, yes... I have not seen the faces of any of you, I do not know any of you, and hence, I will not miss any of you if you do not show up anymore or if you do not answer or refer to me and I hope the 'vice versa' happens identically.... It is not particulalry a topic to create or generate friendships,it's too personal and hence too sensitive and hence open to arguing and hence open to bitterness or sarcasms or separation or worse stuff and all because I do believe and can't prove it to higher brains and poor of me if I pretended them to 'prove' the opposite; last I heard that any proof was our burden because we are the ones saying that God exists You see? we have to prove that we believe in something 'factual'...a condition imposed by them, logicians if its factual, then to believe is not vane, just like Paul said: Had not Jesus resurrected our faith would be vane"...yet it's been called vane for even less that the resurrection as it is been termed a fancy and that it lacks witnesses!!!!! see? So for a book of which a lot has been found true, we need to prove those archaeological findings 'really' true and that only to 'convince' some people that we are not lying...Why, I ask myself, would I be interested in convincing someone who says I am lying? see JCL?Puella, everyone has the right to believe whatever they want without proving it to anyone else. Some people just have a strong desire to win ... either a) win people over or b ) just plain win. As you get to know people, there is obviously some attraction that continues the discussion. People have attacked me and then later apologized. No problem! I don't attack and I forgive. The more you know a person the harder it is to dislike them. I can't prove it but why else do they keep making comments?
Ha ha ha ha ha. You're sick of it and yet want more!!!!!! I like how you try to make a point without saying anything.
You mean we should be quiet and let the forum continue to be a morass of dogmatism?
No, maybe it's time we spoke up.Yes, that is exactly what I mean. There are many forums that I have no interest in so I don't bother. They seem to enjoy taking about nonsense so I'll let them entertain themselves. What do you think, your the Mom coming in and telling us to clean up the room.
Just hit the unfollow button as I'll do when I'm done.
Paradigm, can you choose to not read stuff that you don't want to hear. Even though many people disagree hear, it looks like they enjoy sparring. I' amazed that these discussions are lasting so long; however, commenters have a right to make comments.
No problems, happens to me all the time. You can edit your own post within a certain time frame, and you were certainly within that time frame.
Thank you, I try. I don't always succeed, but at least I put in my best effort.
I appreciate the compliment :-)
JMcFarland, thank you for the time you put into this. I know exactly what you mean about finding time. It's taken me two days to respond to three comments, and I don't have near the justifiable reasons for that lack of time as you do. I have nothing more to blame than just the normal everyday hectic-ness of life and my inability to adequately manage it.
I don't recall now exactly how into this 'hypothesis/theory' (I've been criticized for using either word at one time or another) I got in my comment to you, and am not sure just how much you've followed along with my discussions with others, but most of what I posed to you was more specific to the bible side of things. I have a lot in the way of supporting evidence, but was looking to get your input as to whether or not this view holds water based more on your intimate knowledge of the source material. Hopefully we can still have that discussion, but it seems it's unavoidable in the initial stages of these discussions to first have to address the assumption that this idea I'm proposing is nothing more than a wishful-thinking believer who hasn't really thought it through very well and is instead just trying to justify his beliefs through twisting things around in the bible to make it all fit.
I have followed things to their rational conclusion. I've considered this god-less existence scenario and it just doesn't work in my mind. There's too much order from chaos for me to buy into. Not to mention it means reducing everything being a human is all about to random artifacts born of the interaction of naturally evolved traits, like love, empathy, passion, pride, art, music, creativity, the purpose and value we apply to life, etc. I can see the desire to buy into this idea, but I see it mainly as a rejection of man-made religious ideals and not so much a realistic viewpoint to explain who/what we are. It serves well as a basis for scientific exploration and discovery, as you cannot exactly account for divine intervention in a controlled experiment, but it fails to address the entirety of existence from a philosophical/existential standpoint in my opinion.
This idea I'm putting forward doesn't necessarily need to be 'tested', though it could certainly guide further investigation if there's any validity to it. The evidence that supports it is the same evidence that everyone is already fully aware of. The only disconnect is that assumption about Adam being the first human. Once corrected, it's pretty obvious where in history the events of early Genesis took place. Just do what I did. I took the fact that Abraham interacted with an Egyptian Pharaoh in Gen12, and the fact that according to Genesis Abraham was born just under 2000 years after Adam's creation, and used this to nail down a timeline. This would mean that Adam could not have been created any earlier than about 5500 BC or so. So, taking that as a starting point, just look at the history of the region specified, Mesopotamia. It's all there.
The history of southern Mesopotamia matches right up with what's described. Starting with the Ubaid culture (5500-4000BC) you not only have Cain's city from Genesis 4, but you also have the inventions attributed to his descendants originating in this region and timeframe. This was the culture that invented the first human city. While there were other large human settlements that existed for centuries prior to the north, this city, Eridu, is classed as the first 'city' because it's the first existence anywhere of a settlement that consisted of a ruling and working class. According to the Sumerians, the founders of the first human civilization and inventors of numerous things that we still use to this day, Eridu was established by an immortal god they called Enki. The Sumerians believed they were meant to serve this god and his family as that's what they did. The patron god of each Sumerian city (there were 5 pre-flood cities according to them, most of which have actually been found) lived in the temple at the center of each city, and organized the labor that the people carried out. What's truly significant is that this culture that invented the first human cities came to an abrupt end that's still to this day not totally understood. And this culture lasted right about the same length of time that Genesis says took place between Cain's banishment and the flood, about 1500 years. Though flood evidence in this region is sparse, considering it's in modern day Iraq, back in the 20's there was found the tell-tale sign of a flood in the region of the Sumerian city of Ur, a layer of 'sterile deposit', that literally sealed off the Ubaid artifacts, meaning this flood most likely played a significant role in that culture's 'abrupt end'.
Around 3900BC, there was a dramatic climate shift in this region that transformed the Sahara into a desert permanently (5.9 kiloyear event) that some say was the reason for the 'abrupt end'. This resulted in massive human migrations that literally dispersed the humans of that region in all directions, much like what's described at Babel. The confusing of languages can even be seen as the people forced back into nomadic lifestyles by this climate change were the same ones that brought the Semetic and Indo-European languages into Egypt, Sumer, and Europe. And with them also came those behavioral changes.
Then another culture sprang up in this same location and basically picked up where the previous left off. It's referred to as the Uruk culture (4000-3100BC), named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, built towards the beginning of that period. They shared many similarities with the Ubaid culture, including class stratification. These were the first cultures where humans began to be much less egalitarian. Both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List say the city of Uruk was established not long after the flood. It's attributed to Nimrod in Genesis and Enmerkar on the King's List. Both describe the founder of Uruk as a 'mighty hunter'. Genesis also specifies Eridu as being another of Nimrod's kingdoms, which also happens to be the site of the world's oldest ziggurat, or tower.
This all lines up with Genesis down to the specified time table. As I pointed out, Adam not being the first human resolves those confusing lines in Genesis 4 about 'others' that Cain feared when he was banished and in Genesis 6 that speak of 'sons of God' having children with 'daughters of humans'. The biggest tell-tale signs in what we know about these cultures is the dramatic change in human behavior that brought about the first non-egalitarian human societies, and are linked to the dawning of multiple civilizations. This is where the first human civilizations sprang up, and this is where humans first began to act very contrary to nature, unlike any other time in the tens of thousands of years that anatomically modern humans have existed. Behavioral changes that closely resemble what Genesis says Adam and Eve gained by eating the forbidden fruit. Not to mention, the humans that inhabited this region, who eventually became the Sumerians, who invented/pioneered many things including cities, government, laws, complex irrigation techniques, year-round agriculture, crop rotation, calendars, astronomy, mathematics, writing, etc... didn't give credit to their ancestors, but instead claim they were taught by immortal beings, male and female, human in form, who inhabited the temples we know actually existed in the center of the Sumerian cities we know actually existed. Like Genesis says, Adam and his descendants lived for centuries compared to 'mortal' humans who only lived 120 years. And, as I'm sure you're aware, the Sumerians weren't the only civilization from this region that claimed immortal beings existed in their ancient past and believed these stories to be their actual history.
As for the flood, it clearly wasn't global. For one thing, even in the traditional sense, a global flood would not have been necessary, as it happened just 10 generations after Adam. Just how much of the world could they possibly have inhabited? Plus, it's made clear between Genesis 6 and Numbers 13 that there were survivors of the flood whose descendants lived long after (the Nephilim). Not to mention the whole part in Genesis 4 about Cain's descendants being the 'fathers of all those who raised livestock/played stringed instruments/made metal tools' would be irrelevant in a global flood scenario considering they all would have died. And regarding the lack of evidence of Jewish enslavement in Egypt, this timeline places that happening way sooner than most are looking for it. This would be an era of Egyptian history without much in the way of written history being available.
As for 'detecting God', notice how God's presence on earth, with the exception of the Garden of Eden story, always specifies it as being His 'spirit'. Whether it be His 'spirit' hovering over the waters during creation, talking through a burning bush, the ark of the covenant. When God appeared to Moses in Exodus He was described as having a physical form (hand, back, face). And in Psalms it talks about God sitting on His thrown in heaven watching the earth. It is clear that God exists before/outside of this existence, as does Heaven, and His interactions as being mostly indirect/non-physical. Besides, having 'ample evidence of God's existence' suggests God, though He's described as being the creator of existence, would somehow be subject to His own creation and its laws, thus 'detectable'.
If this is something you're interested in pursuing further, I'm all for it and would love to hear what you have to say, but please don't feel obligated to respond if you're just not feeling it or if devoting the time required just isn't feasible. I completely understand, though I still hold out hope we can have the 'bible' discussion at the very least, as I'd be really interested in getting input from you in that regard.The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.
then...
The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”
God clearly appears to Abraham as a man.That's a good point, Rad Man. That's an interaction I had not accounted for. In reading back over this it makes it clear to me this is something I need to look into more closely. If you've never read about the 'documentary hypothesis', I encourage you to look into it. Whether or not you put any value in the bible as a moral/religious document, I think you'll find the anatomy of the document itself, specifically those first five books, interesting for just historical reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
If you'll notice, there's a section of Genesis between those first 11 chapters that talk about the pre-flood world, and the time of Moses, that basically reads like a discombobulated collection of stories about Abraham primarily, which is where the bit you pointed out is located. I do not deny that these stories as they are today in the OT cannot be 100% accurate. The biggest clue of this is the duplicated stories in Genesis 12, 20, and 26. It's basically the same story happening three different times, but happening to different people. Abraham and an Egyptian Pharaoh in 12, Abraham again and Abimelek king of the Philistines in 20, and then again in 26, but this time it's Lot instead of Abraham, but it's still Abimelek as the king in the story.
Genesis says the time between Abraham and Moses was 400 years. 40 and 400 are often used to represent an uncertain long period of time. Like the 40 days/nights of the rains that brought the flood, or the 40 years in the desert. So it's not clear just how accurate this really is. What is clear when reading Genesis is that the story becomes much more of a cohesive narrative once you reach the story of Moses. Before that it's just these random collections of stories edited together in the best way possible to convey a kind of fractured narrative of the time of Abraham, which makes sense if you consider that, according to the story, the events of Abraham happened before the centuries-long enslavement of the Jewish people by the Egyptians. That could maybe explain how these stories could be so fragmented by the time somebody got to writing them down way later.
I go into all of that to say this. The documentary hypothesis I referred to earlier is an idea put forth by bible scholars who objectively studied the texts to explain the apparent 'pieced together' nature of the books of Moses. In some places, especially prior to Exodus 3, it sometimes refers to God with the personal name YAHWEH, and other times it refers to Him in the more generic word for deity, Elohim. The portions that describe Yahweh as anthropomorphic are attributed to the 'Yahwist' source. This source is said to be more 'concerned with narratives'. It 'presents a theology of history, rather than a timeless philosophical theology' and God/Yahweh's character is 'known by his actions'.
The descriptions of God in a more impersonal way (speaking through dreams, prophets, angel of the Lord) are attributed to the Elohist source. What's interesting in this source is that God is described as 'human-like' and is referred to as 'Elohim' up to the incident of the burning bush, but then after Elohim then reveals Himself as Yahweh. This is why it becomes much more difficult from that point on to discern which is which as far as source material goes, because both from that point forward often refer to God by the same name, Yahweh.
So, it's hard to say when dealing with that stretch of Genesis. What is interesting is that in all the stories leading up to that point it often just says 'God said to Abraham' (Gen12,13), but doesn't specify if He's standing there, if it's a voice in his head, an audible voice in the clouds, it just doesn't specify. Other times it says God appears to Abraham in a vision (Gen15), or that Abraham first fell into a deep sleep (later in Gen15), then God spoke to him. Then, in Gen17, it says God 'appeared' to Abraham when Abraham was old and Abraham fell face down. Then, in Gen18, the one you're referring to, God and two angels appeared as 'three men'. This chapter is attributed to the more narratively-based 'Jahwist' source, so it could be a kind of literary device used to tell the story. I really can't say.
HvN: what an excellent piece of research!!! I am nearly 70 and have been rai sed, instructed, educated in the Catholic faith and a whole lot of histories and leturgias and etc; however this approach of yours is certainly enlightening, interesting, serious, supported,:I thank you for your efforts in this venue...Just excellent!
Thank you, puella. I have had no formal training of any kind, so it means a lot to hear that from someone who has. I have studied significantly and diligently, bordering on obsessively, on my own, but am by no means an expert. So it's good to hear that someone who does have a basis of knowledge formed through more official means can see cohesion and possible value in what I'm presenting.
Are you open to the idea that your belief that the Bible and the existence of God is wrong? Are you open to the idea that God does not exist and the Bible is merely someone's documentation of what they believed or what they wanted to believe actually happened even though/if it did not happen?
Are you open to the idea that your disbelief in the Bible and the existence of God is wrong? I get what you're getting at. In your mind my faith in God inhibits my ability to look at reality realistically/objectively/rationally. You feel I have a default disposition to insert God where there are no answers. That my 'problem' is that I just haven't thought it through logically.
But have you? Are you sure it's me not thinking things through? That it's me that is rationalizing?
I have questioned what I was taught. I have never doubted God's existence, however, because, while I understand the concept/viewpoint of a god-less existence that just came about on its own through random chance, I don't see that as a realistic conclusion. I see that more as a rationalization born of the desire to rule out the God that the largest organized religions of the world are based on. The religious institutions that many (myself included) view as an obstructive, flawed, discriminating, and oppressive force in human history.
But I just can't get on board with the idea that an intelligent, rational mind capable of grasping the complexities of the universe came from an unintelligent process of random mutation and natural selection. Order and intelligence born of unintelligent random chaos, while it's a necessary viewpoint where scientific investigation is concerned, is not a realistic conclusion in my mind to answer the bigger existential questions of who/what humans are and where we came from.Yes, I am open to every idea that is backed by evidence, you don't seem to realize or remember if I had not told you already, I grew up a Christian, if you want to know more about that I have a new hub on recovering from religion, it's not easy shedding your belief in the supernatural so I do understand your desire to defend your beliefs but what you don't realize about me as an atheist is that the word atheist barely describes me as a person, all it says about me is that I lack a belief in a God. MY ENTIRE FAMILY is either Catholic or some fundamental Christian and do you have any idea what it's like for me going to any sort of Family function? Every Thanksgiving and Christmas my cousin (who is very rightwing conservative Christian) and I have debates (unfortunately through the entire event) on how I am going to hell or how his religion or his politics or his economics is right and I am wrong.... What do the rest of my family do? The help him sometimes... I am not alone in my family, I have an Uncle, another cousin and my father (who is usually too occupied to help) on my side however they don't really help either because they don't want to expose themselves in their nonbelief. Trust me, I didn't just one day decide to stop believing, I decided the truth and justice is more important than anything else.
"But have you? Are you sure it's me not thinking things through? That it's me that is rationalizing?"
Yes I am and yes I am sure, we have had this debate before and I have pointed out the flaws in your arguments and your logic and I have watched you rationalize them away as if that would make them true however you don't have anything but rationalization to back you up, which is what most delusional people have in any belief system. The fact that " I have never doubted God's existence" proves my point that you HAVEN'T thought it out, or truly questioned the validity of your own beliefs, you are afraid to and I realize that. Fear is what keeps you in these childish beliefs. "random chance" had nothing to do with existence except in what direction development happened, existence is. Yes, it just is. Now you can rationalize a God into it but if you use a God to explain the universe you must prove not only that God exists but provide an explanation (if that is all you have and it is) of God's origins as well. But you neither have evidence for a God just a rational for why you think God is necessary for existence nor do you have a valid explanation for the origin of a God. That is why your belief in a God is irrational.....
What you also don't understand is that if you can prove that God exists I would go back to believing in God.
"But I just can't get on board with the idea that an intelligent, rational mind capable of grasping the complexities of the universe came from an unintelligent process of random mutation and natural selection." But you can you just choose to ignore it, look at children and look at their development, now imagine that all adults on the planet from age 7-the oldest adult all die. none of the children know how to do much of anything, we would go back to being wild animals and we would slowly develop back to how we are now over a few thousand years, that is how it happened and you can ignore that idea if you so wish but are you willing to accept it if it were true? You just admitted to disliking one idea and liking another not accepting an idea for being true and rejecting another for being untrue, you have to follow the evidence not what you WANT to be true.
Which is why I am an atheist.I get that, Art, and I definitely get what you're saying about family get-togethers. My family is convinced that I'm endangering my salvation with these crazy ideas of mine. They've gotten to the point that they can't even hardly talk to be about it because they get all emotional. My grandmother finally just had to go lay down the last time I saw them, and then I just spent the rest of the time getting looks that basically say, "How dare you! Look what you're doing to your poor grandmother!"
I don't agree that it's fear that drives me. If it turns out I'm totally wrong then there's really nothing to worry about, right? As long as I'm careful not to be harmful to others while I'm here, to try to do more good than damage, then that's really it. It's nothing beyond this. So what's to fear?
My problem with the 'god-less existence' viewpoint is purely logical. Even with the extreme length of time to allow for it, I just don't see it as plausible. I don't doubt that you've taken a good hard look at what you were taught and have formed your own understanding. I've talked to you enough to know that your viewpoint is earned through your own contemplation and not something you were just taught because you can adequately explain it.
My point has more to do with your conclusion. Especially considering your upbringing and the conflict your viewpoint causes with family and such. Are you certain that your feelings about God and religion as seen through your family are not maybe making you more willing to accept something beyond reason?
I think Einstein said it better than I've been able to up to this point when he said, "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
I can certainly understand rejecting the Christian version of God, but to then go from there to determining with certainty that there is no deliberate purpose, or intelligence driving the obvious harmony that can be seen in the cosmos and in life is a bit of a stretch.
Whether or not you agree, I at least hope you can see that it's not something I've arrived at lightly or that requires a total abandonment of logic and reason.I find it interesting, and difficult to respond to, that people "grew" up Christian or were forced to be a Christian and then changed their minds. Any and everybody should be welcome in church to "get the information necessary to make a decision." Just the fact that one goes to church and follows rituals doesn't make one a Christian. The Biblical definition of Christian is laid out in the New Testament. Rejection of the criteria means a person chooses to "not" be a Christian. It is a freewill decision. Parents taking you to church does not make you, or your parents, Christians.
I think it has more to do with church being a more outwardly expressed version of faith. I don't think there's anything wrong with congregating with like-minded people, but I think it just inherently brings out a sense of 'us vs. them' in people. It can easily become more about appearances than spirituality. And in the case of children, it seems to me that many are forced into these things by parents who want to keep up appearances in the eyes of the congregation by showing everyone what good Christians they and their children are. Something that more comes from a place of pride than anything else. Unfortunately, it's too often the case that religion becomes more about outward appearance than internal spiritual reconciliation, and kids simply learn by example.
Or - it could be that the bible explicitly creates an "us vs them," mentality. I wonder - have you actually read this book?
Yep. Have you? Because, while believers can often be judgmental of others and how they live, the book itself pretty directly says not to do that. The message was simple, love God and love one another. Forgive and don't judge. And if you've actually read it, and understood it, then you'd realize the error in what you have said.
Humans have a natural tendency towards an us vs. them mentality where they see differences in others, much like Dawkins describes in the book you referred me to. Whether that be skin color, lifestyle, the way you dress, etc. Even if the differences are slight, we still manage. And this only started about 6000 years ago. Before that humans co-habitated without judgement. There's evidence of extensive trade routes that predate biblical times by thousands of years where humans separated by great distances worked together trading goods, yet no evidence of violence, no weapons, no defensive walls, etc, even when population density was high.
But beginning in Mesopotamia, and spreading from there, beginning around 4000 BC, humans began fighting wars with one another. They began enslaving and killing and taking land for themselves, away from 'them' as a means to take care of and protect 'us'. Settlements were separated by classes (us/them), males dominated females (us/them). It's a heightened sense of individual self-awareness, a stronger sense of "I". A natural tendency to evaluate differences in others, evaluate one's self, and comparing.
Humans do this using the bible/religion, using books/movies/music, political ideals (tea party), etc. Even in the case of sports, rooting for a home team unifies fans of one team by pitting them against fans of another team. It's people, not God and not the bible. People. Humans. They're the common denominator."The message was simple, love God and love one another." And if you don't believe or love God then you will burn in hell for all eternity, which is the contradiction of love. If your children rebel against you do you lock them in a basement and torture them for the rest of their lives? No, that would be evil, but that is exactly what it teaches in the Bible. Or how about this arbitrary Jesus died for your sins? If you live a good life then what sins would that refer to? The sins of Adam and Eve, the original sin. But this is what it's like if you really look at it, God is Jesus came to Earth to die on the cross to forgive you of sin he originally gave you and then he goes back up to heaven, where is the sacrifice? It's like a mob boss, he tells you "You must pay for my protection and if you don't I will break your legs" You are paying for the protection of God by God. He's nothing better than that.
"And this only started about 6000 years ago. Before that humans co-habitated without judgement. "
This statement shows a basic ignorance of human history and prehistory and human nature and reality.The mob-boss analogy is one of my favorite ways to describe the biblical god.
If a mob boss walls into your place of business demanding payment and tells you that if yourefuse to pay, he's going to shoot you in the head. You refuse to pay, so he shoots you. You didn't commit suicide - he shot you! Blame the mob boss who created such an unjust scenario in the first place -not the victim. Its absurd.I've also used the mafia as an analogy and I often wondered if that how it started. Some smart southern Italian said hey, they've got something here. Instead of asking for worship we'll ask for money and we'll protect them from ourselves if they give us the money. That's just what Christianity does. Praise the loving God or he'll hurt you forever.
Hi Rad! Everyone was destined for a lost eternity. God sent His Son to offer them a better place. Many decide that they want to take Him up on His offer. The condemnation came long before the Christians. It is everyone's right to reject the offer. Those who don't believe the offer is needed do reject. They don't believe in nor want to go to Heaven.
