God - tyrannical dictator?

[Sketch]

For those who believe in the God of Abraham, particularly Christians, have you ever thought of his oversight in terms of how the "smaller" rulers rule?

Am I safe in equating God's universal role as leader of the universe?

If so, it seems safe in not qualifying as a democracy, or a republic. It only makes sense to assign his rule as a perpetual dictatorship, or absolute unrevolving monarchy.

And how does posterity judge dictators and absolute monarchs?

Maybe in how they treat their dissenters?

I invite your insights and comments.

[Jíbaro]

I don't argue with the ONE who gives me the breath to breathe.
It is like cursing my Mom for bringing me into the world; more than foolish.
Particularly in view that all my definitions of an ethical framework with which to indict GOD would be flawed to begin with.
It is like saying that there is a Law greater than the Creator of the Law.
More than illogical, it would be nonsense.
To tell you the truth, the basic premise with which to try to impugne GOD's Character is so that we could be "gods to ourselves". In such a scenario, the guy with the most muscle wins; ideal for Ghenghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler and all the world's rogues to establish their right to rule.

That is, if we honestly examine the debate from the ground up, and not just make a sham kangaroo court with which to try and lynch GOD.
Which has been done before.
Like 2008-30 years ago :confused:.

[Hadassah]

For those who believe in the God of Abraham, particularly Christians, have you ever thought of his oversight in terms of how the "smaller" rulers rule?

Am I safe in equating God's universal role as leader of the universe?

If so, it seems safe in not qualifying as a democracy, or a republic. It only makes sense to assign his rule as a perpetual dictatorship, or absolute unrevolving monarchy.

And how does posterity judge dictators and absolute monarchs?

Maybe in how they treat their dissenters?

I invite your insights and comments.


Yeah, sometimes God does seem to be a tyrannical dictator. Been there, still struggling with it. All I know is that what seems to me to be the reality, what my feelings dictate as reality, is not usually the case. What else do you want me to say about it?

[biggles53]

double post.

[biggles53]

For those who believe in the God of Abraham, particularly Christians, have you ever thought of his oversight in terms of how the "smaller" rulers rule?

Am I safe in equating God's universal role as leader of the universe?

If so, it seems safe in not qualifying as a democracy, or a republic. It only makes sense to assign his rule as a perpetual dictatorship, or absolute unrevolving monarchy.

And how does posterity judge dictators and absolute monarchs?

Maybe in how they treat their dissenters?

I invite your insights and comments.

His is the ultimate totalitarian rule. But it goes further than merely a 'state' control of your actions. His is far more Orwellian, in that he acts also as thought police!

It's why I think that so many 'believers' are so rabidly anti-communist. They can't stand the competition....!

[Sketch]

I don't argue with the ONE who gives me the breath to breathe.
It is like cursing my Mom for bringing me into the world; more than foolish.
Particularly in view that all my definitions of an ethical framework with which to indict GOD would be flawed to begin with.
It is like saying that there is a Law greater than the Creator of the Law.
More than illogical, it would be nonsense.
To tell you the truth, the basic premise with which to try to impugne GOD's Character is so that we could be "gods to ourselves". In such a scenario, the guy with the most muscle wins; ideal for Ghenghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler and all the world's rogues to establish their right to rule.

That is, if we honestly examine the debate from the ground up, and not just make a sham kangaroo court with which to try and lynch GOD.
Which has been done before.
Like 2008-30 years ago :confused:.


I really have difficulty following your posts.

[Snow]

For those who believe in the God of Abraham, particularly Christians, have you ever thought of his oversight in terms of how the "smaller" rulers rule?

Am I safe in equating God's universal role as leader of the universe?

If so, it seems safe in not qualifying as a democracy, or a republic. It only makes sense to assign his rule as a perpetual dictatorship, or absolute unrevolving monarchy.

And how does posterity judge dictators and absolute monarchs?

Maybe in how they treat their dissenters?

I invite your insights and comments.

Tyrannical dictator?

In what cruel, arbitrary way has God lorded over you recently?

[biggles53]

Tyrannical dictator?

In what cruel, arbitrary way has God lorded over you recently?

May I get this one Sketch?

The entire premise upon which his 'rule' is predicated is both cruel and arbitrary in the extreme.

You have NO choice - other than Hobson's choice...