There you go again. Them and Us. Odd you don't understand this.
Why was everyone destined for a lost eternity in the first place? Because of god - and his creation of rules that were impossible for even the most godly people to adhere to. God sent his SON because he was an idiot. He sent himself to earth to "sacrifice" himself to himself to appease himself for his own rules because god likes the smell of burning flesh, blood and mutilation.
Furthermore, jesus wasn't a sacrifice at all. If you sacrifice something, you give it up. You don't have it anymore. Jesus came to earth as a displacement temporarily. He lived for 30 something years, died an admittedly horrible (gruesome) death - and three days later, he went right back to heaven with daddy, where he lives to this day. that's not a sacrifice. God had a 33 year inconvenience, but a million years is like a second to god, so those years probably weren't that big of a deal to him. Now everything is back to normal. So what? How many of the sheep, goats, birds, cows, etc that the jews sacrificed came back to life?JMc, if there is no God, there are no rules. If there is no God, salvation's story is not true and there was no sacrifice. If all of it is true, then the real anger is might be about having to make the choice. I think you made the comment about the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, etc. Should one get mad because they are not real? Some parents choose to have their kids believe in the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, etc. They all eventually grow out of it. The thing that makes beliefs so complicated, both Christian and non-Christian, is the anger at other people because they believe something else. Some angry people verbally and physicall attack other people ... which is wrong.
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
You believe that all atheists get burned in a lake of fire by the god you claim to worship - yes? And you still worship it?
Them and Us.Yup. Remember though it is our choice. Those people you listed have the choice to be with God (who is the source of all good, and love) or separate from God (absence of good, and love). It is up to each individual what they choose. It is never an us against them. It is an us against sin. The human race against the evil we are capable of.
It doesn't matter if we are "good" by our standards, we are not living up to God's sense of perfect justice. We never can, we never will. That means that every single one of us is a sinner.
All of us. Not an us verses them mentality at all. It is an us verses self mentality.
The Bible does not teach us to be against those people who do not believe in what we believe in. We were all there once, and honestly we all continue to make the wrong choices. We are all in the same boat. Christianity claims that Jesus died on the cross, atoning for our sins. The final sacrifice.
His death fulfilled God's sense of perfect justice, since we never could. Now that gift of freedom through Christ is free for anybody who wants it.
SO do I worship the God who will give ANYBODY the chance to make a choice. A choice to be with Him, or without Him. A God who will respect that choice regardless of whether or not He likes it? Yeah I do."But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
Romans 3:28 For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Some people love sinning. By Rev 21:8 the rapture has occurred. People who chose to reject God, not ask for forgiveness, and love to send because of the hardness of their hearts are in a real pickle here.
You believe that all atheists get burned in a lake of fire by the god you claim to worship - yes? And you still worship it? God is love and wants us to love our neighbors. We should do nothing to harm our neighbors but we do. 1 John 1:9 If you confess your sins he is faithful and just to forgive us and cleans us of all unrighteousness. My sins are itemized in Rev. 21:8. I was ashamed and asked for forgiveness. I still sin but am agrieved when I sin. I ask for forvieness daily. Lack of humility and the desire to have the last word are two of my biggest issues. I pray, confess, and publicly address those sins to other Christians.
Mark, you had me up at 5:30 talking about this! I'm including you in my prayer rather you want it or not. I don't want you to be one of "them." I want YOU to be one of "US!!!" I have no idea of where to get the smiley from. Look at my pic - I'm smiling!Still not addressing my points are you? It is a Them and Us situation, and you and your religion create it.
You still worship this thing that you believe is going to burn me in a lake of fire - why?
Pray for me all you want. I hope it makes you feel better.Well this would be a God who gives you every tool to help you choose what you want. You get to choose if you want to be with Him or not. Your choice.
It isn't us verses them, it is every single person against themselves. Against the evil we are capable of. We are all in the same boat in terms of sin. I would argue that Christianity is one of the only religions that does not make an us against them mentality. It tells us we are all the same, we are all sinners, we all fall short, there is nothing we can do to save ourselves, or help ourselves.
So God did it for us.
Now we just have to choose of we want to accept His free gift and be with Him. Or say no thanks and choose to keep Him out of our lives. Its our choice.Yeah right. No wars amongst Christians.
No schisms, no different denominations, no crusades. no witch burnings, no anti abortionists, no anti gay marriage.
Please stop preaching at me - I can read well enough. Free gift or else. Them and Us.
Are you saved and I am lost?Another list of our short comings, our failures. I am talking about what it actually teaches. Not what people twisted it into becoming.
If you could read it well enough I would expect you would to display some reading comprehension in your responses.Please stop attacking my intelligence in this way. I understand that is what the bible teaches you to do, but it just causes conflicts and arguments.
I see you failed to address any of my points and instead insult me. How very Christian of you to make my point for me.I was talking about the actual teachings, not the choices of certain people. I didn't address your points because you didn't make any, at least none that were relevant to the post you were commenting on.
Yes - I did. Sorry you were unable to understand. I suggest re-reading the discussion I was having with some one else before you interjected yourself.
I was, I just got bored of watching and laughing and figured I would add a few choice comments. I have been in this discussion since it started. Just not saying very much.
And questioning my reading comprehension is the best you could come up with?
As for whether I am saved and you are lost, I will be honest, I don't care.
You have every tool available to you to make a very informed choice. You can choose whatever you want, it is up to you.
I made my choices, and I will continue to make choices. How they impact me is for me to know. How your choices impact you is for you to know.
That's it. Your salvation is not my concern. My salvation is not your concern.Them and Us. As I said. Really - thanks for continuing to make my point for me.
If you're a true Christian, isn't EVERYONE's salvation you're concern? That is what Jesus (you remember him, right? Your supposed "Savior") teaches?
My opinion? That this is the excuse christians poke their noses into other people's business.
Personally, I agree with you - but the Bible teaches that every Christian should be concerned with every non-believers eternal soul. The fact that he doesn't seem too care directly contradicts the teachings he claims to subscribe to.
She is simply defending her irrational beliefs from a perceived attack.
Them and Us. Them and Us.why is questioning something automatically perceived as an attack? Why are so many christians convinced that they're being persecuted - ESPECIALLY in the US when they have NO CLUE as to what persecution actually means.
I wasn't defending anything
I was answering Marks question honestly. That was his opinion apparently.
As for why so many Christians think they are being persecuted I suppose there are a number of reasons.
Hey, J.
I don't necessarily agree that this is what the Bible teaches. We are taught as Christians to refrain from any action that might lead another to sin. Slapping them in the face with a list of beliefs until they're angry, frustrated, or just want to mangle our faces doesn't fit that description. What the average Christian forgets is that the Bible is an instructional resource for those who believe in God, not for those who do not. All the jabber about correcting your brother, yada, yada, yada....that doesn't mean your human brother or sister - it's your brothers and sisters in faith. The only thing the Bible instructs a believer to do in regard to a non believer is to pray.
I have more true friends who are not believers as a result of that take on things.
Go figure.Yeah, but you are not a real christian:
"But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. "Well...just between you and me, Mark, I don't quite believe in the whole 'lake of fire' bit.
Man, I'm as 'real' as the Velveteen Rabbit.Pickin' n Choosin' huh? Maybe you are a real Christian after all........
I'm as real as they come. I do pick and choose, and don't deny it. I think to accept it ALL as literal limits God to being as small minded and vengeful as we are. I tend to think He's a great deal bigger, infinitely more merciful, and has a very sensible concept of justice. Unlike the average human being.
My mom used to tell me that God made us in His image, and we've been trying to return the favor ever since."My mom used to tell me that God made us in His image, and we've been trying to return the favor ever since."
^ I love thatSpeaking again as an "outsider" in relation the the United States, can I be permitted to ask a leading question?
"Is there a strong connection between the "christian right" and one side of politics?"
This appears to me to be a yes, but maybe I am mistaken.Yes, you are correct. Though the dividing line isn't quite this clear cut, of course, the 'Christian right' are generally associated with the conservative republican side of the political aisle.
Hi, jonny. I missed this earlier, sorry. I'm glad Headly answered you. In short, he's absolutely right. The more conservative politics one subscribes to, the more likely that they are Evangelical (fundamental, bible-believing) Christians.
I don't fit. I'm a part of what we'd probably call the Christian 'Left' in the States.God's Word defines Christianity. Neither right nor left, Republican or Democrat have a market on Christianity. Christians should place the word of God above politics. People use the Bible to justify opposing sides of the same issue.
Which version of gods word is it that is supposed to define christianity, since there are well over 3000 sects of christianity alone - let alone all of the other religions. Christians should leave god out of politics altogether, hence the separation of church and state. Like it or not, this isn't a christian country - and it shouldn't be.
“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age’” (Matthew 28:18-20).
that's jesus talking, right? Did he say not to share the gos....no...no wait....he said MAKE DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS.
This is your religion, right?I'm the wrong person to argue with, J. I am not a fundamental Christian who believes every word of Scripture is meant literally. There are others here who will disagree with you vehemently and defend themselves against everything you say. I believe differently than they do. You may believe - or not - as you choose. It is not my mission to change that. I do what I do according to what I believe and leave you to do what you will.
I pick and choose - just like Mark says.
You'll get much farther with others if argument is what you're looking for.who's arguing? I'm actually enjoying myself very much.
LOL. SORRY!! I'm not usually so touchy.
Actually, I am enjoying myself also. Just haven't dealt with you enough to be able to gauge your tone yet. I know my other atheist buddies pretty well by now. Regarding the making disciples command...I think that we've misinterpreted that - badly - for these many years. I think that Jesus spoke specifically to His apostles at the time regarding the nations that were known to them. I've never taken that to mean that we're all supposed to go around shoving Him, and His word, down others' throats.
Honestly, Fundies don't like me much...lol
I also think we're called to LIVE our faith and the commands of Jesus - and I can't remember where it is, but it says in the NT to always be prepared to give a reason for our faith...I'll do that gladly - when I'm asked to. But, I'm not called to answer questions people don't ask.It's in Peter. 1 Peter 3:15
New International Version (NIV)
15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
What I find funny is that it commands people to be able to justify their beliefs - but a lot of believers insist that it's the atheist's job to prove that god isn't real...and they don't seem to like this verse very much.
No worries - I can understand that I come off as argumentative sometimes ( and sometimes I even can be). Mostly, however, I'm just sarcastic. i watch too much Buffy. I blame Buffy for my underlying snark.I started watching Angel and realized how self absorbed Buffy actually is LoL. When I was younger I LOVED Buffy and thought Angel was lame, and now I feel the absolute opposite.
Now I think Angel is retarded - and I love buffy.
My all time favorite, however, is faith. She's yummy.Haha, LoL, agreed. She's definitely the hottest chick on there, hands down. ;D
You know, it's funny...believers are absolutely terrified to say they have no proof of God's existence. If they don't have proof, then what good is their faith? But it's just that - faith. Belief. A conviction of the heart that their experiences are real. That's what my faith is, anyway. A certainty of the heart. Intellectually, I've doubted. I've questioned. I've even told myself it could all be a great cosmic joke, and I'm the butt of it. But, there is a certainty in my heart that I can't doubt or let go of.
But I never posit to a nonbeliever that God certainly exists. I don't KNOW. I believe. And it's something difficult to explain, but it's my faith - that faith that refuses to depart - that has me fairly convinced I'm right. You're absolutely right. If I were to tell you God is real, it is absolutely on me to show you evidence of that fact and proof. I answer questions that are asked of me whenever I can - and as honestly as possible. That sometimes means that I have no physical evidence, no proof, as it were.
Hey - I'm a master of snark, most of the time. In that I 'get it.' I've been known to dish it out myself on occasion, but as a rule, I try not to. It's not very Christianly.at least you're honest enough to admit that you have no physical proof, and personal experiences don't count in terms of "evidences" that can be presented to someone else. I have to give you respect for that.
I may be sarcastic or snarky (it's just my personality) but I do my very best to not intentionally insult or demean anyone personally. I may mock beliefs on occasion, but in my opinion, a lot of times they kind of lead to mocking on their own - especially when you point out a lot of the discrepancies within them (at least if you're a literalist). I'm sure you can understand.I do, I do.
I think some of the more zealous Christians here are decent folks. I just don't know that they're mature enough to recognize that there is a great deal of irrationality in faith itself - and more concrete thinkers will always point that out. Eventually, it becomes a matter of simply being willing to listen to others with an ear to really understanding how they've arrived at the conclusions they have, and allowing them to be who they are without trying to change the way they think and feel. No two people are alike - even believers. We've all been given brains and the ability to rationalize and think critically. Often, presented with the exact same set of circumstances (even the exact same set of Scriptures), we will perceive them differently, our brains will process them differently, and our ultimate conclusions will be ... yup, different.
And, you know how in a dysfunctional family, a child will act in ways that are unhealthy because it's what they've been taught? Unfortunately, the Christian Church is one helluva dysfunctional family, and there are a lot of us who are spiritually very unhealthy. God Himself can fix that, but we spend an awful lot of time getting in His way. And, rather than behave the way He told us to, we act like assholes. People are justified in calling us out on that, IMO.
You're a very sensible person. If I had been surrounded by christians like you, I'd probably still be one (and consequently quite happier). But I believe that whatever path we end up on, we can make it good that we did end up there, find the positive and use our misfortunes to help make other people's lives a little happier. One reason I'm into psychology. I'd love to help other people find simple happiness and a degree of freedom from that which complicates their lives even if those pleasantries allude me.
Thank you - that's very kind, and I appreciate it. I think that while Christian fellowship is very important, Christianity itself is a very solitary journey. But what we learn on that journey is what we share with the world to help it heal. In the end, the things that matter (or should) to Christians matter to Agnostics and Atheists too. Love. Family. Hope. Making the world a better place. There are completely secular pursuits that allow for those things to flourish too, IMO. And there are people like us - who don't demonize each other because of the different paths we've chosen.
I do believe that every struggle and trial we survive gives us a measure of wisdom to carry forward and share with others. I'm not about what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I've survived a lot of things that have weakened me over the years. But, I've learned from them. I'm better because of them.
No, my concern is spreading the news, continuing to share when people desire it, and loving people.
Whether or not somebody is saved is not for me to know, judge, or worry about. Somebody like Mark has all the tools, all the info, and does not want my beliefs shoved in his face. I have to respect that. What he does with all that I have said to him, and all that he already knows, and all that he researches in the future is not my concern. It is between him and God.
Jesus taught that if people don't want to hear the word then we should move on.
Also Jesus taught of one God, one Judge. He taught that we are not to try and judge for ourselves.
Mark asked if I thought I was saved and he was not. I responded I don't care. I am not going to categorize and draw that us verses them picture that Mark was asking for. That is not my place to judge. What I care about is that he has all the info I can possibly offer him to make that choice an informed one. I also care about getting all the information I can from others to make sure I make informed choices.so what is your proof for your faith? What is your justification, since you've based it on being well-informed.
Do you really want to know what my proof is? I will start listing my resources and reasons but I want to make sure I am not wasting my time. I have done so numerous times already on this site.
What satisfies me as proof, may not be satisfactory for you. Likely it won't be. But I will tell you my reasons if you like. Just tell me now whether it is something you care to read, or if you just want an excuse to argue. (I only ask because we have not interacted much yet, and I do not know where you are coming from)
But, that never happens, because you aren't the first and won't be the last person to tell Mark he needs to be saved by Jesus. It's a never ending parade of salvation.
And since, as you have stated, that is it indeed between Mark and God, then why are you saying anything at all, and why must the parade of salvation never stop?
Why can't you all just move on?Lol I do move on. However the same atheists seem to hang out on religious forums, so they seem to want to talk about religion. Is it wrong for me to talk to them? Also I don't think I ever told Mark that he needs to be saved by Jesus :p I try to stick to people's misconceptions. As I have said numerous times on these forums, I am not here to evangelize. I would do that in person. I am here to discuss. I have no interest in pushing salvation on you. That is not how it works.
What do you mean by you all?isn't this a thread on why a god created atheists? That seems to imply that atheists are welcomed to chime in - does it not?
I never said they weren't. Read what I was responding to.
you seem incredibly defensive. Just sayin'.
You said something about a bunch of atheists insisting on posting on religious forums - which does not include this one, that you're responding on. Don't you find that humorous?
I read it all the time, in the original languages and went to theological seminary before I became an atheist, and I agree with mark. Soon in all you want, the Bible is a horror story, and its god is the most unjust egomaniac I've ever read about. Why would you choose to worship a monster like that?
Hello Julie.
I believe with a little research of your comments in the forums, everything in the following statement is accurate. If not, please point out what you believe to be in error and I will see if I can corroborate my assertion from your previous posts. If not, I will acknowledge it, apologize for the error, and stand corrected. It is not my intent to misrepresent you.
You've repeatedly stated that you spent many years involved with a church, and you also did missionary work. You went to seminary and have spent a great deal of time studying the scripture. Ultimately your conclusion is that the God of the Bible is not real, (in fact you are doubtful if Jesus is either). Your statements make clear you hold nothing but contempt for God and even if He was proven to be real, you would want nothing to do with Him. You consider the bible to be ridiculous, inaccurate, unreliable and foolish.
I know it has been pointed out to you more than once, that the bible itself declares those who do not believe in God will find it to be foolishness. It says the understanding of it is spiritually discerned, via the Holy Spirit. Although you may not agree with this either, many unbelievers have found the bible useful for historical, literary or archeological purposes. As far as understanding our origin, destiny or God's purpose, those who do not know there is a god will not benefit.
This brings me to my question. You say you read the bible daily. Why continually subject yourself to such foolishness? You are quick to state, and eager to illustrate, that you already know the text better than most you oppose. Why so obsessed with it? I know I risk your taking this wrong, but please be assured, my inquiry is sincere. I find it fascinating.You are correct. I do not believe that the bible is the unfailing, holy word of god, and I do not find it compelling evidence to prove that god's existence. I don't ultimately claim that Jesus didn't exist. I find it much more likely to think that the historical jesus was not a single person, but a collection of people who all contributed to an idea that was passed on orally and ultimately compiled into what became the new testament. I cannot prove that no such person existed, so I do not claim that he didn't. However, i likewise find no compelling evidence to suggest that he did - and if he did, all of the miraculous events surrounding his life, death and subsequent resurrection have completely gone unnoticed by contemporary historians, which I find puzzling at best if this man did exist as he is portrayed. I doubt the divinity of the person of jesus, if the person did exist historically - mostly due to the fact that early christians did not consider him divine.
I don't necessarily think that I hold the god of the bible in contempt. I hold him in judgement, if he existed. The bible portrays an evil, egomaniac dictator who enjoys suffering, pain and torment on the creation he ultimately claims to be responsible for creating. I don't find the god of the bible to be particularly moral, and I am disturbed that the majority of christians call the bible the good book - the book that has been responsible for more bloodshed than any other book in history. I find it disturbing that it is distributed by children - in its entirety, I might add, regardless of all the horrific stories contained within it. I don't hate the god of the bible. I don't believe in him. I strongly dislike the actions of a lot of his self-professed followers, though - throughout history, and on to the present day.
I get that the bible says "only a fool would say there is no god". what else would you expect it to say? In fact, almost all holy books of major religions say something to this effect. It is a way of discrediting anyone who disagrees with it - and giving its followers and excuse to write people off at will and claim superiority. Almost all religious beliefs are mutually exclusive. They all claim ultimate truth, while maintaining that all their competition is heresy or corrupt. The bible is not unique in this aspect, and it's a common mindset throughout antiquity that lasts up until this present day. The bible is the apparent only connection between the god found within it's pages and his creation. If it's not supposed to be read by non-believers, why does it exist? Is it not therefore just "preaching to the choir" and making christians feel better about themselves? Yet no two denominations can agree on even the most fundamental doctrines found within it. the bible can justify or condemn just about anything - depending on what spin you choose to put on it. It can condemn and condone slavery. It can demean and uplift women. It can condemn homosexuals to death - and (to some) excuse their natural inclinations. The bible can say whatever you want it to say. therefore I find it to be unreliable.
Why do I continue to read it even though I don't believe in it? Because i have a desire to learn. It's not the only thing I study or learn about - far from it. I am fascinated by history, and like it or not, a lot of the history throughout my favorite period (the middle ages) is based in large part on religious beliefs of the people within it.
I debate on a semi-professional level, and unlike a lot of my apologist opponents, I like being well-informed. You would be surprised (or perhaps not) how many debates I've gone into with people who deny evolution because I cannot produce a "crock-o-duck" - Kirk Cameron style. their research on evolution is limited to Television evangelists, and they fail to dig any deeper. I like the fact that I know the bible so well - not to be conceited (and I'm not trying to brag) but I know the bible a lot better than some of the pastors that I regularly communicate with. It's shocking that these people are still in the ministry, but they have no idea what their holy book contains. History fascinates me. Religious history fascinates (and horrifies) me. In order to understand the psychology of some of these horrific actions, you have to understand what these people believed in - and that means going back to the beginning.
Not all of the bible is bad. It has some good advice. Ultimately, I use it as a tool to enhance my own knowledge and learning. I don't see anything wrong with that. I grew up with this kind of blind-faith, and I spent a lot of time alone. I read, because I didn't have anything else to do, and usually the only book I had to read was the bible. when I started to question what I found there, I was told to shut up and ask god. I did. That's why I'm an atheist today.
Unlike a lot of christians I've encountered that claim persecution whenever someone even questions their beliefs, i have faced persecution from christians. I've been beat up, mocked, ridiculed and more by people who are now pastors. Yet I was the one who was punished, because I was gay, and therefore immoral. I don't hate christians. I hate a lot of their attitudes. In order to try and reach them, however, I have to speak on their level and in their language - and in order to do that, I have to continue my own study. I'm not an atheist because of what some believers have done to me - or to others. I'm an atheist because there is nothing to support a belief in the christian god. the rest may have contributed to it overall - but it wasn't the root cause.
I don't blame you for being curious. Thanks for asking, rather than just simply assuming things like so many others seem to do.Literary, yes, historical, perhaps, but not really archeological.
That is a fallacy. The bible has not shown itself to be accurate in providing any understanding of our origins or destinies. And, if indeed the references to those are mythical, there is surely nothing to benefit from living a myth.
Firstly, who said that there are no rules without a god? Morality is not determined by spiritual beliefs. I'm an atheist, but I'm not running around murdering people. You're confusing atheism with anarchy, and the two do not coincide.
Secondly, I haven't said anything about the tooth fairy etc. where do you get anger from?Jmc, there are Christians who kill but most Christians don't. The point is everyone has something that is their personal issue. Who writes the rules of morality. Everyone, if left to his/her own way, will exclude immoral acts that they like to do. Do atheists have a system of beliefs or people make up their own beliefs. That is a form of anarchy.
Diane, you are misinformed at a level that is SHOCKING. I get that you may have been taught that your whole life, but morality does not require a god, a bible, or any religion whatsoever. In fact, I recently went to a presentation on the superiority of secular morality - where you help your fellow men because it's the right thing to do - not because a god told you to, or your hope for a reward in an afterlife or you fear eternal torture. You don't need a god to be good. I volunteer at an atheist homeless shelter. We go out and feed sandwiches to people in need - and we don't hold their sandwich hostage until they've listened to a sermon. Yet it amazes them that we're not affiliated with a church. Why do you think you need a god to be good?
I didn't say anything about christians killing people - but they have. You originally stated that without god, there are no rules - if your belief is true, then everyone who is an atheist like me should be out there raping, pillaging and murdering people. Why aren't we? Anarchy is NOT the same as atheism - I don't care what you have been told about it. You're wrong.No everyone should not be raping. I had a boss who felt he was a good man. He was generous. However, he chased every woman at work. I heard rumors but was really surprised when I actually heard accounts from someone who was going with him. He played favorites based on looks which impacted salaries. This has nothing to do with murder but it is immoral. He believed that God exists but doesn't care what we do.
My point was that all atheists do not hold the same beliefs. Correct me if I am wrong - The only belief for certain is the disbelief in God. Is there a moral code for stealing? I don't mean robbing a bank but not reporting income on taxes or puffing deductions. Not all atheist believe the same thing. Not al Christians believe the same thing; however, because the Bible is the guiding document, there is dialog about what is right and wrong.
If there is a document that states atheist moral beliefs, I'd like to see it and will gladly admit that I am wrong.Is that what it takes then? You need a document such as the bible to do right? Have you stoned many witches lately?
You do realize you have contradicted yourself though. Us atheists have the self same dialogue as you guys do to determine what is right and wrong. In fact - we use the same venue - called the "Law."
So - where is the difference exactly?silly - you don't STONE witches. You burn them. It's disobedient children that you're supposed to stone. Oh, and rape victims if they don't scream loud enough.
Sheesh....get your facts straight :-)
(this is, of course, sarcasm.)Well good morning Mark!
Christ came to earth because it was impossible to keep the law. There may be something you never do ... that's great. To say that you are perfect and never do anything immoral .. that's a LIE! (see my smiling face)
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."—Romans 10:4.
Prisons are full of atheists and professed Christians. Many people that do crimes don't get caught. They all can't be Christians.
Rom 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,Actually the stats tell an interesting story. Christians are over represented in prison and of the approximate 16% of Atheists in the U.S. less than 0.5% of the prison population are Atheists. So, claiming Christians are more ethical than Atheists is just simply wrong.
I wondered if there were stats. Can you give me a source.
BTW, many people become "Christians" in jail because they hope it will help them get out. I see a lot of crying grandmother's saying "He is a good boy! He didn't do it! He goes to church!" and their blindness to reality is often a reason these people end up in jail. The Italian mafia were Catholics but that was merely a membership or affiliation - nothing about a way of life.
Well I see smiley faces at the bottom but can't figure out how to get one on my page! :-(
I see you aren't going to tell me how to get one.None, because they know only too well that ploy doesn't work.
I started Googling for statistics and am finding interesting stuff. See below:
I've heard these stats cited so many times...and trying to draw any sort of conclusion from them is ridiculous. There are a number of confounding items that render these stats almost meaningless:
1) American parole boards favor people who claim religious allegiance; so the incentive to claim to be Christian (or religious) is very high.
2) People who come from poor areas tend to also be more religious; people who come from poor areas also tend to commit more crimes. I'm quite confident that if you were to check out the stats for white-collar criminals from middle-to-upper-class backgrounds, you'd find the percentage of atheists to be a significant degree higher.
3) People facing adversity -- such as being thrust into prison -- have a strong tendency to convert to religion as a means of coping with it.
4) And most importantly...if you go to a country like China, where A) the percentage of atheists is much higher, and B) claiming to be religious decreases your chances of being released from prison, you find that the percentage of atheists in prison is higher than theists.
In short...these stats, while accurate on a very superficial level, really don't mean much at all. Wolfman comment: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=191726That is merely another persons opinion on another forum. Did you not notice the others wholeheartedly disagreeing?
Bottom right of this box when replying. Click "formatting" and a whole new world will open itself up to you.....
Thanks Mark! Was blind but now I see. Of course, you would never believe that!
What would be the point of free will if an action taken by God, whatever action that may be, controlled behavior? Then the will would no longer be free. It's made clear that Jesus was sent to die for sins, not to make them not happen anymore.
Sorry, but you are again confusing 'will' with the "free will" claimed by believers of their gods.
It's all about behavior. Do you not see that? Almost everything in existence has predictable behavior. Matter behaves in predictable ways. Animals behave in predictable ways. One honey badger will behave in much the same way as another, only altering behavior when external stimuli or conditions call for it. We're the one exception to that. We're the one species with such an enhanced sense of self-awareness and the capability to reason that we can assess and alter our behavior. Indigenous humans can do this as well, yet don't behave anything like we do. They manage to live in harmony with nature as well. So what's different?
We transform the natural landscape like no other species. We destroy nature in our efforts to control it rather than being controlled by it. That's the whole point to all of this. Behavior. Everything else in existence conforms to a standard, behaving according to its nature, and the circle of life continues without fail. But we don't fit so nicely into that box. We break the cycle. We harm, destroy habitats, claim ownership of land and property and decide for ourselves we know better how things should be done. And because of that we create enormous amounts of waste, products that don't break down naturally, harm the environment and the atmosphere, etc.
You're mistaken if you think nature and God are somehow separate. They're one and the same. It's all about the will. Are you driven by the same unified will that maintains such harmony in the natural world, or are you driven by an individual will that's much more selfish and self-serving, thus destructive?Yep, we can deliberately alter the behaviors of other things as well. Good point. Willfully, if you will.
Yep. Other willful individuals can impose their will by force, by manipulation, fear, all kinds of things. We're very creative in getting what we want. Just look at how religious institutions have taken a good idea and twisted it around to control the behavior of the masses through fear. Rather than turning inward to find spiritual guidance, religious institutions have placed themselves in a self-imposed role of being an authority on right/wrong, and have used threats of damnation to force conformity and control behavior. Even God, who created all of existence by simply speaking His will and it became, had much more trouble with humans with free will. He gave them commands, they broke them. He provided water from rocks and mana from heaven, they still complained. He even struck down individuals in full site of others. It may work for a while, but before long they were right back to breaking commandments. We create laws and threaten punishment to try to control it. Build armies, missiles, bombs, as deterrents.
I'd say human will has been a pretty major theme throughout human history. At least the past 6000 years or so.If others can impose their will, the we have no free will. We too are just like the Pavlov's dogs!
What others do is their choice. How you respond is yours.
How you respond is not your choice. It depends on your brain structure and your experience. Experience act like the bell in pavlov's experiments.
You said you can predict how animals respond, and that is the reason why they have no free will and since you cannot predict how a human being respond, they have free will.
Now if a rat is put in front of a human being and a dog, how will they respond?So if how you respond is not your choice, then both you and I, responding to each other as we are, is inevitable and unavoidable? Not actually our choice, but rather dependent on brain chemistry and past experience, both of which are beyond our control? Doesn't that mean that we're naturally predisposed to arguing back and forth with no hope for resolution?
It's not just prediction. It's the lack of change. Self-initiated change. Look at the indigenous human cultures for a good example of this. For thousands of years humans all around the world, in North/South America, in Africa south of the Sahara, in Australia, island-bound tribes, they all continued to live the same way with little to no alteration other than those changes prompted by environmental/external change. They continued to live much like humans existed for tens of thousands of years. All the while, in Eurasia, you have the rise and fall of empires like the Sumerians and the Egyptians and the Greeks and the Romans, who all had reigns that spanned many centuries, great advances in craftsmanship and technology, the spread of Christianity and Islam, the mayhem of conquers like Sargon, Alexander the Great, and Genghis Khan. Yet, outside of Eurasia, you'd never know it. Humans elsewhere continued to live in very predictable, unchanging ways. So, what's the difference do you think? What made the chemistry of the brains so different between the two wildly different groups? The same environmental conditions can be found all over, so it wasn't necessarily that.You do know that Eurasia, consisted of about 75% of the modern human population - right? Because you make it sound like some sort of aberration that 75% of humanity changed their behavior. Plus - Central and South America saw similar developments with no input from the Eurasian population (admittedly later). So - lets say 90% of the human population began behaving this way and then absorbed the remaining 10%. Much like we did with Homo neanderthalensis previously when modern humans first began to spread through Eurasia. Not seeing this as a big deal. Are you?
Your comparison to how homo sapiens pushed the Neanderthal into extinction is a good example. And much like that scenario, the homo sapien population started small, grew rapidly, and overran the region. But this was two different species, physically different, with very different capabilities. Considerable differences, mainly in physical brains as well as length of time spent as adolescents/children. Neanderthal 'grew up' much quicker. But there was no physical difference between these two groups of humans. It started in one region and spread out from there. One group clearly dominating the other, yet all within the same species.
As for central and south America, there's evidence to suggest the beginnings of the Aztec, Mayan, and Inca societies may have had 'pre-Columbian' influence ...
" ... another possibility is that these "spots" of patrism were the result of the migrations of the Saharasian peoples into America in the pre-Columbian era. This is the approach which James DeMeo favors. He notes that there were three main patrist areas of the Americas: Caribbean Mesoamerica (that is, where the Aztecs and Maya lived), Peru (where the Incas lived) and also the north-west Pacific )of the north-west coast of Canada, including present-day British Columbia). He speculates that Saharasian peoples may have arrived in the north-west Pacific first - possibly from Japan or China - and migrated southwards, displacing matrist cultures and painting further spots of patrism over the general background of matrism, until they reached middle America and then Peru. Evidence for this includes cultural similiarities between Indians of the Pacific north-west and dynastic Chinese culture (such as artwork, clothing, drums and diet) and linguistic similarities. At the same time, there are cultural and linguistic similarities between the three patrist areas of the Americas, suggesting that the peoples are related.
This theory is controversial, but it has gained some support from the Chinese archaeologist H.M. Xu. In his book 'The Origin of the Olmec Civilization' Xu suggests that, rather than being refugees from a desert area, the Olmecs were migrants from China. The Olmec culture flourished in Mexico from around 1200 to 400 BCE and is usually seen as the "mother culture" of all the middle American civilizations. The Olmecs built the first temples and religious centers in the region, and developed a rudimentary kind of state, in which an elite group ruled over a mass of peasant laborers. Xu argues that the Olmecs sailed to Mexico from China after the fall of the Shang Dynasty in 1122 BCE. He notes that around this time about 250,000 people disappeared, and suggests that at least some of these traveled to America. This explains the presence of what appear to be Chinese symbols in Olmec written records, and strong similarities in art, architecture, religion and astronomical knowledge." Steve Taylor, The FallSorry - I cut out the "opinion" that you wrongly used the word "evidence," for.
But this just demonstrates your complete ignorance of evolutionary theory. One group within a species dominating until the rest are all extinct is the very definition of evolution. You obviously have not studied this theory at all.
Of course, you fall back to the argument that I'm just ignorant. Yes, I get that a change that gives one group an edge over another eventually makes for that group dominating and pushing the other out of existence. That's what's so significant about this. These changes were behavioral. They could have maybe been physical brain structure changes that we're unable to 'see', but the fact is the behavior changed first. Was it the environment that spurred these changes? That's one guess, but the conditions of the environment these changes originated in were by no means unique to that region. There were other regions where human populations were large in number, or where they experienced dramatic climate changes. Yet it's only in this one region that these behavioral changes led to the dawn of modern human civilization.
As for the excluded 'opinion' section, these are the 'opinions' of a Natural Scientist and a Chinese Archaeologist who are out there in the field doing the work, they're not my opinions. I'm not even sure I totally agree with them, but they do refer to the evidence that shows a lot of commonality between characteristics of these ancient American cultures and ancient Chinese culture. It's not totally out of the question, and it would explain a lot. Because to date there's really no other explanation for the Incas, Mayans, and Aztecs.Well - you do seem to be ignorant of evolution. Sorry - that is not meant to be insulting. One group dominating until the others are all extinct is evolution in action. All changes to humans have come about the same way. Behavioral or other wise. Therefore this group of 75% of humans dominating is no different to any other changes to our species. If an adaptation makes for a stronger individual that is more likely to breed - the adaptation spreads to the exclusion of the weaker members of the species. You specifically stated that this was surprising to you:
But there was no physical difference between these two groups of humans. It started in one region and spread out from there. One group clearly dominating the other, yet all within the same species.
This is how evolution works and you seem to think it does not work that way. But - then you agree with me that is how it works after saying it does not. Confused.
Surely a behavioral change that is advantageous such as standing erect, or using tools, or making fire is how we have developed as a species.
Opinion is opinion, not evidence.That comment you referred to was not me being 'surprised'. I understand and agree with you. Changes that give one group advantage over another, behavioral or not, is how one group can overtake the other. See, I think the 'confusion' more stems from your assumptions about what I must be alluding to. I'm just pointing out the facts of the case. These changes that gave this one group of humans advantage over another is behavioral, and is demonstrably regional. I'm stressing the 'when', the 'where', and the 'what'. The what, a change in behavior that distinguishes two very different types of humans both within the same species, the where, Mesopotamia, the when, about 5000 BC, thousands of years after the beginnings of farming and the first large human settlements, and demonstrably originating outside of already established regions. It can be seen in the evidence that this was a significant change that gave these humans a strong advantage over the rest of the world's human population because it's the descendants of these humans that eventually populated the world, and drove out everyone else.
So - you no longer think an Invisible Super Being intervened and mated "natural" humans with another Super Race He created especially for the purpose of making this behavioral change? And wrote it down in a book called "the Bible"?
Or did I assume that? LAWL
The "where" was far further ranging than that. If you stopped lying at me - we could have a proper conversation.
All you have described is evolution in action. Leaving water was a behavioral change. Coming down from the trees, standing upright - all behavioral changes. Some of them - arguably - more important than starting to make "Empires." All of these were "regional."You're not going to hurt him with a pencil are you?
Hey, that's the first time you've demonstrated having a grasp of the concept I'm suggesting. It feels like we're actually making some progress. And I would love to hear the evidence you're referring to that informs you the 'where' was 'far further ranging' than what I'm saying. That's the kind of discussion I've been trying to have all along. We can talk facts, even if we both decipher the facts very differently. If you have facts that conflict with my view, then I'd very much like to know about them.
What I described could be a random evolutionary change that explains the evidence, or it could be what I'm suggesting. These behavioral changes are just the facts of the case. Those who actually lived in that age, or at least the descendants of those who lived in that age who began writing down the stories passed down by their descendants, all claimed immortal beings existed in their ancient past. They believed this to be their actual history. And many of them also spoke of a 'golden age' before humans became possessive and selfish. I know we have always basically assumed that these ancient mythologies were just how these people reconciled what they didn't understand, by making up these elaborate stories. But what if that's not entirely true?
Leaving water was a behavioral change made possible by physical changes that allowed for it. Same goes for coming down from trees and standing upright. The behavioral change I'm referring to happened within the same species with no physical change. At least, no physical change that can be seen. It could have maybe been a physical change in the soft tissue of the brain, but that's kind of hard to confirm. Maybe through DNA research someday.Oh - I get exactly what you are saying. Sadly it is religious nonsense.
You have no facts to back up your religious needs. None. Sorry. We changed behavior - as we have done many times in the past. But this time it was majick? Sorry - not getting it. Show me the evidence instead of repeating your opinion ad infinitum. Fairies, Imps, Goblins, Vampires, Werewolves Sasquatch, The Loch Ness Monster and goodness' knows how many other majikal creatures exist in our myths. They come from "imagination."
Eurasia is a pretty big "region."
In any case - I have presented many facts that conflict with your view. Your answer was that your "faith" is unshakeable and no evidence will change your mind. So - why keep asking for them?
I have also suggested several books that might help you gain a better understanding of evolution. To no avail it appears.
Perhaps one physical event that could have caused this change was - population pressure. It is not necessary to control and dominate those around you until a certain population density.The facts I have to back up what I'm saying are the same facts as yours. The reason you're unable to make the connection has more to do with your assumption that anything having to do with God must be 'majikal'. You're separating science/nature from God as if they're two different things, when in actuality they are fundamentally inter-related.
That's why you can't grasp the concept of how my faith in God could be unchanged by a deeper understanding of science. It's all in how you're looking at it. You're getting in your own way, then projecting onto me road blocks of 'confusion' that are of your own making. In actuality, the 'facts' that you say you've presented that you say conflict with my view, have been inaccurate. The few specifics you've included to convey your grasp of what the 'facts' are have only illuminated that your version of the 'facts' conflict with the actual facts. Like your comment regarding that the 'where' of human behavioral changes were 'further ranging' than what I'm saying. Or, in this latest reply, your comments about how 'population pressure' could have caused these behavioral changes. Again, this simply illustrates a lack of factual knowledge on your part.
You've suggested a book to me, which I have begun reading. Why don't you do the same and read what I'm suggesting. Here's some excerpts from that book, The Fall, by Steve Taylor....
http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Insanity … eve+taylor
"If this was the case - and most scholars agree that it was - then we would expect the transition to agriculture to be accompanied by a great deal of conflict as the groups competed over dwindling resources. But as we've seen, there is almost no evidence of warfare in these areas until the fifth millennium BCE, more than 3000 years after the advent of agriculture."
"Data collected by the anthropologists Carol and Melvin Ember establishes that "chronic, ordinary resource shortage is not a significant predicator of war". Or, in the words of R. Brian Ferguson, "the data just does not support a direct association of increasing [population] density and increasing war."
It's available as an e-book on Amazon if you have that option available to you. And it's not a 'christian' book, so you don't have to worry about that. In fact, you might find it interesting as the author makes some interesting ties to these behavioral changes and how the psychological impact of these changes could result in the formation of religions like Christianity and Islam. Though I don't agree with everything he says, the stuff he discusses in detail about these behavioral changes, where they happened, how we know 'where', and the psychological implications of this change, will give you a much better sense of the actual facts of the case.Aww - you never said anything about a deeper understanding of science not affecting your belief in majick. You said no facts could change your mind.
Honestly - I have read one of his other books and seen his attacks on science. Not really interested in his opinions. You seem to have repeated them ad infinitum in any case.
Really I would appreciate it if you stopped being so condescending towards me. Of course I am separating science/nature - i.e. reality, from god. By your own admission - god is outside of reality and undetectable by science. Surely I must separate them? God does not exist in any case.
Your facts are not the same as mine - you claim extra facts from a majick book that you rewrote.You think I'm condescending? Wow. Pot, have you met my friend Kettle?
Well, that just about does it for me. I have tried in every way I know how to have a civil discussion with you, but that is clearly not what you're wanting, so I'm not going to waste anymore time with you. You have a very obvious gap in your grasp of the facts. Your inability to see that, combined with your tendency to then project that 'ignorance' onto others based on your own personal hang-ups about their beliefs, simply means you're setting yourself up to stay that way. After all, there's nowhere to go if every flaw you see is in others and not in yourself. If you can't see your own flaws then there's nothing to fix.Right - all down to me. I don't understand, I won't listen to "reason," and I reject your "evidence." Worst of all - I keep separating god and reality. Never going to get it all the time I keep doing that am I?
Seriously - do some research into evolutionary theory. There is no room for a developmental destination and no evidence of interference by an entity that exists outside of reality. Sorry dude.
Headly, how do you account for the Mayan?
Wikipedia,
"The Maya is a Mesoamerican civilization, noted for the only known fully developed written language of the pre-Columbian Americas, as well as for its art, architecture, and mathematical and astronomical systems. Initially established during the Pre-Classic period (c. 2000 BC to AD 250), according to the Mesoamerican chronology, many Maya cities reached their highest state of development during the Classic period (c. AD 250 to 900), and continued throughout the Post-Classic period until the arrival of the Spanish."This is, admittedly, a weak spot in my theory. But there is a possible explanation. I'm not 100% sold on it, but it's definitely worth noting. I quoted the reference I'm talking about in my response to Mark just above your comment.
Wikipedia,
"As a cultural area, Mesoamerica is defined by a mosaic of cultural traits developed and shared by its indigenous cultures. Beginning as early as 7000 BC the domestication of maize, beans, squash and chili, as well as the turkey and dog, caused a transition from paleo-Indian hunter-gatherer tribal grouping to the organization of sedentary agricultural villages."
Sorry for the cutting and pasting, but we are talking about 9000 years ago right. As you may know the west coast of the America's is vastly different then the east coast. It's possible that the tribes of the east coast were preoccupied with survival.
What about the The Pueblo people? "Their traditional economy is based on agriculture and trade. When first encountered by the Spanish in the 16th century, they were living in villages that the Spanish called pueblos, meaning "towns"."Agricultural practices and the formation of towns are not the indicators we're looking for, though. Because they also existed for thousands of years in Mesopotamia and Europe without the behavioral changes that eventually gave one group a 'leg up' over the other and led to worldwide domination. Roughly 95% of the current world's population descends from the people of those first 'Patrist' civilizations that sprang up around the Mediterranean Sea. And the most significant 'change' that came immediately before the beginnings of the eventual global domination of these people, the difference that made these people most unique compared to all other humans, were differences in behavior. Agricultural practices, and human settlements or towns, existed all over for thousands of years, yet the behaviors of these humans in relation to each other didn't change all that much.
In the biblical context, Genesis describes God 'showing' humans how to use seed-bearing plants before Adam's creation, so it too marks a distinction between the advent of agriculture and the behavioral changes introduced with Adam. It's not the settlements. It's the human inequality, the class diversification, the male dominated cultures, that we're looking for. The Incas, Mayans, and Aztecs fit this bill, and are also unique compared to other ancient American cultures who also farmed.Tell me Headly is it your contention that it was God's intention to foster a patriarchal world? Because it seems to me to be a step backwards. Or do you think it was man intention to foster male dominated societies? I think what you're saying is that god guided the Jewish in this manner, but I don't see it that way. I see the Israelites genesis as propaganda to justify the inequalities that they themselves were promoting,
Neither. It's simply a result of a sharpened sense of self, or ego. Just as war/violence, class stratification, and materialism are results of a sharpened sense of self. It's a separation between the individual and the community, between the mind and the body, and between the individual and nature. It's what differentiates us from indigenous humans. This can be seen through comparing indigenous cultures to our own. They have a very different attitude towards the natural world, toward their own bodies and bodily desires, and towards female reproduction and bodily functions.