You WILL observe no other gods. And this applies not only to your actions, but also to your THOUGHTS. To do so will ensure a pathway to the eternal abyss. Your 'eternal' survival depends upon toeing the totalitarian line.

His 'love' is very much conditional. If you deviate from the required path...you burn. Fall into line and you take the prize.You must live your entire life, knowing that the possibility always exists that you may not make muster, and will be condemned to the flames.

And the most heinous part is that, as a supposedly omniscient being, he knew at the outset whether or not you would 'pass' or 'fail' - and yet he continues throughout your life to dangle in front of you the promise, while at the same time re-issuing the threat.

Thought-crime, intimidation, deception.....what a guy...!

[Meriweather]

May I get this one Sketch?

The entire premise upon which his 'rule' is predicated is both cruel and arbitrary in the extreme.

You have NO choice - other than Hobson's choice...

You WILL observe no other gods. And this applies not only to your actions, but also to your THOUGHTS. To do so will ensure a pathway to the eternal abyss. Your 'eternal' survival depends upon toeing the totalitarian line.

His 'love' is very much conditional. If you deviate from the required path...you burn. Fall into line and you take the prize.You must live your entire life, knowing that the possibility always exists that you may not make muster, and will be condemned to the flames.

And the most heinous part is that, as a supposedly omniscient being, he knew at the outset whether or not you would 'pass' or 'fail' - and yet he continues throughout your life to dangle in front of you the promise, while at the same time re-issuing the threat.

Thought-crime, intimidation, deception.....what a guy...!


1. Man falls from the ideal. Instead of leaving man in this state of dis-grace, God promises redemption.

2. God shows His love for us is so great, He will lay down His life for us.

3. We are assured sins ARE forgiven.

4. We are taught that the Kingdom of God is at hand--within everyone's reach--right here and now for our lives on earth.

Grace, redemption, forgiveness, and opportunity to take part in God's eternal life and promises right now, today. That has been God's revelation and invitation to us.

I am puzzled by your bitterness towards God and your continued wish to slander Him. Instead of non-belief that there is a God, you seem to me to have built a picture in your own mind of a monstrous God--a God you do not have to believe in. I encourage you in your disbelief of this god as it is a false one.

[biggles53]

1. Man falls from the ideal. Instead of leaving man in this state of dis-grace, God promises redemption.

God creates this 'fall' in the first place. He supposedly creates humans with sexuality and desires and then punishes them for using them! And the crushing hypocrisy of this is that, as a supposedly omniscient being, HE KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN WHEN HE 'CREATED" THEM! Talk about pulling the wings off flies....!

2. God shows His love for us is so great, He will lay down His life for us.

NOT a big trick for one who is supposedly omnipotent! And the love comes with strings. Some father....!

3. We are assured sins ARE forgiven.

Except the one involving 'dissing' him.....!

4. We are taught that the Kingdom of God is at hand--within everyone's reach--right here and now for our lives on earth.

Through bribery and threats.....

I am puzzled by your bitterness towards God and your continued wish to slander Him. Instead of non-belief that there is a God, you seem to me to have built a picture in your own mind of a monstrous God--a God you do not have to believe in. I encourage you in your disbelief of this god as it is a false one.

Hmmm....a false "disbelief" or a false belief?? Never mind. And it's not an "instead". I do NOT have a belief in a god - nor do I think that one who offers such a deal through a combination of threats and bribery for affection is deserving, even if he existed, of any response other than scorn.....

[Marleysdaddy]

For those who believe in the God of Abraham, particularly Christians, have you ever thought of his oversight in terms of how the "smaller" rulers rule?

Am I safe in equating God's universal role as leader of the universe?

If so, it seems safe in not qualifying as a democracy, or a republic. It only makes sense to assign his rule as a perpetual dictatorship, or absolute unrevolving monarchy.

And how does posterity judge dictators and absolute monarchs?

Maybe in how they treat their dissenters?

I invite your insights and comments.

As much as you may hate this :) if there is a benevolent god, I think that entity would approve of this post. My concept of god (if god exists and is more than the clockmaker) is one of a deity who wants humans to use reason and to question EVERYTHING...otherwise, what do we have these great big cerebra for? :D If there is a god, that god treats the dissenters very well...it's god's "followers" who may not treat the dissenters well.