The emergence of a sharpened sense of ego would be different between men and women. It would be more prevalent in men because women's maternal instincts wouldn't allow the same degree of separation because of the need to maintain their ability to empathize with their children, and their stronger biological ties with the cycles of their bodies with nature. And this in itself would encourage a separation between men and women. This can be seen in the commonalities between all Patriarchal societies and their attitudes towards things like sex and menstruation.
There are very real psychological ties between a sharpened sense of ego and patriarchy that closely correlate to what's described in the Adam and Eve story. The sharpened sense of ego is best conveyed in Adam/Eve all of the sudden realizing they were naked when they had been all along. And in what's described as the result of their actions by God, you can see the correlation with what can actually be seen in human behavioral changes. Adam and Eve choosing of their own volition to behave contrary to God's will would be like matter choosing to behave contrary to gravity. There would be very real repercussions of that.I don't think you answered my question. So, I'll try to reword it. The middle east is still a male dominated area. Is it your contention that this is Gods will as the God of the OT made it apparent how he wanted men and women to behave? If it's not your contention then what is the point? Seems like God gave all these rules to only his favourites and that the OT was only written for the Jews to the Jews to give them a sense of entitlement to land and to appease their atrocities. Why do Christians bother with the OT? Do you think it is God's intention to give entitlement to Jewish men or do you think the OT was written to do the same?
I did answer your question. The disconnect here seems to have more to do with how you're looking at it. It can be difficult, but I'll do my best to explain. You're looking at it more in the way it's always been taught/explained. That God 'cursed' Adam and Eve. Or that this was all God's 'intention'. Like in the way it's often said about how God created beings capable of sin, so God therefore created sin. Or that God, being able to 'see' the future should have known that Adam/Eve would disobey. This mindset only really gets in the way.
Whether or not there's any literal truth to the Genesis story, we can see in the real world and in human history that humans transitioned into Patriarchy very recently. So, in just looking at human development, and understanding that humans evolved from the same origin as all animal life, there has to be a point somewhere along the way that humans became less 'animal' and more 'human'. So, how do you go about locating that transition? By looking at behavior.
This is what I've been trying to point out. You've got the animal kingdom and their instinctual behavior, then you have indigenous humans, then you have us. So, what are the differences? Once you nail down what the differences are then you can begin to locate the emergence of these differences, and actually see how and when they took shape. That's what happened in this region and time frame, and the evidence for this is in those behavioral changes.
Psychologically, there is a correlation between these behavioral changes and an enhanced sense of self. It all ties together. Philosophers and scholars have discussed this for ages. This isn't new. What is new is the level of detail in the archaeological record that allows us now to pinpoint with a much higher degree of accuracy exactly when and how this happened. We can see what groups it started in, where, and how it spread.
Everything you refer to in the OT as far as God's 'favoritism' towards the Jewish people or His very detailed demands of them must be understood in this context. This heightened sense of ego transformed the landscape, and that's an important factor to understand. Now, rather than all living things, including humanity, having a much deeper connection to each other and to nature, you have more and more humans with a much sharper sense of individuality. Their actions and behaviors are much more geared towards the self. Just like in how the OT describes it, this was a very violent age. When the landscape was still very much open, long before the establishment of civilizations that imposed laws on the land to maintain order. You and I can hardly imagine what the world must have been like then.
If you truly understand the landscape of this age in human history, and understand that this is the context that the OT is set in, especially early on like what's described in those first few books, then you'll understand that I did answer your question.Perhaps I'm having trouble understanding your position. I'm not any longer at all looking at the OT as I was taught. I was always taught to see myself as one of the Jews. You need to do this to get wrapped up in the story. I can know look at it from an outsiders point of view and in doing so see that the OT was written only for Jews by the Jews.
I disagree with your contention that having a (heightened) ego defines us as being more human. Are the people of the middle east more human the North American's because they keep their women veiled or completely covered? I've know a few egotistical (narcissistic) people and I find them perhaps less human. The question I keep asking you is what do YOU think your God's intention was in giving and starting male Jews on their early path of entitlement?The issue is that you're not looking at these ancient documents objectively. I know reading that sentence probably made you laugh, but that's really how I look at it. Not to say I don't then draw my own conclusions from it, but before drawing any sort of conclusions I first made sure I understood to the best of my ability what I'm really looking at. I looked at the bible through studying the anatomy of the bible, in the same way scholars look at it, to understand what it is I'm reading.
The issue with either view you specified, whether it be reading it as if you were one of the Jewish people, or if you look at it as propaganda written by the Jewish people, in either case it distorts everything else from that point on. Specifically speaking about those first books of the OT, who wrote them is unknown. Was it one author, two, many, unknown. Was the original author/s Jewish, unknown. How old they are is unknown. So anything as far as the author's intent or motivation can't be known for certain. All you can really do is break it down into the pieces that were redacted together as best as possible to understand it's make-up, and to get to know the history of the region in as much detail as possible to give these writings context. And you can pinpoint a rough time line historically by certain specific things it states. Like its claim that the city of Uruk was built by Nimrod not long after the flood. Well, we have found Uruk and know when it was built. So I use that, and a few other key things, to pinpoint an approximate timeline.
Your objection about a heightened sense of self as being more 'human' really just depends on your definition of 'human'. I don't mean to give a sense that this is good or bad, more just presenting the 'facts' of the case. I don't mean to sound like I'm saying this is in any way better. Behaviorally speaking, a heightened sense of ego/self is way worse. Just as I've said about indigenous cultures, they're much less selfish, and much less violent, and materialistic, and willful than we are. They live and let live. They don't force their ways onto others. That's all us.
Everything you're referring to as far as being more 'human', like the much stronger patriarchal behaviors of the middle east as compared to north America, that's all behaviors born of a will that is not 'of God'. That comes from our will. I understand that when you're taught that God is all-knowing, perfect, all of that, it's natural to read the bible as exactly what He intended. But that's not entirely accurate. In the context of the story His 'intention' where Adam and Eve were concerned was to live eternally with access to the tree of life. It was their decision that changed things. Everything from that point on was God operating within the bounds of free will existing. That's the whole reason for the flood, for the dispersion at Babel, for the Exodus, the commandments, Jesus, salvation, judgement, forgiveness, all of that. If there were no free will, if they had not chosen willfully a choice different than God's will, then none of that would be necessary.I'm not looking at it objectively as you are? I can see it objectively because I don't have God wrapped up in it while you do. I'm not sure why you think the fact that we don't know who wrote parts makes those parts more valid?
I don't believe you are correct in that God is seen as observer in the OT. He sets up A and E to fail. Why show them the tree? Put a child in a room and tell them not to play with the toy in the middle. He directs his chosen people and punishes the unchosen without giving them warning. He's giving plenty rules to Jews and even tells them to cast out the people with leprosy. He shows no compassion for these people at all. This makes perfect sense if it's propaganda and you want to be guilt free.
You seem to read it and understand it but not have an opinion as to wether it's morally sound. Did God want Jewish men to be narcissistic or did Jewish men want to eat their cake and have it too?
I think you need to read it as I've done, well I'm not done yet as I got bored with the later parts of the OT. I've tried to read it as you described, but when it's read a propaganda it all makes perfect sense.
It's interesting to me that the Jews don't think Jesus was Elijah as the prophecy foretold. The king of the Jews?I'm not saying that not knowing who wrote what makes it any more or less valid. For the sake of objectivity, all I did is researched what all is known about the source material, and approached it without any per-conceived ideas or traditional interpretations.
I don't think you're getting the full weight of what it means for other wills besides God's to exist. Assuming the Garden of Eden story is literal, He set it up much like you would a scientific experiment. One forbidden tree and just one rule to not break. But I don't see this as God setting them up to fail. I see this as a scenario that illustrates what's different about these beings. The whole first chapter basically describes that anything and everything, animate or inanimate, behaved exactly as God intended. Then it tells the story of a being God created that could behave otherwise. To illustrate, here's a tree, here's a command from the creator that says don't eat it, and they ate it. This being is different.
When God first created Adam, notice the very first thing it says He did was He brought the animals to Adam 'to see what he would call them'. Even this, in the context of the story, illustrates a unique capability in Adam. The ability to 'create' a name. Adam was able to create something, not 'of God', that didn't exist before. So, at that point, existence consisted of everything God created, and names/titles for the animals that were not 'of God'. This would be the equivalent of your body existing all the way up to this point just as it is, using your same DNA sequence, then introducing a cell into your body with a second DNA sequence that then begins to produce cells based on its own DNA rather than yours. As those cells continue to replicate using this new 'foreign' DNA sequence, you can only imagine where it would go from there.
And you're still looking at the events of Genesis, God's actions, as 'punishment'. Remember, He didn't give anyone outside of the Israelites commandments, not that it says anyway. So how is He going to punish someone when they don't know there were rules to break? Again, from the moment Adam behaved outside of God's will, everything changed. Every action from that point on was to realize what was made necessary by Adam's choice... Jesus. Sodom and Gomorrah were towns in the same region as Abraham, the line Jesus was to come from. The one God promised Abraham. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were a threat to Abraham's line. The same goes for all of those laws. It was to realize a specific outcome in a landscape that included numerous individual wills that threatened that, from outside and from within.
You can't see it objectively because you are invested in the idea that God exists and this story is real. Your preconceived idea is your belief in God and your need to justify his to your ego. You have to see that, you can't claim to be objective if you have an agenda.
This again fits perfectly with my theory that the Jews wanted to look like gods or they wanted their people to think they are better than others. Plus there is nothing different about people or animals taking what they now they shouldn't have. My dog once reached up and stole a P&J sandwich off the table when we stepped out of the room. When I came back it it was clear he knew he did wrong and he knew he would be in trouble but did it anyway. Nothing new here.
More propaganda. Look how special we are.
I don't know, drowning everyone and everything because he didn't like what was going on. Destroying two cities and it's people, but saving the three pathetic ones. Being told that God has given you entitlement because of a blood line is nothing more than propaganda.
Inevitable and unavoidable is not certainly what I meant. We meeting in the hubpages were just chance. Nobody predetermined that we should meet here. But my comment was determined by my "emotions" which are a product of my brain structure and experience conditioning. Arguing back and forth? What we can be sure is that even if either of us win the argument, we are not going to change our opinions. We stop when we do not agree with the other, that is when it becomes emotionally unpleasant.
If we can accept that neither of us are 'geniuses' who discovered something that changed the face of the earth, we are just ordinary people, who do just like others. But we do have our differences. Some people are born with a better/different brain capacity that they are called geniuses. And if they are at the right time, they do something which is later imitated by other people as society progresses. But there is a catch too, suppose somebody invented computer 1000 years before, what good it would do? So we had to first invent agriculture. So the number of geniuses are small and their discoveries getting adapted by even less people will account for the fact that all nations didn't get equal progress. Eurasia could communicate and exchange ideas and hence explain the similar advances. But imagine Alexander the great was born now, could he conquer the whole world then?
Actually all animals are unpredictable. Humans are probably the most predictable largely because of our intellect. Many people are afraid of dogs because of how unpredictable their behaviour is. I noticed my middle kid was beginning to show a fear of dogs and I also noticed he was a control freak. So I brought home a puppy and he was at first afraid of it but he slowly came around. He just didn't like how unpredictable animals were. Human behaviour is very predictable 99% of the time. Two people pass each other on the street and node a hello. Two dogs pass each other and you never know what will happen.
I think you know what I mean. Dogs, like all other animals, are driven by certain base instincts. We can train to alter behavior, but their instinctual behavior is going to be fairly predictable. They're going to react to their environment in whatever way is needed to ensure survival. We don't always know the determining factors, like how long it's been since they've eaten, what kind of environment they've been in, so these things may not be so easily predictable on a case by case basis, but overall you know what to expect from a dog. Humans don't behave that way. Sure, we have these instincts as well, but we also exhibit willful behavior that's often counter-intuitive to survival.
Just on a side note, I'm often impressed with your parenting skills from what little I've gotten from various discussions. You seem to be a very thoughtful, observant, and considerate father, and I admire that.Thanks Headly, I do my best. My father in-law once said to me "RAD, I have respect for you as a father, you're good at that, but as a man I have no respect for you at all". Can't please everyone all the time.
---------
I don't believe we are any different than any other animal, besides of course intelligence. A hamster will try to escape even though the food and water is in the cage. Had a hamster that was an escape artist. He'd hide in the basement for day without food or water until we'd trap him with a bucket, a ramp and some food. You'd think he'd stay with the food and water, but he wouldn't. Humans have been given a set of emotions through evolution that is very similar the chimps. We are very predictable and love to follow the same rituals day after day.Wow, well, while I'm no expert on the matter, I'd say being a good father requires first being a good man. But you're right, you can't please everyone. I just have to say it does my heart good to know fathers like you exist out there raising the kids who will be running things when we're old and unable to do all we used to. You're making an investment in all of our futures. So, whether or not your father-in-law appreciates, for what it's worth, just know that I do.
Just out of curiosity, are hamsters just as prone to trying to escape if there's a second hamster in the cage with them? After all, mammals are by nature generally social creatures.Thanks again for the kind words. When and if you have kids you'll do just fine as well.
Good question, I know you can't put two hamsters together or they will kill each other, but my experience with dwarf hamsters is they they always try to escape.Thank you, I appreciate that. The thought of having kids both fascinates me to no end and utterly terrifies me all at once. But, alas, it doesn't look like it's in the cards for me.
Along the same lines of what we were talking about before, what do you see as the difference between indigenous humans and those of 'civilized' societies? They have the same physical brains and presumably the same capability intelligence wise, yet are decidedly different in behavior. Do you think knowledge is the only difference? And if so, why did they not pursue knowledge in the same way?
To maybe give you a better sense of what I'm getting at.... In reading about various indigenous cultures all around the world there seems to be a common thread, a fundamental difference between us and them in that they're not nearly as discontent as we are. For instance, this....
"The author Edward T. Hall recalls how, when he worked on Indian reservations in the 1930's, the Indians seemed to possess an amazing quality of patience. In contrast to the Europeans, who fidgeted impatiently and become irritable, the Indians he saw waiting at trading posts and hospitals never showed any sign of irritation whatsoever, even if they had to wait for hours. As he writes:
An Indian might come into the agency in the morning and still be sitting patiently outside the superintendent's office in the afternoon. Nothing in his bearing or demeanor would change in the intervening hours... We whites squirmed, got up, sat down, went outside and looked toward the fields where our friends were working, yawned and stretched our legs... The Indians simply sat there, occasionally passing a word to one another."
That's just one of many examples of these kinds of observations. Eye witness accounts over the past few centuries from the writers who used to live with indigenous cultures all around the world, studying and writing about them. Though there are obviously differences between various indigenous groups, the things that seem to be the same across the board are the general ideas that there's a spiritual side of existence that permeates all things, that the world is alive basically, and they all seem to share this same overall contentment and peace of mind that we simply do not know.
There's clearly a distinct difference in behavior between indigenous cultures and those from 'civilized' societies. What is the difference in your mind? Learned/accumulated knowledge? Because, to me, your observations regarding there being no differences between humans and animals other than intelligence applies all the way up to indigenous cultures, but I don't see it past that. Or even the idea of determinism I can see as applying in much the same way. But where we're different in our tendency towards violence, in our prizing of possessions and valuables, in the way we claim ownership of land, in how we're predominantly male-dominated societies with obvious class stratification, these things are virtual non-existent amongst tribal/indigenous cultures. What are your thoughts on this?Headly, don't sell yourself short. The fact that your grandfather is still alive (if I'm not mistaken) means your still young or your grandfather is really old and you just hit the genetic jackpot. I guess your comment could also mean your gay, which would be irrelevant to me of course. In any case a friend of mine just had twins about 3 years ago at 45 years old. Anything is possible.
______
The rest of what you asked and said is very deep and I'll have to sleep on it, but as I've said before culture plays a big role as to who we are and what we ask for in life.No genetic jackpot, I'm a mortal 37 year old. I'm not one to throw around the word 'never', and won't do so in regards to having children someday, but my wife and I are not able to have children, and we're okay with that. We may adopt someday. You 'never' know. Oops, I just said it.
Yet, not a thing you said would suggest gods in the least, it's just so much word salad.
How so? If the natural world is God's creation, because He willed it to be, then it abides by His will. His one, constant, never changing, will. And that will maintains balance and harmony in the natural world. It's self-reliant. Self-sufficient. We're the one exception to that rule. Hence, free will. We're capable of reasoning our own decisions and actions, to assess ourselves, and in this day and age even assess our entire history, and decide for ourselves, as one collective communicating organism, how to move forward. To take the wheel so to speak that we didn't consciously, knowingly, steer to get us here in the first place.
"In general, "Will" does not refer to one particular or most preferred desire but rather to the general capacity to have such desires and act decisively based on them, according to whatever criteria the willing agent applies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_%28philosophy%29
Animals have desires. And they act on them. And they do so in predictable ways. Individually, they may not be predictable in each moment, but overall their behavioral patterns remain unchanged, unless caused by environmental changes. Humans are the one species who causes its own environmental changes. Our desires go beyond the base needs of survival. We don't conform to nature anymore than we have to, and we're constantly coming up with new ways to not have to. We study it, gain an understanding of it, then try to control it, so that we're not controlled by it. We evolved past migrating at the whim of the environment to survive by learning how to create an environment to grow food. And we've completely transformed the landscape of the planet, and have even reached beyond the planet, since.
You can't see desires, but you can see behavior. Everything in existence behaves in predictable ways. Except us. It's all about behavior. Our behavior is part of this existence and therefore has an impact on it. Nothing else in existence has an individual will of its own to alter behavior beyond programmed instinct. No other creature/thing in existence behaves according to its own personal, individual desires like we do. And the resulting behaviors of our species make us stick out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of it. We're like a cancer, behaving contrary to the established norm of a properly functioning body, which we've proven can be harmful to the rest of the system. And that's with a limited lifespan. Imagine what kind of damage we could do if we each lived any longer than we do.
If you were God, would you really grant every single human who has ever lived an eternal life in your house considering how we've behaved? We're destructive. Would you not want them to first acknowledge your authority in your house? Would you not set that as a standard before granting them access?
As for your proclamation that 'not a thing (I) said would suggest gods in the least', I have to ask, what would? What idea of God do you have set in your mind, exactly, that you use as a barometer to decide whether or not something 'suggest gods' or not? You must have some sort of standard you compare against. What's the deciding factor? What do you expect to see that would tell you for certain there is in fact a God that you're not seeing? We've confirmed all the animals weren't physically molded by large hands, or that the grand canyon wasn't sculpted using a gigantic chisel. So is this what convinces you there is no God? What would evidence of God look like? Have you ever really thought about it? In your hypothetical 'God exists' scenario, how do you determine where God ends and everything else begins?
Yes, now we are back to the human sacrifice. All humanities sins are forgiving because God tortured himself. Yes, it's making perfect sense now, well I was told it made sense when I was a kid. From my perspective now it makes no sense at all. Please don't try to explain it to me, it just makes it worse.
Why Satan is not enough as a scapegoat?
And sleeping for a day and half is death?
Sorry, but they are Christians, and only a very tiny minority call themselves atheists or non-affiliates. Yes, they can all be Christians. Many Christians that do crimes don't get caught.
Diane -
If you responded to my answer to you, I missed it. Sorry.Hmmm! Jmc, I don't remember. There is so much stuff here. Can you refresh my memory? Thanks!
Diane –
In your last post to me you stated:
No everyone should not be raping. I had a boss who felt he was a good man. He was generous. However, he chased every woman at work. I heard rumors but was really surprised when I actually heard accounts from someone who was going with him. He played favorites based on looks which impacted salaries. This has nothing to do with murder but it is immoral. He believed that God exists but doesn't care what we do.
My point was that all atheists do not hold the same beliefs. Correct me if I am wrong - The only belief for certain is the disbelief in God. Is there a moral code for stealing? I don't mean robbing a bank but not reporting income on taxes or puffing deductions. Not all atheist believe the same thing. Not al Christians believe the same thing; however, because the Bible is the guiding document, there is dialog about what is right and wrong.
If there is a document that states atheist moral beliefs, I'd like to see it and will gladly admit that I am wrong.
My Response:
Atheists only have one thing in common. They have a lack of a belief in a god. From there, however, atheists are as different from each other than christians are. Everyone has their own opinion. A large majority of atheists are also secular humanists - and the secular humanist position is that everyone should do what they can to benefit others because it's the right thing to do...not because an old book tells them that they should. MOrally speaking, they tend to believe that their actions should cause as little harm as possible.
Morality is not a concept that originated with the bible. Ancient civilizations that predate the authorship of the bible shared a lot of the same laws and concepts as the 10 commandments - and they were around for a few thousand years before hand. If anything, god is a plagiarist.
Which of the 613 commandments do you still follow, Diane. If the bible is the good book, you adhere to everything god commands, right? God doesn't change, so his laws should be eternal, just like he is.
I guess the bottom line is that atheists don't need a 6000 year old book to tell them what's right and wrong - especially when that book commands you not to murder and then turns around and orders the genocide of a whole slew of people to take away their home.
Society dictates morality, and morality is not absolute. It is not always wrong to lie, for example. Morality is determined by the least amount of harm and the greatest amount of good, and societies world wide have managed to figure out their own laws (many of which are identical to other countries) and codes for living without the bible's help.So solly! I didn't see this but I will start repeating myself at some point.
1. 613 commandments
That is why Jesus came to pay the price for our sins. I don't know if there are more or less than 613 commandments and don't care. We are under the age of grace and that is the basis of salvation. Many people will say that they are Christians but don't know what it means.
Ephesians 2:8-9 - It is by grace, through faith, that ye are saved. Not by the works of your hands least any man should boast.
2. Morality - I'm sure you know some straight up twisted people. If not ... I do. How do you know they are twisted ... that moral compass. However, not everyone has the same set of values.
3. "as long as you don't hurt anyone" - more than likely you DO hurt someone even if it is just you yourself. Ex. - sex leading to venereal disease.
4. So being an atheist is not what makes you do good things for people but being secular humanist. You do belong to a "group!" I've heard of them but haven't really studied it much.
5. I'm touched that you wanted my input even though you don't agree. Thanx!So solly! I didn't see this but I will start repeating myself at some point.
1. 613 commandments
That is why Jesus came to pay the price for our sins. I don't know if there are more or less than 613 commandments and don't care. We are under the age of grace and that is the basis of salvation. Many people will say that they are Christians but don't know what it means.
Ephesians 2:8-9 - It is by grace, through faith, that ye are saved. Not by the works of your hands least any man should boast.
2. Morality - I'm sure you know some straight up twisted people. If not ... I do. How do you know they are twisted ... that moral compass. However, not everyone has the same set of values.
3. "as long as you don't hurt anyone" - more than likely you DO hurt someone even if it is just you yourself. Ex. - sex leading to venereal disease.
4. So being an atheist is not what makes you do good things for people but being secular humanist. You do belong to a "group!" I've heard of them but haven't really studied it much.
5. I'm touched that you wanted my input even though you don't agree. Thanx!1) I get that christians claim that jesus came to earth and made a new covenant - but jesus himself said that he did not come to abolish the law, and that not one single stroke of the law would be abolished before all things were fulfilled. Additionally, god repeatedly claims that he is unchanging and remains constant. Therefore, if god commanded something in the Old Testament, it's safe to assume that the same still stands today.
There's a problem with the concept of grace through faith. The New Testament contradicts itself. It says, like you pointed out, that it is through grace that you have been saved through faith - not by works. But it also says
"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (Mt 7:21)
Mt 25:31-44-- At the Last Judgement, the Lord judges the sheep and the goats based on what they have done.
The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. (Lk 6:45)
Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (Jn 14:23)
``For he will render to every man according to his works'' (Rm 2:6)
2) The "moral compass" that you refer to is NOT a biblical construct. As soon as mankind developed into societies where they had to rely on each other, certain understandings were developed on how people should treat each other. As I pointed out before, parts of the 10 commandments existed long before the bible did. There are a lot of secular countries - and it may be surprising, but they have much lower crime rates than the supposed "religious" countries do. They have lower abortion rates, lower teen-pregnancy rates, lower murder and rape rates and more. Their laws govern their actions, and those laws are not based on biblical principles.
3) How many people are hurt by a personal religious belief in someone else? Lots. People do not live in a vacuum. I have a perfect example. Most christians (but not all) think that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, they elect representatives that want to protect the "sanctity of marriage" and vote to restrict or remove the rights of others based on their religious beliefs. Therefore, their personal belief is causing harm to thousands of other people who are not treated equally simply because of who they're naturally attracted to.
4) Being an atheist doesn't have anything to do with being a good person. The label "atheist" only refers to a lack of a belief in a god. What makes people good is not what they believe or disbelieve - it's how they treat others, and what they believe to be beneficial to society. Secular humanists are great people - and they don't do good things because they're hoping for a reward in heaven - or an eternal punishment in hell.
5) I enjoy talking to people, regardless of what they believe. That's the only way we can come to an understanding of each other - and that's the only way we can grow to appreciate and accept our differences and move forward positively in the world that we both share.You brought up some good points.
taking notes.
Atheists only have one thing in common. They have a lack of a belief in a god. From there, however, atheists are as different from each other than christians are. Everyone has their own opinion. A large majority of atheists are also secular humanists - and the secular humanist position is that everyone should do what they can to benefit others because it's the right thing to do...not because an old book tells them that they should. MOrally speaking, they tend to believe that their actions should cause as little harm as possible.
Morality is not a concept that originated with the bible. Ancient civilizations that predate the authorship of the bible shared a lot of the same laws and concepts as the 10 commandments - and they were around for a few thousand years before hand. If anything, god is a plagiarist.
Which of the 613 commandments do you still follow, Diane. If the bible is the good book, you adhere to everything god commands, right? God doesn't change, so his laws should be eternal, just like he is.
I guess the bottom line is that atheists don't need a 6000 year old book to tell them what's right and wrong - especially when that book commands you not to murder and then turns around and orders the genocide of a whole slew of people to take away their home.
Society dictates morality, and morality is not absolute. It is not always wrong to lie, for example. Morality is determined by the least amount of harm and the greatest amount of good, and societies world wide have managed to figure out their own laws (many of which are identical to other countries) and codes for living without the bible's help.I think JMcFarland's response summed it up pretty well, but I'm going to repost my response to A Trouble Man and add and change some stuff.
People are able to create and adhere to a set of rules apart from any deity or religion, and so there I must say you are mistaken, Diane. But, at the end of the day, if there is nothing that creates some concrete idea as to what is right or wrong, and if there is no good or bad afterlife, then ultimately you can live however you choose. There is nothing concrete to say you can or can't do this or that. Something can be considered to be completely vile to society, but if you realize that most of what society adheres to are social conventions/norms, things of no concrete nature, and you also know that when you die, none of it will matter, you have absolute freedom. The thing is, most people don't live that way. Most people gladly adhere to the rules that society has set up (unless they are discriminatory, eventually there will be rebellion/outrage, etc). But it is human nature, and not just human nature. Animals have their own systems of operations, little societies if you will, that help them to be organized and survive.
Now, the thing Diane is that this EXACT same negative and absolute freedom scenario is possible and actually happens more often (from what I've observed) in people who DO believe in a God and believe that he is with them in every move they make, no matter what it is. So, while you are right to a certain extent, the same can be said about those who do believe in a god. Even people believed to be led by the Christian God (and people stated as being led by him in the holy book) have done some awful, awful things.Thousand, I have never stated that Christians are perfect. Without some laws/guidelines, people do many depraved things. It does NOT have to be murder. What about fathers who have children with their daughters. What about teachers who carry on relationships with their students? What about mothers who prostitute their daughters? What about gang members that stalk little kids, selling them drugs, forcing them to be in gangs, and then commit crimes.
Wrong is not neatly packaged in two or three terrible things. If everyone agrees on what is morale, why are these things happening?Considering prisons are full of Christians, your so-called guidelines don't seem to be working to well.
If all of those folks were Christians, how do you explain that?The thing is Diane, that as much you might want there to be, there is no across the board morality, secular or theistic. No one's only talking about murder. Even within Christendom, there are many things people agree and disagree about when it comes to what's "right" and what's "wrong." You have what I believe are called the 3 pillar of Christianity, a fairly new concept in the scheme of things comparatively speaking, where as long as a denomination teaches a doctrine including the mainstream view of the "miracles of the Incarnation, the Resurrection and Pentecost," they are "true believers." I think some others may be that you have to believe Jesus was fully man and God, and that He's coming back one day. Other than that, you can have variations. For instance, some churches, especially but not only the Roman Catholic church, keep that women are not allowed to be in positions of "power" (preachers/priests/pastors, etc. based on Paul's teaching about women being quiet in the church). Some churches forbid women from wearing pants (based on the OT law against "crossdressing." Some denominations are much stricter on divorce. Some do not preach against homosexuality (because most non-biased biblical scholars know there's nothing actually in the bible condemning it and people are holding onto old, mal-interpreted translations). Some churches believe people who worship on Sundays will go to hell (extremist Seventh Day Adventists). Some churches believe that if you do not speak in tongues, you are not truly saved. I think you get the idea.
Now, Atheism cannot be seen as one entity. That's where many Christians err, in the attempt to categorize everything into a black/white world. All atheists have in common is a lack of a belief in God(s). That's it. A default position if you will. After that, one's morality is shaped by your parents, according to your society or your own life journey. That's it.
People deviate from moral standards regardless of their belief or lack there of. But just because they lack belief, doesn't mean they lack moral standards. It simply means that their standards aren't grandiose in nature.
P.S. Even most animals know not to commit incest because of the disadvantages it will give to their offspring. The majority of humans that partake in it are elitists who want to keep the bloodline pure. Though, just a 100 years ago it wasn't uncommon to marry your 2nd or 3rd cousin. Was it wrong when society didn't frown upon it? Many of your examples are not common, btw. Also, they are not all necessarily frowned upon from a religious stand point. For instance, as far as teachers and students getting together, hate to say it, but the only rule against this is a secular one. It was only recently that age limits were put on when someone could be with someone else. It's even common belief that Jesus' mother was only 16 and already betrothed. It's still not uncommon in some countries for 14, 15 year old girls to be wed. It was only until maybe 100 years ago or less that it became frowned upon for adults to marry teens inthe Western world. "Teenager" is even a newish term. So, what's the basis for being right or wrong? Morality has shades of grey, but those in powerful positions in society make it so that the majority of people will think they're black and white, and so adhere to them without question. And the majority do. Being religious or non-religious doesn't much change that. There will always be people who go against the norm in helpful and also destructive ways.
In 'secular' societies, like you the one you live in, they don't use the bible as a guideline, they write laws and represent them within a judicial system.
That simply isn't true. We are compassionate and altruist beings with a well evolved brain able to reason and rationalize, hence quite able to create any necessary rules.
I agree and I disagree. We are able to create and adhere to a set of rules apart from any deity or religion, and so there I totally agree. I disagree only to a degree. Because, at the end of the day, if there is nothing that creates some concrete idea as to what is right or wrong (God or society held in the "god position"), and if there is no after-life, good or bad, then ultimately you can live however you choose. There is nothing concrete to say you can or can't do this or that. Something can be considered to be completely vile to society, but if you realize that most of what society adheres to are social conventions/norms, things of no concrete nature, and you also know that when you die, none of it will matter, you have absolute freedom.
Now, the thing Diane doesn't realize is that this EXACT same scenario is possible and actually happens more often (from what I've observed) in people who DO believe in a God and believe that he is with them in every move they make, no matter what it is. So, while she is right to a certain extent (there is a reason why certain systems exist in society) the same can be said about those who do believe in a god.
Lost me. Natural tendency? That int make no sense innit. U sed goddunit n made us do stuff, n everything was designed with a purpose by the Invisible Super Being. Even down to making us warlike. Now it is a "natural tendency"? LAWL
Sorry - that is so funny I had to add some sssss
"He that is not with me is against me."
Who said that I wonder? So - no - you have not read the majik book.
Troll much?Hi Mark! Now that I'm taking a break from school and can't talk, I will stir the pot a little. Could you please explain the "us v.s. them" mentality. Be kind now in honor of the winter solstice. Thank you!
Who said, "If you are not with me, you are against me."? Was it G W Bush or some other war mongering politician?
Mark, I say that all the time to my classes. If you are not singing with us, you are working against us. Have you heard the expression, "We can all sing together but we can't all talk together?" In these crazy days of the teacher being blamed because students aren't learn. I drill my students. Know that when an administrator comes in you must be actively participating, not on your cellphone, not sleeping, etc. I tell them practice is doing it right all the time so we don't have to worry about someone walking in.
Hmmmm! Did I write too much? I was just trying to give context.No - you are trying to deny what it means. It is pretty clear. Nothing about singing or any such "context."
I am not in a singing class. Please do not speak to me as though I am a child in your class who cannot comprehend. Thanks.
If you are not with me, you are against me.
Simple isn't it? Really tough to make it say anything else isn't it? I know that is what you guys need to do, but - the division is clear as a bell. Not with me? Against me. Division. Them and Us.
Some of the Newer translations even go further. According to "The Message":
This is war, and there is no neutral ground. If you're not on my side, you're the enemy; if you're not helping, you're making things worse.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/msg/luke/11.html
Them and Us.Oh oh! You are most welcome! You don't think atheists ascribe to the us v.s. them?
So - you agree that the bible promotes an Us and Them approach? Great job on changing the subject though.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair was for a very long time before she was murdered considered America's Most Hated Woman. Not for anything she did, but because she was an Atheist. Us vs Them. Telling the entire class to sing a song. Get in line folks.
IDK - she was instrumental in getting mandatory prayer removed from schools - that was guaranteed to annoy a few people.
I have no idea. I thought you were kidding when you asked but evidently there is something to this. What? What? What?
I don't necessarily believe anyone is forced into it, but it is all they know. So when you are indoctrinated (brought up in an environment where this philosophy and this religion of whatever is true) in your family, then when you find out that something in reality contradicts this taught truth you are likely to either reject this truth as a lie, satanic conspiracy, product of idiots, or you will question the validity of the ideology that you have been taught was true.
If anything in religion were true then people would not find it necessary to attack those that question it but would encourage the quest for this truth because the evidence would point to it's validity. If your religion is true then looking into all the other possible choices should be a necessary part of confirming it's validity.
You should really look at my hub on this subject, there is a video of an EX Minister and now atheist. It has very little to do with how they felt being in the church or in the community. In fact the community of it may still be there but the beliefs held by that community no longer shared. It was 5 years before I admitted to anyone in my community that I was a full blown atheist. Before that I was pretty quiet about it except for all my questions, I think many people wondered about that. I read the entire Bible all the way through and asked many people for their point of view on the topics there in and their interpretation to the discoveries of modern times.
As far as your interpretation of what makes you Christian, I have heard many people say that once someone sheds their faith that they must not have ever been a Christian... to be honest, and as defined by the Bible and the Character of Jesus, I don't believe that Christians exist.
"Are you certain that your feelings about God and religion as seen through your family are not maybe making you more willing to accept something beyond reason?"
That is a hilarious question considering I answered it in my statement.
I cam to my conclusion of whether or not there was a God based on my need to know what was real vs what was fantasy. The problem with any conclusion is it's basis. What is the conclusion that there must be a God based on? It's NOT logic. Saying there must be a God because you can't understand how the universe and the intelligent beings that inhabit the Earth came about with out an "intelligent designer" is an argument from ignorance. If you don't understand how something came to be the best you can say is "I don't know how something came to be." For example, what happened before the big bang? I don't know. How did the big bang happen, not sure, I can barely speculate. I can only base my idea on scientific evidence and it's not yet totally conclusive. Particles do go in and out of existence. This is best explain in Stephen Hawking's show "Curiosity."
One of the basic misconceptions people have about nearly all Atheists is the assertions. An atheist merely does not believe there is a God, not because there is or isn't but because God has not been proven to exist nor has there been any evidence to support the possible existence of such a being.
I call myself a Gnostic Atheist only because the evidence presented shows no need for such a being to exist in our universe at all. The Gnostic part is merely arbitrary because I have not been shown any evidence that contradicts that the idea of God is impossible. God is merely our anthropomorphic embodiment assigned to the things in the world/universe for which we have not yet achieved an understanding of.
I hate it when people quote Einstein on this topic because quoting famous people is actually tricky, the quote only shows what he thought at the time the quote was made, it is not his total belief, he changed his mind about things many times. It would be like quoting me 25 years ago, the me of now would not agree with the me of 25 years nor of the me of 5 years ago.First, I'd like to point out that the Einstein quote I used was used because of what I stated, that he said better what I think on the matter than I've been able to manage.
Secondly, though I understand what you're saying, I feel like my statement is still valid. That your feelings towards the religious ideals you reject play a role in you being more willing to accept one conclusion over another where the evidence is lacking. To lean one way over the other. To allow more room for the 'unlikely' because you prefer the conclusion that 'unlikely' scenario suggests over another.
Even if that means accepting the idea that the natural laws of the universe just happen to be set just so to allow for the formation of an immensely complex, yet harmonious, universe to form. And that the exact right conditions exist to allow for the formation of life, that first sparked in some as of yet undetermined way. And that these formations of cells that somehow evolved from molecules that somehow evolved from biological polymers that first formed in some way from biological monomers just happened to find a way to replicate without the benefit of previous generations to perfect the process, and continued to do so, with random duplication errors happening here and there along the way, causing mutations, some of which were advantageous to survival, eventually allowing for more effective 'survival machines (like bodies)' that got more elaborate through a process that was cumulative and progressive. And that one specific species that came from this process evolved into a form that eventually allowed for them to populate the entire planet like no other species. And they developed an intelligence capable of grasping the complexities of the universe and their place in it.
Assertions are something believers deal with as well, like the one you made here...
"Saying there must be a God because you can't understand how the universe and the intelligent beings that inhabit the Earth came about with out an "intelligent designer" is an argument from ignorance."
This statement suggests the knowledge is available that explains how the universe and intelligent beings that inhabit the Earth came about, and that anyone who believes otherwise is simply ignorant of that knowledge. I have studied the formation of the universe intensely. I have studied what's currently understood in the field of abiogenesis, the evolution of life, and the development of the mind throughout the span of time that anatomically modern humans have existed, and beyond. I know what is known and what isn't. And you're right, saying 'I don't know' would be a much more accurate answer. Because we don't. In fact, the more we learn the more we find out just how much we still don't know.
But it seems to me that if this statement were actually true ....
... then you'd be more receptive to what I'm putting forward because my idea is backed by evidence. Evidence that supports the events depicted in Genesis can actually be seen in known history. This would be the first logical step in establishing Genesis as a valid/legitimate source of information. Just as it's been stated repeatedly, you cannot prove/disprove God's existence, so you have to go about it another way. This is my 'another' way. I'm looking for answers too. Instead I just get told over and over again that I just don't get it. Then everything I say and all the evidence I point to just gets dismissed as a another believer's wild delusions.
If we ever hope to get anywhere in these discussions, we're first going to have to address where each person's personal hang-ups are getting in the way. That goes for people on both sides of the fence.Do you believe in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, chupacabra, big foot, the loc ness monster? Why? They are no more ridiculous than your God, in fact probably less ridiculous than a God. My feelings play zero role in how I collect and interpret information. If something is possible then there is evidence to back up the assertion of something being possible. I don't prefer one solution over another I prefer solutions backed by real world evidence and tests based on the evidence.
The problem with your conclusions is that they aren't based on any rational judgement of the collected information. You jump to conclusions based solely on WISHFUL THINKING. God of the gaps, again, I am repeating myself and that pisses me off when talking to the same person about it.
Here is the deal, can you offer ANY valid evidence that even remotely suggest that the order of the universe came about by an intelligence? No, you just simply don't know what else could have caused it because you lack any real information or rational critical thought on the subject.
"I have studied what's currently understood in the field of abiogenesis, the evolution of life, and the development of the mind throughout the span of time that anatomically modern humans have existed, and beyond."
Yet you show a basic lack of understanding of all these fields and invoke a deity to explain what you are unable to understand.
"Evidence that supports the events depicted in Genesis can actually be seen in known history. "
I already went through point by point on how this is completely flawed and how silly and assumptive and just plain ignorant your conclusions were.
I am sorry I can't help you and I feel sorry for you.@artblack01
"Do you believe in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, chupacabra, big foot, the loc ness monster? Why? They are no more ridiculous than your God, in fact probably less ridiculous than a God. My feelings play zero role in how I collect and interpret information. If something is possible then there is evidence to back up the assertion of something being possible. I don't prefer one solution over another I prefer solutions backed by real world evidence and tests based on the evidence. "
Why easer bunnies are ridicule? in which anthropology book did you read that? ot it;s your basic prejudice? ok then I forgive you
sorry artblack01..yours is a sorry sand castle anthropology could tell you the meaning of chupacabras; science can explain loc ness monster; (btw I visited that lake and it's "terri...fic!!!); chupacabras!! do you know what this word means? if you know the meaning and are 'comparing' that to a faith followed by millions for the last 2000+ years, then I am afraid you need to go back to college and redo Anthropolgy 101 (there is a book of Anthropology for Dummies in Barnes and Noble, if you really want to "know" something so as to recommend someone else to read that subject: we usually begin for the beginning, do you not?
Then, you also need to clarify some definitions: feelings is what make you to get exasperated when your speach is not convincing and you 'sesnse' a loss of ...well that...words, then you bring the most ridicule tokens to compare a faith with..say...chupacabras...really, who do you think we are? and you? do you know thyself?
Okay last but less least: "...how do you collect and interpret info"!!!!!?????
Let' us know how do you "interpret" a stuff for kids traditions something "ridicule"? perhaps you'd rather tradition would include some scientific experiments of eggs and its repercusions on...say the crab immortality??? that would be interesting enough for you? then we all will need to "like" and practice this, your preference? I think your pretensions have aname, a clear cut name in anthropology (my favorite subject) and if you took the 101 clss then you'd knw the name...of your game and pretensions
"ignorant conclusions"...if you worked for a big corporation (real evidence they request) and you'd called "ignorant conclusions" to some work made by the strategic planning (do you know what is that? it's very anthropological (I mean, your adjective of ignorant conclusions... you'd be fired without remorse...for your lack of imagination, and other scarce stuff solely for just qualifying of ignorant something you do not believe in or do not conceive!!! Eisntein would be very ashamed of you...do you care? I don't...I do not need einsteins to tell me what to believe and how to live my life...I CHOOSE my beliefs and I do not expect to explain my why's unless I talk to someone who knows anthropology for real...That said...cheers artB01...you do not need to answer to me...save it...I will not read anymore...ever!!! glad I am...you bet!You don't sound like you are open to any of the answers I would give you nor does your comment sound friendly enough nor intelligent enough to take seriously. You sound more like a troll. Glad you don't want me to answer your incredibly irritatingly ignorant comment.
Why not? It seems to me a much better and much more logical way of explaining human intelligence then stating an invisible super being that was alone forever nowhere suddenly poofed it all here and is now watching outside our universe.
He really desperately needs to take an anthropology class.
Apparently you do too ...
Because it must be me who's wrong, you go ahead and make the statement that my statement 'shows basic ignorance of human history and prehistory and human nature and reality'. Bet you didn't really look into it to first see if there was any validity to my statement. Granted this is still a relatively new understanding taken from studies done over a wide range of archaeological and historical records in combination with an in-depth cross-cultural review and mapping of data from over 1000 distinctly different human societies, from standard anthropological data bases.
You might want to look again before assuming it must be me who's wrong.
Here's a place to start .... 'Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World' by James DemeoSorry, I've taken anthropology, hence, why I assert your ignorance towards human prehistory, history and human nature.
You are getting fractional pieces of a very large time line in human development. over 40,000 years.I know, you're referring to the time when humans first began to make significant strides towards behavioral modernity around 50-40,000 years ago, but this doesn't account for the abrupt changes in human behavior that can be seen in the archaeological record that happened in a very specific location and time frame that differentiates 'civilized' humans from indigenous humans that can literally be traced back to roughly 4000 BC. Have you taken anthropology within the last two years? Because to know what I"m talking about you would of had to, if that's the only place you get your information about human history. And that's assuming your teacher/professor would have included this information in the curriculum.
Wow, you certainly are good at making assumptions, and the biggest of them are that a God would be necessary for any changes of any kind to have taken place in human history. You know what they say about assuming things. You can make an ass out of you an me....
Do you know what necessity is the mother of invention means? That's just one example of how human behavior can change due to a change in the environment, you don't even have to look far to see that. Just look at how industrialization has changed us, or the computer age has changed us, drastic changes in how we do things in this world. Was a God necessary for this? No, so why would one be necessary for the great strides of the past? You seem to be missing much information when it comes to anthropology or what is actually taught in such a class, or how much new knowledge has actually been found between when I went to school til now.Are you referring to the agricultural revolution? Is that the 'change in the environment' you're suggesting as being responsible for the change in human behavior I'm referring to?
And while we're on the topic of assumptions, let's talk about your 'was a God necessary for this?' assumption that you seem to use as your 'true/false' indicator. Like many I've talked to here, there seems to be this assumption that anytime I refer to a point in history that correlates with what's described in Genesis, or nearly anything else for that matter, you take that to mean I'm suggesting this to be some 'causeless' miracle? You always assume that anything I say automatically means God must have 'miracled' something here. Or that establishing a cause that's not some giant arm sticking out of a cloud means God's involvement has been disproven? What exactly do you expect to see in the evidence, that you don't, that would convince you that God was responsible?