[Meriweather]

God creates this 'fall' in the first place. He supposedly creates humans with sexuality and desires and then punishes them for using them! And the crushing hypocrisy of this is that, as a supposedly omniscient being, HE KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN WHEN HE 'CREATED" THEM! Talk about pulling the wings off flies....!

So say you.

NOT a big trick for one who is supposedly omnipotent! And the love comes with strings. Some father....!

Except the one involving 'dissing' him.....!

Through bribery and threats.....

You misunderstand so much, and I find your hostility mind boggling.


Hmmm....a false "disbelief" or a false belief?? Never mind. And it's not an "instead". I do NOT have a belief in a god - nor do I think that one who offers such a deal through a combination of threats and bribery for affection is deserving, even if he existed, of any response other than scorn.....

You say you have no belief, yet you claim to know God and His motives so well. Again I tell you, the false god you have created in your own mind is not deserving of any thought at all.

[biggles53]

So say you.

Not at all. The idea that your god is omniscient is most definitely NOT an invention of mine! I leave that piece of creative imagination up to others. However, if you're going to claim it, you also have to accept the consequences that flow from it. If you believe that your god "knows all, sees all", then you also must accept that he would have to have known all that would have flowed from his creative act.



You misunderstand so much, and I find your hostility mind boggling.

You mistake a dismissal of a ridiculous concept as "hostility". I can't be hostile towards something I don't believe in, can I...?

You say you have no belief, yet you claim to know God and His motives so well. Again I tell you, the false god you have created in your own mind is not deserving of any thought at all.


Again, yes, I have no belief. I therefore cannot "know God". But, I AM aware of the faulty logic proferred by those who DO claim his existence. And I agree with you - a "false god" "is not deserving of any thought at all"........

[Meriweather]

Not at all. The idea that your god is omniscient is most definitely NOT an invention of mine! I leave that piece of creative imagination up to others. However, if you're going to claim it, you also have to accept the consequences that flow from it. If you believe that your god "knows all, sees all", then you also must accept that he would have to have known all that would have flowed from his creative act.

I, myself, do not use the words omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etcetera to describe God. The words fail to do the concepts justice and are often twisted by others for definitions not intended.

You mistake a dismissal of a ridiculous concept as "hostility". I can't be hostile towards something I don't believe in, can I...?

But your presence and your posts here does not promote the idea that you are dismissing--rather that you are engaging. I wouldn't think you could be hostile towards something you don't believe in--yet you do come across as hostile--which leads us full circle. . . .

Again, yes, I have no belief. I therefore cannot "know God". But, I AM aware of the faulty logic proferred by those who DO claim his existence. And I agree with you - a "false god" "is not deserving of any thought at all"........

Does this mean you are now ready to discuss the true God, or does it mean our discussions are at an end?

[Frazzled]

May I get this one Sketch?

The entire premise upon which his 'rule' is predicated is both cruel and arbitrary in the extreme.

You have NO choice - other than Hobson's choice...

You WILL observe no other gods. And this applies not only to your actions, but also to your THOUGHTS. To do so will ensure a pathway to the eternal abyss. Your 'eternal' survival depends upon toeing the totalitarian line.

His 'love' is very much conditional. If you deviate from the required path...you burn. Fall into line and you take the prize.You must live your entire life, knowing that the possibility always exists that you may not make muster, and will be condemned to the flames.

And the most heinous part is that, as a supposedly omniscient being, he knew at the outset whether or not you would 'pass' or 'fail' - and yet he continues throughout your life to dangle in front of you the promise, while at the same time re-issuing the threat.

Thought-crime, intimidation, deception.....what a guy...!

Not everyone who is a devout follower of Christ believes this is true. You are painting with a very broad brush.

[biggles53]

I, myself, do not use the words omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etcetera to describe God. The words fail to do the concepts justice and are often twisted by others for definitions not intended.

"not intended", or just a bit embarassing? If you don't believe your god possesses those three qualities, how much ELSE of your bible do you discount?


But your presence and your posts here does not promote the idea that you are dismissing--rather that you are engaging. I wouldn't think you could be hostile towards something you don't believe in--yet you do come across as hostile--which leads us full circle. . . .