What I'm pointing out here is a well documented change in human behavior that came long after the agricultural revolution (about 4000 years). By this point there had been large settled communities all throughout northern Mesopotamia and Europe. Settlements with populations in the thousands. Yet these settlements showed no signs of violence, there were no defensive walls, no battles or violent acts depicted in art work, graves were always uniform in size, people weren't buried with possessions or valuables. There was no class stratification, no male dominance, no hording of possessions. They were egalitarian and non-violent.
So then what change in the environment triggered the behavioral changes that led to the first city-state with a ruling and working class in southern Mesopotamia in 5300 BC? What change led to the invention of organized warfare complete with war strategies, armor, swords, and such. And don't just make an assumption about what it is you think I'm suggesting is the cause here, then argue against that assumption. Explain to me specifically what it is you know about the history of humanity during this age in this region that makes you so certain that I'm 'missing much information'. Because I often get these general statements about how much I don't know, yet the few times those that are most vocal about how much I don't know actually get specific, it quickly becomes clear that they don't know nearly as much as they're letting on. You've made a couple of vague comments already that strongly suggest you're not as knowledgeable as you're claiming, but I'd like to know for sure. After all, how else am I supposed to know I should listen to you unless you can back up what you're saying? Be specific. I am. It's easy to make general criticisms. Take me to school, Art. Show me the error of my ways. Share your knowledge.
Yeah, I think he's aware that he spins things and makes excuses for why his contradictions actually aren't contradictions. He loves to spin things and rationalize different reasons to make them make sense to him. What he doesn't get is they only make sense to him because he wants them to.
Why Atheist become NonAtheists and NonAtheists become Atheists among us.
The evidence of the scientific accuracy of Genesis plays fast and loose both with the contents of Genesis and the meaning of "evidence". Cue discussion about what a "day" is.
Exactly, dismissed categorically for arbitrary reasons. No need to consider any of it. I'm just a crazy believer that just doesn't get it. Nothing to see here. Move along.
"dismissed categorically for arbitrary reasons" No dismissed because we've had this conversation over and over and every time a bring up a flaw in your argument you make excuses, you say that everything in genesis shows that it must be true because it tells of things that happened 4000 years ago but consider that it was written around 3500 years ago... you also dismiss anything humans did 10000 years ago which is when the oldest Pyramid was built or started...
No matter what I give you as reasons for your arguments being flawed you (the vagueness and contradiction) you defend it without thinking it over.
"I'm just a crazy believer that just doesn't get it."
You got that right. That is why I refuse to have a real conversation with you anymore, why would one want to talk to a brick wall? We had a super long conversation about this before and now you ant more? I am tired of your BS.
Dismissed.Well, first off, it should be pointed out that you initiated this particular discussion. And considering we've had lengthy discussions in the past, it's not like you didn't know what you were getting into. So you really only have yourself to blame. Second, I have devoted a lot of time and research to this. I'm not just making stuff up or twisting things around to make Genesis fit because my faith isn't hinged on whether or not there's any literal truth to Genesis. I think that's an assumption you hang on. That my faith is hinged on this so I'm all desperate to make it work. No, I've just found good reason to think Genesis was misinterpreted as far as Adam being the first human. So I took that and compared to history and have since found overwhelming support for this story with that one correction in place that goes a long way towards answering questions that still linger to this day if true.
If you gave me valid reasons or illustrated true flaws then I'm open to hearing what you've got. But you haven't. Take this comment for instance....
"you say that everything in genesis shows that it must be true because it tells of things that happened 4000 years ago but consider that it was written around 3500 years ago... you also dismiss anything humans did 10000 years ago which is when the oldest Pyramid was built or started..."
There's so much wrong with that statement I'm not even sure where to start. First off, the primary events I'm talking about that line up with Genesis 2-11 are 5500 to about 3800 BC, which is 7500 to 5800 years ago, 1800+ years off of what you thought. When Genesis was actually written is unknown, but scholars estimate that the oldest surviving text (written roughly 300BC) is redacted from multiple hypothetical sources probably written around 950, 850, and about 500BC respectively. And even those probably came from something older. Those dates are based on titles used, like the Sumerian city of Ur being called Ur of the Chaldeans, though the Chaldeans didn't settle in the region of Ur until about 850 BC. The main point here is that the events I'm referring to happened a good 1000 or more years before writing was even invented, and even longer before writing had reached a point that it could be used to tell a story and not just be used for basic administrative uses.
And the pyramid thing is a whole other problem. The oldest known pyramids date no earlier than about 3000 BC, or 5000 years ago. If you count Ziggurats as pyramids, which some do, then the oldest was built in Mesopotamia, in the Sumerian city of Eridu, dating back another 1000 years or so earlier. This is still a good 4000 years off of your mark. But, maybe you're aware of something I'm not? I'd be fascinated to hear what you're referring to because that would date back to an age when the majority of humans were still in hunter-gatherer mode with the exception of a small section of modern day Turkey where the first horticultural practices were in effect. But there are no pyramids from this age to my knowledge.
But the bigger problem with your statement is that it illustrates that you don't even have the most fundamental of a grasp of what it is I'm talking about. The fact that you think a pyramid and how long ago it was built is even relevant is telling. And your statement that I 'dismiss' anything humans did 10000 years ago is just plain false. I've discussed this timeframe in relation to what I'm talking about in this very forum discussion. So I'm confused as to how exactly it is you can illustrate 'flaws' in my argument when you're not even sure what my argument is."it's not like you didn't know what you were getting into. So you really only have yourself to blame. " Even I had hoped that maybe your lame argument had changed. (See even atheists use the idea of hope).
"I'm not just making stuff up or twisting things around to make Genesis fit because my faith isn't hinged on whether or not there's any literal truth to Genesis." Yet you aren't saying anything that hasn't already been debunked by not only myself but by everyone in science and archeology (who doesn't have a Christian Agenda).
"I think that's an assumption you hang on. That my faith is hinged on this so I'm all desperate to make it work." No just an observation that I questioned you on over and over again, I asked you several questions on the subject and you brought up the same thing every time.
Like I said, though, you've been dismissed and I can't stand continuing this lame debate over a Bible no older than 3500 years talking about things that the people who wrote the Bible experienced, that's no special revelation.
If you want to prove your imaginary friend yo
u call God, you are gonna have to find another method for doing so than the Bible.... which by the way is NOT the oldest know writing and Christianity is by far NOT the oldest religion out there still being practiced today.
I tried to follow what point was being made here because I am an atheist and new to Hub Pages. Is this supposed to be a slam to atheist? Humour without a punchline? Or did I miss something. Atheist are or just to speak for myself. I have a strong belief in being moral. Honesty is a principal I live by. And I do have little patience for the ignorance that is prejudice. And trust me.. just saying I'm an Atheist makes people, like students I may be in a group with, To roll their eyes, become hostile and oh yes,,..... the always immature..silent treatment. Wake up people, we're getting too old to play make believe, aren't we?
I too live by principles and try my best to be true to myself; do you get mad at someone who from scratch says that she/he believes in God and then she/he tries to present ideas behind, etc etc etc...only to be called irritating...go read more about Marilyn Monroe (my way to say what you are reading is much much less relevant than MM
sorry for the figure) , or, do you seriously listen and try to converge (not give in but not quarrel either...are we kids then?? (seriously, I wish I was...) ; is it really that it's impossible to have a conversation w/o someone from the other side getting to call another "ignorant" or "idiot" or "ridicule"...I was taught since little that yelling, and/or using insults was the characteristic of people who could not otherwise formulate and interchange ideas w/o trying to twist arms or impose or manipulate..then,it is not about ideas and beliefs, it is about... impositions...and that it is due to a lack of people skills....If opinions opposing to ours were to make me ill, then why, I ask, why then that person engages in a discussion in the first place; I tell you, Freud would not be that curious about some issues: he would have a swift analysis of it... Intolerance to any human choices only means intolerance to oneself (puella dixit). But none the less,I said genuinely, that I, as a Xtian, forgave him and I really do...I am olde you know, and I am...not... trolling... I am really really really trying to be informed of any new discovery by scientists or...sorcerers on the topic...
By the way, are 'feelings' any kind of evidence? do feelings "exist" per se; some 'existences" change dynamically like 'feelings'? what is feelings to faith? and what is faith to feelings? what is really to believe? is it to knee before an image and...pray with closed eyes and closed...mind...? What is prayer...do only Xtians or believers pray? Pray is simply to verbalize mentally or not the longings, the dreams, the needs... Has someone here gone to a process called visualization? (it's used in big corporations workshops to enhance team members abilities to be proactive positive, achievers...Pointing out hypocrisy is not an attempt at insult it's an attempt to tell you you are the pot calling the kettle black and have nothing to contribute to this conversation.
Here is my atheistic point of view on the God question. It's quite simple actually. Man created gods not the other way around. Our history is rife with a myriad of gods from every culture and nation around the world both known and unknown. We acknowledge all those other religious beliefs as nothing more than ancient superstitions and myths. so why should the Christian God be any different? In fact, if you took the time to study some comparative religion objectively and honestly you would immediately recognize some Caananite and Persian influences in the Christian religion.
There is no evidence for the existence of the biblical God or any other god for that matter and if there were a God he is completely useless to mankind. The world and all of the calamities and "natural" disasters that we face on a daily basis is best explained naturally. All these events are random and in many cases have a perfectly good explanation (earthquakes) that does not require the supernatural. The invisible guy in the sky is just that invisible and seems only to exist in the minds of those that choose to believe that he exists. Sort of like children who are taught to believe in Santa Clause till they grow up and realize that it was mom and dad who bought them all those presents throughout their young lives.Yes - that is what I got out of that.
Remember - "He who is not with me is against me." Divide. Them and Us.
Hope the praying makes you feel better. I guess you really, really want me to believe the same stuff you do huh? Then your Invisible Super Being will not throw me in the lake of fire. And you still worship this thing? Weird.
My pleasure with the smileys.Mark, I certainly want the best for you and all of the guys, mentioning no names like Rad and JmC, who are "picking" on me. Yes ... picking. HOWEVER, you are more than capable of making your own decisions and I respect that. 1 Corinthians 13:7 Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.
This one probably doesn't even apply but I love those smileys!how exactly am I picking on you? I've been perfectly polite.
Isn't it obvious? The christian idea of love and respect is perfect acceptance of what they say without questioning. If you ask a question, or even make a grimace you are attacking! Humble people they are, you know!
I think you will find that often the questions asked here are dripping with sarcasm, or condescension. Coming both from the theists and atheists. I think there have been bouts of disrespect and unnecessary picking from both sides. It isn't simply about asking questions. I am sure many of the Christians here would LOVE to be asked serious questions, in which their answers are taken seriously. By which I don't mean blindly accepted, but actually given some thought.
Christianity is not a religion of blind faith. It is a faith which requires a lot of self examination and fact checking (Unfortunately the facts are not always checked, and the "other" is more often examined).
Do you have some serious questions about Christianity? Ask them with a tone of respect, and I am sure you can expect some well thought out, loving answers. At least that is what you should receive. If not you could always just go read some C.S Lewis, I think he covers most questions askedThe problem is all Christian belief turn out to be what C S Lewis wrote - fiction.
I did ask some serious question, either the Christians didn't even answered it or they used deceptive language which when pointed out the retort was that I'm not interested in learning or I lack understanding.What are some of those questions? Perhaps I can offer a non deceptive answer. I would love to have a civil discussion void of any ridicule and ad hominems.
Have you read C S Lewis?
Aslan came to a planet and modified it and made that into a nation. The planet was already there, Aslan only created the nation.
What do you think of that?I think that it is a wonderful narrative for children. I think that Lewis may have intended Aslan to represent Christ. Seeing as Christ came into the created world and died for our sins, was risen and is to return and when he does there will be one nation. This is what Lewis was attempting to capture in the character of Aslan. There are representations for the Father and Spirit as well. Did you notice them?
I was referring to the adult books that Lewis wrote however. His children's books were amazing, but the adult series was genius.
Have you read The Screwtape Letters or Mere Christianity?No I only read the chronicles.
But my question was different. My question was whether god made everything from nothing or he merely rearranged as Aslan did?
Now Christianity in a nutshell, correct me if I'm wrong.
God created humans, knowing that they can do wrong, and killed and punished them for doing wrong. Then he selected a group to be his favourite, who too disobeyed him, hence punished them. Then he made a body, sent it to be killed and then resurrected it. Then whoever believe this will be given heaven and who do not, hell, though mankind has not changed its ways.CS Lewis makes about as much sense as most of these guys. Most of them don't bother reading their book and what little they do read - they don't understand. 3 days dead out of 4.5 billion years? Big deal.
One and a half days to be precise. My question is if one can get up after a day or two, what is the difference between sleep, coma and death?
Nothing. Hence - their religion is meaningless. There was no sacrifice. No biggie.
Yes it is actually. Is Jesus alive or not? 3 days dead out of 4.5 billion years is no sacrifice at all. Therefore your self righteousness is unwarranted. And - incidentally - the reason your beliefs cause so many conflicts.
calynbana, your smiley didn't work because you didn't capitalize the "p."
Mark is a good teacher!
Jesus was not a sacrifice. When you sacrifice something, you give it up and you don't get it back. Jesus is now in heaven with god, and a year is like a blink of an eye to god, so what does there says mean? Nothing.
Yea, I can't figure out why humans sins were/are forgiven as the result of a third of God dying and going to heaven. It kind of reminds me of the little kid in A Christmas Story who want a bebe gun for Christmas, but is told he can't get one so he imagines how bad his parents would feel if he was blind. God is saying look at me know all dead, don't you feel bad that you made me do this. Immature if you ask me.
Aslan represented Christ who came into the world. The world of Narnia still contains a Father/Creator figure. This figure created the world, Aslan came into it to save the world.
Christianity believes that there is a Godhead, made of three distinct persons. Father, Son and Spirit. God created the Universe, as described in Genesis, and later created things such as day/night, plants, animals, and humans,
He made humans in His own image. Now the image we have of God is a personal, creative, thinking Mind. Since the God is the creator of space and time He is necessarily outside of space and time, He is an eternal, thinking being not contained by His creation. Think of an architect. The architect designs a building but he himself is not part of the building. However, he may choose to enter the building.
So this thinking creator created us, minds, with physical bodies (in order that we may exist within creation as distinct beings) with the capabilities to think, "create" in a sense, and discriminate. (As in know light from dark, right from wrong etc)
He gave us the ability of free choice. This is different from other creations such as trees that have no choices. Or animals that are held by their instincts to behave in a certain manner. Humans have basic instincts, and on top of that a moral law. (If you want I can go into detail on this moral law just ask I am trying to conserve space).
We all know this moral law, what we ought to do. We ought not kill, or be selfish etc. Often this law goes against our own instincts. We ought to save that person even though it will endanger ourselves.
Within the context of our environments, genetics, and instincts we are given choices about this moral law. We can choose to be like our creator- good, or choose to rebel against him. This is essentially rebelling against good- and so is not good/ or evil.
Humans were not following the law written upon our hearts, and were instead choosing to go the route of death. KIlling, raping, hurting etc. God put us under a written Law. This written law had clear instructions with clear consequences.
If you broke the law you knew exactly what the consequences were. You will see that throughout the Bible the people knowingly broke the law, and despite years of warnings and grace continued to do things that caused themselves and others to suffer. God would then apply the consequences.
Sodom is a good example. Groups of men running around gang raping other men. Horrific. They were told time and time again that this was not just, and that justice would be served. They were told to repent. They were given time and made their choices. They were given the justice described in the law.
Now knowing that people could not live up to His standard of perfect Justice, God sent the second person of the Godhead, essentially Himself in the flesh to demonstrate what it looked like to live a life in the light, in love, and in communion.
Jesus. Jesus was put to death for claiming to be the Son, and was crucified. Throughout his life Jesus fulfilled many of the prophecies described in the Old Testament ( God foreshadowing?) and paid the price for sin. The price of sin is death. This is what is described in the law. The death of the sinless Jesus, the son of God was enough to fulfill the need for perfect Justice. Now this is a free gift, but in order to enjoy this gift we must accept it.
Accepting this gift doesn't look like saying "yo Jesus died for me therefore I can do whatever I want and I will be saved". Accepting this gift looks like serving Jesus the way it is described in the New Testament. Love God, and love your neighbor. When one knows Jesus truly this will be evident.
The concept of Heaven and Hell are intriguing. Heaven is eternally being with God, the source of all good. This would be good I imagine Hell is the opposite. It is to be eternally separated from God. Eternally separated from all good. I imagine this would be terrible, just the absence of good would be enough to make us suffer.
Since Jesus provided us with the free gift of grace through faith we get to choose. We can choose to be with God, and He will give us what we choose. Of course it is a little more than just saying we are with God, it is living like it. Or we can choose to be separate, God will respect either choice we make, whether or not it is a good choice.So I assume you say it is creation from nothing. So your first premise is that everything need to be created. then how do you explain the contradiction to your logic, that is the exception YOU give to god, from YOUR premise.
You just elaborated what I said, so I assume you agree.
So my question is
Who decide the price of sin?
Who decide that god himself have to die?
What is the difference between sleep and death?
Why this god who had no qualms in killing people and who could sent one of his own to death, is said to love people?
There was no change in the behaviour of mankind, so what happened to those before jesus?
How did jesus death bring mankind closer to god?
What happens to those good people who think this is all nonsense?
What happened to those who believe all these but still remain the same?
Why should the bible be believed?
Why should the bible be given any preference over say, Quran or Gita?
Which are the prophesies that are fulfilled by jesus to the letter?
Why you think there was a real historical figure behind jesus?
Why didn't you think the stories about jesus are not exaggerations like that of Appollonius?I am going to take this one question at a time.
First I will address your comment about creation.
Here is the logic that I am going by.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist
Therefore the Universe has a cause.
The Cause of the Universe created Space and Time (The start of the Big Bang)
Therefore the Cause must be timeless and Immaterial
I am positing that the Creator is an eternal and timeless(since He created time), immaterial (exists outside of the created Universe), and personal (remains active in His creation).
I did not say that everything came from nothing. Nothing is an absurd theory. Think about what that actually implies.
I am not saying everything needs to be created, just that everything that BEGINS to exist must be.
What is your take on the beginning of the Universe?So - everything that begins to exist has to have a cause except one thing which did not begin to exist?
At least now you are saying your god did not create anything - he just used things that were lying around - so - who created them? Or are the building blocks eternal also?Everything that exist has a cause is a ok, but how did you make out that everything that exist, began to exist? that is begging the question, like do you still beat your wife?
Either everything that exist has a cause
or everything exist began to exist.
The problem is whether space and time exist. If it began to exist what was before time? Without time how can something 'began to exist'?
What is immaterial?
Doesn't matter. Your premise was everything that exist, began to exist hence got a cause hence god too need a cause.
"Nothing" is not a theory, but a word that means "absence of everything". Theory is an explanation.
How did you make out that the universe began to exist. Universe is eternal. Big bang didn't say universe suddenly appeared from nothing, it only means the universe as we know today started from that time. It does not mean time started then, it only mean we started to count time from then.That is a false conclusion based on a fallacy.
That conclusion does not follow the premise as there is nothing in your premise suggesting timeless or immaterial.
Yet, another false conclusion based on other false conclusions based on false premises.
The one in which science shows the evidence as opposed to false premises, false conclusions and fallacies from religions.
Who decides the price of sin?
God. Who decides the consequences of law breaking? The law giver.Who decided that God Himself needed to die?
Again God. This is a being who is Perfectly Just, and Perfectly Loving. The perfect Justice must be satisfied in order for him to be perfectly good. In being loving He wanted to have His people with Him. By showing us love first, we could learn to love him. By fulfilling the law he can lift the burden of satisfying perfect Justice from our shoulders.Why god wanted himself to die to forgive humans?
please use the chronological view on top right to reply so that you can reply to my comments instead of yours and cause confusion.Riddle would you mind if I sent you my entire response when I return from my vacation through one inbox message? Otherwise there will be a lot of confusion as I enter the conversation again five days later and have to find your questions again. I will likely answer in the form of a hub as well.
You cannot be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. Justice is getting what you deserve. Mercy is the suspension of justice. Ultimately, you create a system wherein the most horrific human beings can get away with everything if they believe, while genuinely good people are damned for eternity for simple disbelief
So, gods can die? Then, who are you worshiping if God is dead?
What is the difference between sleep and death?
Why a beating heart of course. Look at the description of Jesus being stabbed and removed from the cross.A killing God loving?
Do you love your mother? If she killed your children would you still love her? Likely. Would you want her to meet with Justice? Again likely. The grace, the time, the warnings, the law the sacrifices were all examples of God's love. God reaching out to us. We rejected Him, and in order to be a Good God, a Good Judge, justice must at some point be served.
Would you prefer everybody was given the free gift of life without having to make some internal changes? Hitler and Mother Theresa should share the same gift without any changes being made to their ways?"Why a beating heart of course."
What difference does it make whether jesus heart was beating all through out or had stopped for a few hours?
After a day and a half, he got up though he said he would sleep for three days and night. How does that constitute a sacrifice? I sleep everyday knowing that I will get up in the morning. Jesus was god himself and was more sure than I that he would get up, so what is so great about that sleep?
"That is answered in the OT look to the story of Abraham specifically."
He died. What happened to all those gentiles who hadn't even heard about Jesus?
"Do you love your mother? If she killed your children would you still love her? "
No, my question is whether you can say the mother who kill her children is a loving mother. i didn't ask what the children thought.
"Riddle would you mind if I sent you my entire response when I return from my vacation through one inbox message?"
No problem. My only condition is that you be precise.No, I would suspect a serious mental problem caused her to kill her children, no sane person would ever do such a thing.
Except there is no evidence at all that it ever happened
What happened to those before Christ?
That is answered in the OT look to the story of Abraham specifically.
What happens to those good people who think this is all nonsense?
What happened to those who believe all these but still remain the same?
Then they think it is all nonsense and they keep searching for Truth. God decides when the time comes what happens. Short answer calling God nonsense seems to be a path to saying one does not want to be with God. This is a path to choosing separation.
If somebody truly believes all this then they will change. That is the part of the Holy Spirit.Why should the bible be believed?
There are a number of reasons. If you like I can list them but I will need a few days (I am spending the next 5 days unplugged with family :s so I would have to respond then. I simply do not have time right now as my train comes in two hours). For now check out this website
http://carm.org/is-the-bible-reliableThe site is a sham. it says bible is accurate and historical because the authors are inspired by holy spirit. So if say that the sun revolve around the earth and say holy spirit inspired me to say that, will yo believe me? Most of the stories in bible are just stories including jesus story. The few historical ones are mis-represented, skewed and greatly exaggerated with magic that it is not at all worthy of considering a reliable and accurate source.
A dedicated Christian apologist website. I'm sure there's no prejudice there at all
There should never be a debate. Arguing is not profitable. If people are not willing to accept the foundation, the doctrine for life will not be accepted or understood. Same thing about atheism. I don't accept the basis so I can't accept all of the support for it.
With all due respect (and I do respect you) I don't think you UNDERSTAND atheism enough to accept or reject it. Conversely, I do understand the Bible. I read it every day in Hebrew, geek and Latin. I went to theological seminary. I reject it because of what it says - not becauseI don't understand it
JMC, you must be retired. You read the Bible every day in 3+ languages. You have too much time on your hands. I don't feel I need to read historical documents, the Koran, the Holy Grail, ancient history books from a billion years ago, etc. I take the Bible as my one authoritative source.
Think about it! If atheists are right, then no harm no foul! If Christians are right .... Christians don't lose. How often do you find a win/win situation?
I tried to state it humorously but I think it's accurate. THAT is why I pray for YOU GUYS! The fact that we like each other means Christians and atheists don't have to dislike each other. All do not. The ones who openly show their disgust/anger/whatever you call it are giving a false impression of mutual hostility.
"Can't we all get along." 1 Rodney King 1:1What if the Jews are right? What if the Muslims are right? What if any of the other faiths are right? Is that a win win for Christians?
Muslims - not a problem! They are WRONG!!!! Jews - hadn't given that one much thought. They are waiting for the Messiah to literally rebuild the temple. Rad do you know the expected outcome based on Judasim? Not being sarcastic. I don't know.
I don't know much about other faiths either but I'm not concerned. Most are traced back to a human being who wants to start his/her own religion. The Judaism thing would be interesting.How utterly dishonest to claim another religion is 'WRONG!!!' right after claiming you have never read anything about the religion.
A very good reason why your religionn causes you to create so much conflict in the world.Hmm! I personally have created conflict. Please be speific so I can apologize and make restitution to injured persons. It has never been my intent to harm anyone.
Hilarious, I just explained that to you and now you're asking for an explanation. In other words, you just don't get it.
I'm sorry. I really don't get it. When you say "me", I think of myself not a group.
Why is it a problem? If you believe what you want to believe and it isn't a problem for me. Why is what I believe a problem for you? Not meaning to going in circles; however, I, personally, have done nothing to make the world a difficult place. If I have, I welcome your bringing it to my attention.
Because you do little more than cause conflict with your beliefs, which are being pointed out to time and again, yet you sit there wondering what's going on. Hilarious.
Perhaps you don't know what happens when you tell Muslims that they are WRONG?
You must be kidding. I'm seeing the result online every day! So .... what do you think about Muslim teachings regarding infidels, eternity, beautiful maids, etc.? Does this sound moral enough? Do you defend it?
You just admitted in another post that you have never read the Quran, so how can you actually talk about what morals are contained within it? This is yet another reason why your religion causes conflict.
I don't defend it as I won't defend how Christianity treated non-believers for more than a 1500 years. If you were raised as a Muslim you would believe as they do. You were raised in the more extreme end of Christianity and you are still there. Who's to say who is right and who is wrong?
what do you think about Christian/Jewish teachings about slavery, child-murder, rape, incest and marriage? Do they sound moral to them? Do you defend them?
It is not a contextual issue. All of these laws are written plain as day in the bible - the bible that you yourself profess as your basis for morality and the only source of authority we have. Truthfully, coming from someone who has studied both the bible and the Koran, they're not that different in terms of morals. They're not that different in telling the followers to kill everyone who is different - be it gay, different religion, different culture. But you hold on to one of them and proclaim that it is "right", but you condemn the other.I wonder if the main driver of Muslim fervor is the Power Game......As can also be seen in "the Right" in christian circles.
Why would I be retired? I read the bible every day - not necessarily in 3 languages every single day, but I can read all three. How can reading what you consider to be the word of god be a waste of time? that seems a ridiculous assertion coming from a believer like you. As far as taking the bible as the "one authoritative source" what makes it authoritative, in your opinion.
Your win/win scenario is called "pascal's wager" and it's inherently flawed. Believing in something that is ultimately untrue costs you more than you realize. It costs you your one guaranteed shot at life. You give your money to the church. You don't live the best possible life, because you can always ask for forgiveness and look forward to heaven. You do things - not because they're the right thing to do - but because a super-being told you so, and in the meantime - you vote, elect and judge others based on a holy book.
I actually wrote a whole hub on Pascals' wager and its inherent problems. http://jmcfarland.hubpages.com/hub/The- … cals-WagerI don't think you are "wasting" your time. It's amazing that you would spend so much time reading something you are disproving. I thought you were reading the Bible in at least 3 different langages every day. The fact that you would go to seminary is unbelievable. With all of the doctrine that has to be studied and cross referencing, I can't understand what motivates you. Especially in view of pascal's wager, why do you do this?
I read the article JM. I asked myself, If I didn't believe in God, what would I do differently. It's really impossible to know for sure because I do believe in God. My moral conscience would probably lead me to feel the same basic way about life.
FYI
People who pray are healthier
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 … rayer.html
http://psychology-forum.com/off-topic/p … kill-them/
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-fo … 52975790/1Diane - I didn't start reading the bible to disprove it. I began when I was very young because I wanted to believe, and I wanted to know everything I could about it. Ironically, my journey to atheism began at Biola - when one of my apologetics teachers started spinning things and making rationalizations for things that I could not wrap my head around. When I approached him after class to ask him questions directly, his answer was something to the effect of "if you don't understand, then you don't know god. Continue to ask him and eventually you will get your answer". This was a professional apologist, and he was "spin doctoring" the book that I genuinely believed to be the word of god. Shouldn't he know what he's talking about? All he could fall back on was "interpretation" and "faith". Not reason. Not attempting to point out my errors in perception. If I couldn't trust him, what made me think I could trust anyone?
I started studying other faiths, to find out what they were all about. Surprisingly (at the time) they all said the same things the bible was saying - that they were the word of a god, they were absolutely true, and anyone who didn't believe them were wrong. I noticed in one of your posts above that you say the muslim faith is easy - it's wrong. Why do you believe that? I also asked what makes the bible your one authority - aside from the fact that you choose to believe in it. DId you also read my article this week about "why an atheist studies the bible"? It goes into a lot more depth than I can get into hear. I'm intrigued by the christian faith - not because I like it or believe in it - but because I see from an outside (now) perspective how poisonous and harmful it is. Is there something you would like to ask me about science or atheism so we can come to an understanding of each other? I don't mean to ask all of the questions and put you on the spot.
also...have you seen the templeton study on prayer? It makes things worse.
http://www.templeton.org/newsroom/press … 7step.htmlWow! You are a very interesting person. The professor was a mere man. It is possible that your questions were above his level of education and knowledge. (sidetrack) I took calculus my freshman year in college. I raised my hand to tell the professor I didn't understand. He said, "If you don't get it now, I don't know what to tell you." I think he was trying to humiliate me. I was the only Black student among a class of white students. So I do understand when you are asking for help or clarification and it isn't forthcoming.
Back on track
I really don't have any questions for you. I am at peace with what I believe. You are a very interesting person and humble I might add. For a couple of months we have discussed issues and you never related your background.
Since you were raised in a Christian environment I think you understand why I don't have questions about atheism. I accept the Bible as God's Word. Anything else I read woud be a human perspective. I do use commentaries, thesauruses, parallel Bibles, etc. I like for clarification to come from exegesis and companion Scriptures.
You know I don't thing you are a bad guy!I guess my fundamental question is why you believe the bible is god's word and is a reliable source to connect with the being it describes as god. If you've ever studied how it was compiled, altered, in some instances blatantly forged and ultimately canonized for political reason (not spiritual ones) you may be in the same boat i found myself in when I started to question what I had been taught. It's uncomfortable, to say the least.
I understand that the professor was only a human being. This, however, was what he did for a living. He constantly appeared in professional debates, authored several books and taught multiple classes on theology and apologetics. I respected him, and his dismissals of my questions seemed dishonest, to say the least. Although it's only one story, it's hardly the only similar experience I had. The more i studied the bible, the less I could accept it. Typically it's the other way around.
Ultimately, I had to come to the conclusion that if the bible were true, and the god of the bible was loving and created me with this brain and knew that I would start to question things, then he cannot condemn me for being the way he made me. If he sends me to hell because he has not seen feet to prove himself to skeptics like me - then he's not a god that I need to waste time worshiping. Studying, yes. Worshiping, no. Even if he existed, I see no need to worship him. To me (and I hope you're not offended by my own, personal opinion) he's little more than an egomaniac tyrant - and I have no business worshiping or groveling before something that behaves the way he does.JMC every since I can remember I attended church. First we alternated: Emmanuel Baptist on 1st and 3rd Sunday and Methodist on 2nd and 4th. Mom was Baptist and Dad was Methodist. Then I attended Catholic elementary school - mass every Friday. I started piano at 7 and was baptized at 7. The baptism was just trying to keep up with my sister. My dad became a pastor when I was 12. OMG! We had to get up at 7 on Sundays and be on the highway by 8 to get to a cold church 80 miles from Little Rock. The pianist was unlucky ME!
We didn't get home until 3 to 5 pm - depending on whether or not we were invited to dinner. When I started college I had an argument with my dad because I missed a date because we stayed late for church. I left home, became a party girl, while staying in college just barely, and going to mass every now and then.
At 25 I found a gray hair and got depressed. I bought a piano and started voice and piano. My little white prodigious piano/voice teacher called me to tell me she found a church for me to go to. She said I should marry a preacher and sing in church. I went along with the program.
The services were different from any I had attended before. The pastor had a passage of Scripture and three talking points. An invitation to accept Christ and/or join church followed. At the same time they needed a choir director and I filled in. For a long time I prayed about whether or not I should join church.
On November 5, 1978 the pastor used Hebrews 11 as the text and the title was "God Wants Us To Live By Faith." As I sat listening, I suddenly understood what a relationship with Christ is. I realized that I was a sinner and Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins. I asked for forgiveness of my sins and invited Jesus into my heart. I've never regretted the decision. I've been blessed to have many people touch my life and in turn I've had the opportunity to touch the lives of others.
I have no doubt in my mind that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and God is real. Not believing that does not make a person a bad person. The point is that no one can be good enough. We can all be forgiven.
I tried to keep it short. Thank you for asking JMC!I'm glad to hear your story, but none of it answered my original question. Why do you claim the bible is the one, true ultimate authority, while rejecting other holy books like the Koran? Why do you have no problem claiming that other faiths are "wrong" while asserting that yours is the only one that is "right"? It seems to me that you like christianity, because you accepted it. You didn't approach it critically because you WANT to believe its true. Your questions never went any deeper, from what you've said. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Hi JMC, I believe it is a basic "If-then" because according to the Bible, there is no other path. Simply put .... I believe the Bible. Therefore I don't believe the other sources. Quoting a lot of Scriptures really won't help if my basis is the Bible alone.
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6
I don't probe what others believe because I am in no position to judge them nor are they in a position to judge me. The beauty of it is everyone makes their own decisions and them live with them.
I'm sorry JMC. I don't know of any other way to express it. I hope it doesn't sound arrogant. I'm just being truthful.yeah, but all of the other books have the same statement - that they're true, and everything else is false. Do you see the problem?
Basically, your answer is "I accept the authority of the bible because I want to, and I don't want to look into what actually makes it (or debunks it) as a source of authority".
Exactly, which is the problem of your religion. It's a little thing called "understanding" which requires one to learn things about the world around them.
Theological seminary? Why would you waste your time doing that? You must be Donald Trump or some other rich person posting under an assumed name. Amazing grace! Did you participate in class discussions? What school was that?
Why would theological seminary be a waste of time? I was a believer at the time - I was a christian for over 25 years, and hoped to be a missionary - just like my parents were. Why would that make me rich? I had a scholarship because I was a missionary kid, and my mother was an alumni. I first attended Vangaurd University, and then when I started apologetics and theology training, I went to Biola.
Biola ... my husband graduated from there in 2000. My pastor taught at Talbot Seminary. It is very possible that you are trying to resolve issues within yourself. This is not a psychoanalysis just trying to figure you out.
I believe, at the end of the day, when you finish your quest, you will realize that God is and You should beAgain - atheism is the end of my quest. From all of the study I've done and the research I've done onto the history of the bible, how it was put together and its contents, I cannot accept it as evidence for the existence of the christian god - or any other god. I'm curious to know how you can.
Do you know how the new testament was put together and canonized?
With respect Diana, what you are describing is fanaticism. As though "one-size-fits-all." You don't have to accept, or even understand, everything about another person's point of view or opinion. The world is large enough for all of us to live side-by-side.
My not believing in what you believe should not hinder your belief, IF your belief is more than surface deep. If your belief IS only surface deep, if it's only there for show, to attract people of similar beliefs to look up to you, admire you for it, then your belief is so shallow, so weak, so unimportant in the long term it's not worth worrying about. If your belief is worth keeping and going to serve your deeper needs, it will withstand any amount of critique and debate, without others such as myself supporting it.
In other words, don't wait on me agreeing with you. Don't even wish that I should agree with you. Respect my atheist understanding, which for me is really much more substantial than "only skin deep." I have come to my understandings and opinions over a long period, with lots of questioning of my self, my desires, my needs, my yearnings. I am so strong in the answers arrived at, that I can freely allow you your choices without endangering my own.
Yet my mind is still open to new information, other ideas, other possibilities. NO! Please don't take this as an invite for you to evangelise me! I would be offended if you did. Just accept me, as I am, in the same way that you hope your "God" will accept you, just as you are..... Ok?
From the link...
"Yes, the Bible is reliable. The original writings of the Bible have been lost. But before they were lost, they were copied. These copies were incredibly accurate, very meticulous, and very precise. "
They are obviously lying. They cannot claim the Bible is reliable and then claim the original writings were lost.
Why should the bible be given any preference over say, Quran or Gita?
This is a question that I am excited to answer but again I have to say wait, it will take me more time than I can afford right now. I will get back to it though. I have read the Qur'an and I am working on the Rig Veda and they are beautiful books. I will give you an answer when I return
Actually, the sin of Sodom was being inhospitable. It had nothing to do with gang-rape, although incidentally I have two follow up questions:
1) how is lot offering his two virgin daughters to be raped instead any better and
2) you get that the Israelite army practiced gang rape on their defeated opponents in battle regularly, right? It was a common, cultural occurrence to demean your enemyInteresting that Christians think it Okay to go directly against the laws he have in the OT and divide God amoung at least three (as you put it) distinct persons. Must be pagan influence?
This is also interesting, you claim we were made in God's image, we can't be of his physical image if he is able to be outside space and time and we can't be made in his image of understanding if we can't perceive to understand him.
Sorry humans are not alone with knowing right and wrong. This exist in every mammal from lions to wolves. We only think we are special because we are told we are special.
God did not give warning to the people of Sodom. He sent his angles in to take Lot and his two daughters out and destroyed the rest. Lot and his two daughters are the stars of the most horrific page of the bible. Why God saves these three are beyond my compression. Except if you understand the OT to be written by Jewish men to give themselves entitlement.Animals? as ethical as man? so ethics is instinctive? you do not follow a thought process to ascertain that maybe something you feel entitled to but which may harm others is ...not instinct but... machiavelic? and therefore if I think too much I may not do it or if I am indeed an animalk I will do it? because me first me second me thiird is mmy 'ethics'??...when an animal 'follows' a thought? a value? a consideration of consequences if i behave moral-faulty?
How can you say Christianity is not a religion of blind faith when that's exactly what it is?
What "facts" are there in Christianity?Before I answer your question, I would like you to explain why you think it is a religion of blind faith.
Obviously, because all you have is a book and nothing more, a book written decades after the alleged event of the Christ by people who never met him. That would be blind faith.
Okay. Is it just one book? Who do you think wrote the book?
I thought you said you were going to answer questions, not ask them.
It is one book, it's called the Bible, or didn't you know that?
Men wrote it.I am going to answer questions. I want to know where you stand first. One book you say? Are you sure? Which men wrote it? You must know in order to be sure of your previous posts.
Bah! What a waste of time. You're just trolling.
I was kidding about the "picking." In my life I hae experienced a lot of picking. You guys are combining forces for a joint assault! JUST KIDDING!
I don't understand - how is quoting the bible "picking on you."?
Remember - you are either with me or against me.Well Mark it is a little more involved that the Bible quotes; however, I don't mind talking about a few. I didn't know you wanted to have Bible study! I am certainly not against you. I'm glad you made it through the night. Now you've got to buy a new calendar.
I don't believe in calendars.
OK - so - you are not against me - you just pray that I start thinking the way you do and ignore what Jesus says?What Jesus says? What is that Mark? 1 thessalonians 5:17 Never stop praying.
Praying for our unsaved friends is the best way to begin reaching them for Christ. The following verses give us a biblical outline for these prayers.
For God to draw them to Himself
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him . . . " (John 6:44).
That they would seek to know God
"But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deuteronomy 4:29).
For them to believe the Scriptures
" . . . faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17).
That Satan would be prevented from blinding them to the truth
"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4).There you go again. Unsaved and Saved. Them and Us. You have the Light and They are in darkness.
This is why your religion causes so many fights. you think you know what is best for me. I reject your religion because it is divisive nonsense. I hope the praying makes you feel better though.thank you Mark! My faith is not in the prayer itself but in the object of the prayer. It is so wonderful that we can discuss this and not be upset with each other. It's not about one trying to convince the other. We are both expressing who we are. That's a good thing! Notice "we!"
Well - I am used to it now, but many people are offended that you think you are saved and they are in need of saving and you have the answer.
Because you don't.It's a vicious circle Mark. I could be upset because atheists don't believe me .... of all people "me!" Are you saying that YOU don't believe me???
Funny, how you have no idea that those "unsaved friends" think your beliefs are just childish myths that have absolutely no bearing on them whatsoever.
Diane, sorry you feel this way, I was concerned so I looked back to the last time I replied to one of your comments and I had to go back to page 102 (5 pages ago) where I said.
"Actually the stats tell an interesting story. Christians are over represented in prison and of the approximate 16% of Atheists in the U.S. less than 0.5% of the prison population are Atheists. So, claiming Christians are more ethical than Atheists is just simply wrong."
You had made the claim that Christians were more ethical then Atheists, so I just defended myself. Now, if I had made the claim that I was more ethical then you as you did then I could see how you could perceive that I was picking on you.Geez Mark! Did I say that Christians are more ethical than atheists? I don't think so but Christians should certainly be ethical if they are sincere about their faith.
I was addressing what defines "morality." The Bible details what morality, for Christians, should be. We all do things that are immoral. As we grow in our faith we should do the right thing more often through discipline, undergirding of other believers and conviction of the Holy Spirit.
My point was "What defines morality for atheists?" I think JMC brought up secular humanism. If it wasn't you JMC, I apologize. Anyway, if secular humanism is what motivates atheists to be moral, then the key is secular humanism. However, not all atheists are secular humanists.
The main point is we can classify ourselves any way we want. The question is, "Does our behavior line up with what we say we are?" That goes back to the definition of morality. Wow! I'm dizzy now that I have completed the circle.Sorry Diane, you're mixing Mark and I up.
Diane wrote:
"The Bible details what morality, for Christians, should be."
I hope you are speaking of the NT and not the OT. You may be surprised how little your own set of ethics/morality comes from the bible. Our ethics tell us slavery, rape, and murder are wrong, but the bible endorses those things.bible endorses what?
it's said that selfrighteous gals aren't usually equalitarians...i read this in the newest testament here in this frm.... and that flannery o'connors always believed that 'a good man is hard to find'. and that was cause a lady character felt above the rest in quality and quantity of values and hence, she was purrfect according to those who tended to make an efficient use of grey matters.....
.I said the bible endorses slavery, rape and murder and I can back it up.
Ephesians 6:5 (NLT)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. 45 You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, 46 passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.
Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT
Anyone who is captured will be cut down—run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked, and their wives will be raped.
“Look, I will stir up the Medes against Babylon. They cannot be tempted by silver or bribed with gold. The attacking armies will shoot down the young men with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for children.”
Exodus 21:15 NKJV
And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.and the context was...what? year 2025 or 3K? or they were, at the times of the old testament, say close to Neanderthal? please...loiteral interpretation? then, if a medicine needs to be "taken 3 times a day" i cant interpret that i can take it with one minute or one hour or one second interval? and that will satisfy the dose of 3 a day? or I need a bit of more cooked gray matter?
Endorsement means?? if a man rapes...then he needs to pay...and maarry... etc Is that an endorsement? if there is a fine and/or the obligation to reapir reputation thru marriage THAT is not endorsement!!! there is no endorsement...maybe a fine is little, but even today, someone is innocent until proved guilty beyond readonable doubt and if that is not being consensual on big cases then what?
read back a dictionary and come back without fanaytism of your owm fancies!If a man rapes a woman and has to pay her father a fine (as the old testament dictates) how is he being punished? Women were considered property in the old testament. Since the man took away everything that made her valuable in the eyes of society, the rapist had to pay her father (not her) what she was worth. Additionally, the woman was FORCED to marry her rapist, and he could never divorce her. How is it moral to force a woman to live with, sleep with and have children with the man who raped her?
Additionally, if the rape happened within city limits and they determined somehow that the woman did not scream loud enough in protest - SHE was to be stoned.
That's morality to you?A faith is not a collection of words: a faith is a practice!! real doings!! you live in a society! you MUST follow the conventions.. To Ceasar what is his and to God what is his...that was the guideline....Every moment in history change conventions and sometimes it is beyond logic...morality? slippery word!! as long as you behave within the conventions, you are moral, is not it? and the conventions of the OT, in that society, those were the conventions ...or do you think that western society did better with the infamous letter A or King Henry VIII, based in his obsessions for a mistress and his distorsioned moral codes, divides a church based in his want of a divorce considered out of question because of the 'codes' of moral current then and so, he invents himself a new 'faith' that allows divorce......any morals there? or immorals?
Those with access to control will break any convention in pursue of convenience and nobody will speak of morality and that is what it is.
Why deny/obstruct/condemn gays their right to live their life, their only one, just the same as your only one, in the bright side of society just because the convention is that marriage must be between man and woman? and it's then not 'natural'? .To address natural needs is different in every one; your hunger, your likings, are particular and there is no code of morality to satisfy them as long as you do not harm others, then why obstruct gays to fulfill their lives on their own way without making them feeling ashamed? morality again? or the fact that some people are more courageous to say and step up to fulfill openly their needs reminds that conservative that he/she was not courageous enough to step up and do say it openly what his/her needs were?
or priests raping kids or sports coaches too, and us not doing but a shuckle?morality? who can speak of morality? morality is not a collection of words...it is how I go about to live without harming ME and others..morality is about social consequences in the long term; .if you manage that, you are dignified to me enough to be called a complete man....or woman..
Stats today say that of every three marriages, two practice adultery or, it is said also that inside many marriages a rape happens very frequently...that is a husband forcing a wife...so where is morality? a husband is allowed? then a woman still does not accumulate up to a 'resale" price? are you talking about 'this' kind of morality? or are you analizing history of morality; morality as impossed can have political consequences because man is a political animal...so, morality needs enforcement and access to control diminishes enforcement to those with control access and limits, to satisfy the equation, the power on the opposite side...and that, my dear Watson, is also immoral...I agree with you - morality is not defined by an old book. It's defined by society and what causes the least amount of harm. That is secular humanist morality - and it doesn't need a god. Hence, I'm an atheist.
Whilst not being a historian by any stroke of the imagination, I understand that King Henry VIII was very much a "product of his time," very concerned that he should not commit adultery, and very concerned that he should produce a male heir for the sake of his country. Also, that was in the face of much corruption within the Roman church-dominated Europe. I am not sure if that was so, and those were horrific and cruel times to live in, but the situation was much more complex than what you have portrayed, I suspect.
JCL, yes what you add or explain was that so but not quite; there is nothing wrong to hope to have a male heir but it was because he was also pushed by his many mistresses also ambitious, and all that was a dark space of betrayals and manipulations as it happens to be when affairs are conducted following personal and private goals regardless of the rest concerned...and his real wife, the spanish queen, was for a political inclination that would not benefit that king...so henry at all cost needed a male heir that would cancel the girls aspirations...specially his oldest daughter mary,..sorry, those are facts written as happened; you interpret them almost without a dash of doubt at the light of world affairs today as some methods have not changed...
I personally consider that there are historical events too mischiveous and clouded and lunatic, which anyway did not accomplish the final aspirations and brought only misery to the peoples...
what is good faith? does it stem from a belief in God or does it stem from values/ethics? does it stem from a need to survive or from a communitarian approach to live? does it need knowledge? intelligence? has morality a political implication? say of justice, for example... How do we compare morality and faith? does faith inspire our morality, hence morality is faith inspired and faith is God inspired then if a-b and b=c then a=c? then what or whre is God's presence in morality?
You don't need god's presence in order to have morality. That's the whole point. Faith is believing in something without any evidence or justification for that belief. Morality has nothing to do with faith - it has something to do with society and inter-personal relations.
why not all mankind do not exhibit common sense moralsw? what is it messing? happy holidays indeed!
Because, simply, not all societies value the same thing, and they have different social constructs in place to benefit their own people.
Agreed. Morality, like many other concepts (beauty, normal, purpose) is a man-made construct. We've decided what right and wrong is based on precedents and philosophical arguements. It is still entirely relative but society has solidified certain moral values as a means of promoting certain kinds of activities and behaviours that benefit the collective and make law easier to enforce.
God sets morality in stone, literally. That is how He eliminates the need for precedent-based morality. This does not however imply or prove that morality is conditional upon God. Morality is simply a guide, however maleable or rigid. It ceases to exist unless someone defines it. Therefore, without God, humans define it themselves.Sensibly stated Chris. When humans want to control other humans, they put a few more hooks onto their "god" and hang a few convenient morals onto those hooks. Yet the really evil things that they like to call "normal" get left of the hooks somehow.
By the way, totally off subject, in your Hub about Car modding, you have a photo showing a very interesting combination of yellow and red! Nice car! Nice lines, strong chassis!Hehe, yeah the best of both worlds. Strong and sexy
our standards for beauty, in general, are not universal; someone w/o eyes can't appreciate certain manifestations of beauty but certainly can Hence...feel/wish/accept/practice certain kind of beauty, usually soul-related, and this particularity is a good chunk of the essence any manifestation of art beauty and it's universal (most of the peoples will confirm; usually, when art is universally praised, then it becomes the standards and many schoold of thought or approach stem to follow, initate or, as usual, to differ
and that's another beauty, ain't it? and, morality, is somehow standardize by hemispheres...and by faith; what is "good faith" to me means that there are natural imperatives that in order to satisfy them with a 'personal' convenience approach weakens whatever morality standards prevail within a social realm; on the other hand, if to satisfy some imperatives a man (generalization for human race considers how fulfilling some of the needs will/might interfere in a negative way with the well being of others and will proceed to even deny/abnegate but not harm/affect others, that means the magnification of the morality standards prevailing even if nobody else will know "who" affected their life with the needs fulfilling...So, then good faith, for me, stems from a superior level of conscience/awareness not necessarily highly intellectual and I ask what could that be...
The word "normal" is an abused and can be a misleading word; the "majority' requirement that qualifies something as "normal" is just a numerical qualification and not a quality qualification....So if adultery is "normal" does it really mean then that it should not mess up some morality? So I take the concept of "normal" with care when talking about "normal"
The law is entangled solidly with morality even when there are loopholes and it is not "particular-cases" oriented thjat's why there is a jury and a judge to discern in search of the truthActually you tied 2 of the concepts I mentioned together very nicely. What if adultery was "normal", meaning that the majority of people did it. Well then it might also be considered moral. The problem with agreeing with this or seeing it as such is that we are unqualified to pass that sort of judgement since we currently deem it immoral. However if we had no opinion on the matter, if adultery was something we'd never heard of before and someone said "well everybody does it" you might just as well think it's both normal and moral. After all, ours is a species which tends to encourage activities that make people happy without hurting them in any way or violating their free will. That's great but who says we couldn't have evolved differently with different values. The moral standards we uphold might be different under different environmental circumstances in our own history. It's hard to see any other way of life than the one in which we currently reside but there's no reason there couldn't be others.
Sure....(it's Christmas morning, why am I on-line? Just gentle voices and music in the background, I am at peace with the world right now)...
Choosing that vice, Adultery, is useful. It is immoral because it hurts people! It can hurt your own inner self when it's over. It can help the other person's partner; his/her family, children. It can break up so many relationships as a result of desire, lust, selfishness.
The "nice" feelings when satisfying the lust are so fleeting, momentary and cheap. The aftermath is so long, disabling, expensive.
There are very good reasons for seeing adultery as immoral.
Cris...I disagree when you say that "...eliminates...pre..."; on the contrary, learning by example is effective, special in the 'morality" realm....one can learn how bad it can be at the several levels of consequences...and even if not convinced of right we can still learn to "avoid trouble" moral-wise in society; it's not about that kind of border that I ask when speaking of 'good-faith'...it's about our inner motives and the why's..and why some can more graciously do as beautiful as a truth can impress us and some do not...regardless of the faith in God...and I repeat, your 'approach' to excuse lack of morality because the majority does X...is just faultry
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that adultary is moral or that more humans doing it would make it more moral, as if there's a proportionality there. I'm making a purely hypothetical arguement that our moral system is based on majority and on perception as it pertains to our own species. If animals were intelligent enough to ponder these questions OR if other life in the universe exists (again, with sufficient intelligence), they may deem our immoral acts as moral. This doesn't apply when you confine the scope to humans because we already know that something like adultary is "wrong". If you tried to explain the wrongness to another species that you just discovered in some other part of the galaxy however, you may be startled to find that they either disagree or can't appreciate your logic and consider the act perfectly fine. If you adhere to the believe that no one sets the standards by which we conduct ourselves, except US, then this is a perfectly plausible scenario.
JCL makes a good point though. It's Christmas day so Merry Christmas everyone Don't let the harmless banter get you down. Be at peace today!You make a good point chris, human development could have very easily gone down a different path. Look at the chimp and the bonobo, identical looking but with a completely different social structure. Our social structure is like that of the chimps and not the bonobos. Chimps are much more war like and feel jealousy where as the bonobos make love not war. They have sex with anyone all day long and feel no jealousy. If humans developed like the bonobos we would not marry and would feel no jealousy therefore adult would not be amoral. To some humans who don't feel jealousy adult is a non issue. My old school and roommate fit into this category and as a result had a hard time holding onto a relationship and is most likely going to prison for a few years. For us to inflict our emotions onto another species would be ridiculous as, as you said it would be meaningless to them.
well you could argue in that case that jamaicans are descended from bonobos and russians from chimps!
we are like all animals not just apes...we have similarities to canines, felines, equine, rhinos, elephants and rats! that does not mean we evolved from them it could just as easily mean that we share a common creator, if anything all this does is prove there is only one god and not many since we are all quite similar.
also these days most people do not marry and do have sex with whoever they want so again...bonobo...Back to normal, christmas day is over!
That "creator" could be the collective memory (continuum) and intelligence (exploration) of billions upon billions of cells that grew from the first DNA that formed the first bacteria-like organisms. These learned, gradually, to cooperate, rather like the cells in a jelly fish. The god-like creating process grew outwards, expanding into every niche that became available. It developed its exploratory tendency ad infinitum. More and more cooperative conglomerations developed and adapted to the variety of niches which arose in tandem with each other. Competition naturally developed as a result.
The memory was all bound up somehow in the DNA Spiral structure, the properties of which modern day scientists are only just beginning to unravel and understand. This can be, for those who wish to ponder and admire, the fountain of awe and admiration.
The conglomerations, you and I, have become the "god" that does the judgments as part of the competition which has come about in the struggle for survival. This "god" is entirely man-made by the brains and defenses we have acquired.
IMHOThat right, we are as genetically similar to rhinos as we are to chimps! (sarcasm)
Sorry you were unable to follow the conversation. I was only stating that the emotions we feel are a product of our evolution. As proof I offered the chimp and the bonobo as examples of identical looking creatures with drastically different societies.
it is said that even rats have 'loyalties'
loyalty...it is an extremely defining word; humans have shown a cruel lack of loyalty many times in history and even, within a small circle of 12 selected people to be the starters of 'the' church, there was one, that who claimed tto love Jesus and acknowledged Him as the Son of God, he, Peter, he betrayed three times in a period of some hours before the Calvary; it cannot, for me at least, have been just a coincidence..It is meant to be a lesson againts selfrighteousness(the worst of arrogance): not to be/feel accomplished above others because we "know" more or better than others...arrogance separates us fro any other animal in the kingdom as not even the lion, with its ferocity and strength is arrogant....and btw, the 'coincidence' reason is too a 'coincidence' generator that is too selective...
Anyway, fear to die, or instinct to survive is what we have in common with felines and canines; at man's level, betrayals acquire the extent of cruelty too often in the name of selfpreservatin when indeed there is not such a menace...it's just a faulty analysis (if any) and the temptation to just grow more in comfort..., even for the sufferer; if not, analyze history, the one we know about migrations thru the planet, empires, etc...personal immoral motives have created too much misery, pain.death..It has been assigned to God's fault for creating or allowing or looking the other way...but my dear fellows, and just because you are here dilucidating morality and if a God or if not, only for that, I feel hopeful, and trust and feel...human; I may sound somewhat 'crazy' or aloof, but I think that I have learned...that, like mom kept saying all the time, hope is life and life is hope, other than that there is despair, few minutes of comfort to get back to hell (this is hell and we get purified here and it's just like the bible says without giving us the coordinates here and now...just look around and you will see here, in other continents, an unspeakable death by the second out of poverty, of illnesses (of the body and of the soul) w/o any hopes for relief, or kids suffering...it is pure hell, a burning one for whoever sees that and goes on with 'normal' life...So it is hell for who suffers and for who sees and knows of it, and it to be blamed upon all of us.and not other peoples that we think are doers; each of us must give of ourselves as much until we only remain with the strictly necessary to live on...I am not talking of just materialities...that would be the easiest to do and for us who are priviledged by our upbringing and current life, we know that is not just about charity, it's about guiding others to dignify their life all of the options there always are available thru so many voluntary groups to relief even pain, physical pain...There is access we must reach out to so much treasures in the hearts of our fewllows...many too do not know how to extend their little or 2 cents but they would;
once we have done the basics of dignity, then we can speak of morality and of God's existence...maybe it will not be necessary... love never fails, at any level...we must be always willing to forgive and to condemn...the same approach we use with our children...When someone has a kid he/she has all the kids around...a poem to think about....
Robert Frost, 1920
Some say the world will end in fire
Some say, in ice,
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire--
But, if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction, ice
Is also great, and would suffice.
Interesting that you didn't argue that the bible doesn't endorse or condone murder or slavery? You picked Rape to argue against. I could supply many more scripture, but no need JM took care of that section very nicely.
Sorry, but the Bible does no such thing. It only commands you to obey and worship your god, and shun those who don't obey and worship the same god. Morals are not taught in the Bible.
No, WE don't.
Logic and reason.Trouble, I respectively disagree. I may not agree with you but I certainly respect your right to have that perspective.
It doesn't matter if you disagree. You are unable to show any validity in your claim that the Bible teaches morals, when it does no such thing. Show us where it teaches morals, if you can.
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you.You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property,passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.
Well, what we learn from scripture is that it's okay to buy slaves from other nations if you're Israeli, and you can buy non-Israeli child residents. They can be treated as property much like a shovel, BUT never treat an Israelite like property. Strange, sounds like something a group of people would right to have their people guilt free.
Oh wait, you weren't asking me... Sorry.There are people discussing this on the Internet. One example: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 838AAesoye Commenters stated that the Leviticus passage was about Jewish custom. Not my comment but it appears that most criticisms quote the Old Testament. Jesus came to earth to free us from the Old Testament of law and bring us under the New Testament and the Age of Grace.
I maintain that a passage should not be lifted out and taken out of context. When one doesn't believe in salvation, certainly none of the other passages will make sense. Debating specific passages is not profitable and, from Christian perspective, cannot be intelligently discussed in a vacuum.
Funny, how you can't see there is nothing intelligent in your remarks whatsoever.What is very interesting is how Christians are accused of trying to force their beliefs on others and being unloving. I attempt to use wisdom and compassion when addressing anyone. I don't think Christians can be the only ones accused of trying to force their beliefs on others.
I agree with you in that respect, Diane. I have not said that all christians force their beliefs on others. And I accept that you don't either..... I am not being unloving in this discussion, just pointing out where the presumption that the christian message is the one and only belief that everyone in the world needs to, and should follow in order to find a comfortable life in the "here-after" is fallacious. And I will say, without wishing to hurt your feelings but it must be said, such a presumption is arrogant, since nothing can be proven beyond doubt and all opinion on the subject is based upon preferred belief.
Your "...attempt to use wisdom and compassion when addressing anyone" is accepted and it has not gone un-noticed. I have tried to do the same from my opposing perspective, sometimes not very well, I admit.
However, there are many people who call themselves "christian," who like others to believe that they (the christians) are seen in their god's books as "better" individuals, and assured of some kind of existence in a theoretical life beyond death. I do not accept this, and refuse to allow those christians to regard me as inferior to them.
I do not stand to be judged by a theoretical "god" that will determine whether my "soul" will carry on after my physical death. Therefore my prime consideration about doing "right" or "wrong" is how my action(s) affect my neighbour. This has much more influence on my "good" works than if I were doing it in fear of retribution from a supposed spirit.
I hope you can see the logic of this, and please do not be afraid of a debate. You do not have to bow to my understandings.I understand what you are saying johnny. I'm glad you've noticed that I attempt to be compassionate and careful. That is a lesson that I have learned over the years, especially in my professional life. Sometimes quietness screams.
It gets to be a vicious circle. I try to explain that I don't feel like I'm more than you. I explain why. It isn't good enough and then we go back and forth. Perhaps atheists think they are above Christians because they ridicule them and speak of them as less intelligent. I have no problem accepting that as being an atheist perspective. We can all think whatever we want without infringing on anyone else's rights.
It is good to have inner peace about whatever position one holds. If that position causes one to infringe upon the rights or feelings of others ... that is not good!
Going to church online now! Have a good evening!Most Christians are dishonest as you yourself have shown. Is that a sign of less intelligence?
That's Christianity.
No, you don't, you say whatever you believe, regardless of whether it's true or not. Often, it isn't.
True, there are other religions that do the same thing.@ diannetrotter, may I please know the link where you hear service online? many times I miss service as my health isn't always up to par. Your link would help me a lot!
This was intended for Jews and it was (according to the bible) directions from your God. It's okay for you to take specific passages out of the bible, but not others. If you believe the entire bible to be the word of God then you need to except that God gave these instructions to the Jews and slavery is not a problem for your God.
Tired of this discussion###$$.... Let us conclude here.... wise man and woman!
I'm always amused when someone decides that we are done with a particular forum. Control issues perhaps. You don't have to stay you know. Just press the do not follow button.
Are there any people with greater control issues than those of the "christian right," who tend to be judgmental, holier-than-thou, dogmatic, yet more concerned with the "life-here-after" than actually doing what is right here and now?
I am not knocking those who have a simple, personal faith that helps them through the difficult times of life, and encourages them to think outside of themselves, to the down-to-earth needs of their neighbours. Because such faith as this can also bring great joy and celebration in times of plenty and grace. Yet these people are not those who are judgmental of others. Some criticism of course is in order, as long as it is shared lovingly. But out-and-out, blind application of dogmatic biblicism is, in my opinion, one of the most negative practices in our world today.
There are more people who believe in God than atheists!
We live in this democratic world where everyone's voice should be heard...
Majority wins.. God exists... Atheist need to follow ..just a thoughtThe majority does not always win, and might does not make right. That's what the nature of democracy means - it protects the rights of the few from the will of the many.
Sorry you're bored - why don't you check out another forum and let the rest of us continue to converse like we enjoy doing.
Saying "more people believe in god than don't" is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Doesn't mean all of those people are right. It is possible that they're all wrong.That is true. You need look no further than the album sales of boy bands in the 90's to see that large numbers of people can be completely wrong.
Oh! A good politician here!. .. I was giving just a thought; I don’t mean to make a fuss ..well, I leave you guys in peace to continue this endless debate, …
The hopes of many christians are endless, and without good reason..... only belief, made to individual order.
I was giving a thought and you dared challenge me, so I'm leaving. If you had cheered and applauded me, I might have ....
There was no reply button after jonny's comments to me. Here is my response:
You: With respect Diana, what you are describing is fanaticism. As though "one-size-fits-all." You don't have to accept, or even understand, everything about another person's point of view or opinion. The world is large enough for all of us to live side-by-side.
Response: If it is fanaticism, so be it. One-size-fits all – absolutely! John 14:6 says, Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me". Acts 4:12 says, Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
I agree that the world is large enough to live side by side. The Bible tells us that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and consider others more valuable than ourselves.
My not believing in what you believe should not hinder your belief, IF your belief is more than surface deep. If your belief IS only surface deep, if it's only there for show, to attract people of similar beliefs to look up to you, admire you for it, then your belief is so shallow, so weak, so unimportant in the long term it's not worth worrying about. If your belief is worth keeping and going to serve your deeper needs, it will withstand any amount of critique and debate, without others such as myself supporting it.
Response – your beliefs do not hinder mine. If I were a Bible teacher it would be my responsibility to read about other religions in order to teach about them. I’m not a Bible scholar and my days are quite full. When we have Bible studies that compare other religions with Christianity, I find out information about those relisions. I don’t recall asking you or anyone to support what I believe.
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 1 Peter 3:15
In other words, don't wait on me agreeing with you. Don't even wish that I should agree with you. Respect my atheist understanding, which for me is really much more substantial than "only skin deep." I have come to my understandings and opinions over a long period, with lots of questioning of my self, my desires, my needs, my yearnings. I am so strong in the answers arrived at, that I can freely allow you your choices without endangering my own.
Response – This is ironic. Is it something that you do … respect my Christian understanding, which for me is really much more substantial than “ony skin deep.” I was actually responding to JMC. In your response you appear to be accusing me of things that I did not do or say.
Yet my mind is still open to new information, other ideas, other possibilities. NO! Please don't take this as an invite for you to evangelise me! I would be offended if you did. Just accept me, as I am, in the same way that you hope your "God" will accept you, just as you are..... Ok?
Response – I don’t engage in debate. If you will look back at my responses and over all Hubs on which I comment. I certainly accept you as you are. The question is … do you accept me as I am without attacks about shallowness, weakness, unimportance, etc?No attacks at all, Diana, just putting my case so that there can be no misunderstanding of my position.
Unless I respond to you as I do respond to any christian who thinks they have the answers to my life, then I would singling you out and that would be unfair.
I do not accept any of the biblical beliefs which you have stated. I don't accept that there is a "judgmental god" that sits in judgment of you or me or anyone else. You of course are entitled to come to your own conclusion. This is the part that I respect.
Lack of a willingness to debate is probably a good thing on your part, because such a debate could never be resolved in a Hub like this one, as has been shown throughout the several thousand posts we have seen..... it's a total waste of time. So yes, all I can do is accept that your position, your belief(s) will not change, and let you be.
I would never again set foot inside an evangelical church, not for a baptism or a marriage or a funeral. Because I know that I would be subject, as a "captive audience," to a sermon attempting to change my opinion..... and at that point it would be all one way..... I would not be in a position to discuss. So I would not attend.
I would be happy to attend a catholic or high anglican services for any of the above, even though the teachings and beliefs are not mine; because for one thing I could spend my time looking at the beautiful art and listening to beautiful music. Secondly I would be able to concentrate on celebrating the individuals who were the centre of attention.The liturgy I could excuse with a smile! Admittedly the art and the music has been inspired by the faith and belief of sincere people in the past. I can admire, yet do not need to "take on board."
No, Diane, I cannot accept that "one-size-fits-all." That is not even "faith." It even puts restrictions on the god that is involved, and "infinite" implies no boundaries.
- OllieTrolleyposted 10 years ago
0I'm Wiccan, but I don't believe there is a right or wrong religion. I have other Wiccan friends, gypsy friends, atheist friends, and Christian finds. They respect me, I respect them. Simple.
Related Discussions
- 123
How Are Atheists Created?
by yoshi97 14 years ago
Before I go into this discussion, we all need to understand that I am not a scientist, I am not a prophet, and I am not an expert on the topic. I am merely trying to offer my belief in how atheism occurs. And why some of you might not like what I am about to say, understand that it is not meant as...
- 2102
Why Do Christians Have Such A Problem With Atheism?
by Brittany Williams 4 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...
- 289
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
by PhoenixV 6 years ago
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
- 145
Why do atheists spend so much time thinking and debating about God?
by John Harper 10 years ago
Why do atheists spend so much time thinking and debating about God?I mean why spend time over something they say they do not believe exists?I don't believe in global warming, maybe a wrote a hub sometime explaining why, but then I moved on.Before I came to faith, I never gave God a thought, why...
- 374
What are the most annoying responses Christians give to questions atheists ask?
by Dwight Phoenix 8 years ago
What are the most annoying responses Christians give to questions atheists ask?I'm a christian and I think that it would be helpful in ministry, if Christians new a bit more about how atheists felt about a Christian's rebuttal
- 78
Why would god create atheists who can't be convinced of his existence?
by M. T. Dremer 4 years ago
Why would god create atheists who can't be convinced of his existence?