I have been told before that my brusque 'debating' style comes across as harsh or aggressive. It's not my intent. It's just that I prefer to make my points directly. I AM dismissive of the arguments for the existence of gods (so are you, by the way - you're an atheist, minus one...:))), but, again, I CAN'T be hostile towards something I have no confidence in even existing. And no, I'm not acting out some deep felt grudge against god...!

Does this mean you are now ready to discuss the true God, or does it mean our discussions are at an end?

Ah yes....the "one true god". By last count, there are about 10,000 of 'em, aren't there? All claiming to be 'The One' of course........

[biggles53]

Not everyone who is a devout follower of Christ believes this is true. You are painting with a very broad brush.

Ah, I sense a "No True Scotsman" fallacy in the air....

Please explain the parts that a "devout follower of Christ" might omit and still remain genuine...

[Frazzled]

Ah, I sense a "No True Scotsman" fallacy in the air....

Please explain the parts that a "devout follower of Christ" might omit and still remain genuine...

I don't believe in hell...
I don't believe that free will is circumvented...
His love is not conditional.....
This life isn't a Pass/Fail test....

[signcut]

I think that you have decided that you know all that you need to know about the subject, and have proceeded from there. Certainly not uncommon, but I would say that you know less than you believe, or that your position, quite obvious, skews how you see it.

God creates this 'fall' in the first place. He supposedly creates humans with sexuality and desires and then punishes them for using them! And the crushing hypocrisy of this is that, as a supposedly omniscient being, HE KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN WHEN HE 'CREATED" THEM! Talk about pulling the wings off flies....!

We are not "punished" for using our sexuality. We can be for using it indiscriminately. Sorry, but there is a world of difference between the two; hypocrisy is what you have, incorrectly, labelled it. An incorrect label means only what the applier means it to.

NOT a big trick for one who is supposedly omnipotent! And the love comes with strings. Some father....!

I won't get into arguing whether or not, or how much, sacrifice or effort goes/went into Christ's crucifixion. What love comes, truly, without giving something in return? God's love, actually. He loves us, regardless of what we choose to do. The proof of that love is that we always, despite what we have done, or not done, can be forgiven. The forgiveness comes with condition, the love does not. I think that most parents understand this concept... :)

Except the one involving 'dissing' him.....!

Any and all can be forgiven.

Through bribery and threats.....

Through your choice. Have you taken that choice? No, by your own admission. Has your life been made unbearable, not worth living? If not, then "threats" really aren't working, and a non-working threat... really isn't one. Have the lives of believers been made so tangibly better that you feel the need to change? If not, then the "bribery" is the same; not much of a bribe at all. It is simply a choice that one chooses to make, or not.

Are there repercussions? Are there repercussions for any choice we make, or not?

Hmmm....a false "disbelief" or a false belief?? Never mind. And it's not an "instead". I do NOT have a belief in a god - nor do I think that one who offers such a deal through a combination of threats and bribery for affection is deserving, even if he existed, of any response other than scorn.....

Your choice, of course. But your response here belies your statement here:

You mistake a dismissal of a ridiculous concept as "hostility". I can't be hostile towards something I don't believe in, can I...?

Again, it is your life, your choice. We all have to make our decisions about what we believe based on what we understand to be right. But, shouldn't we at least be honest with ourselves and others about where we stand, on our beliefs, and on the beliefs of others? :cool:

[signcut]

For those who believe in the God of Abraham, particularly Christians, have you ever thought of his oversight in terms of how the "smaller" rulers rule?

Am I safe in equating God's universal role as leader of the universe?

If so, it seems safe in not qualifying as a democracy, or a republic. It only makes sense to assign his rule as a perpetual dictatorship, or absolute unrevolving monarchy.

And how does posterity judge dictators and absolute monarchs?

Maybe in how they treat their dissenters?

I invite your insights and comments.

That is how posterity judges. That means, however, that it is how man judges man. If you were to pretend, for a moment, that there is/was a God, could we really use human ways to judge Him? (Or Her, if you prefer... :D)

Hypothetically, I suppose so, but it would seem to be an awful stretch to do so.

[yguy]

And how does posterity judge dictators and absolute monarchs?How do you imagine "posterity" would have judged the Roman Empire had it maintained hegemony to this day?Maybe in how they treat their dissenters?Do people like Stalin and Hitler qualify as "dissenters" in your mind?

[Sketch]

That is how posterity judges. That means, however, that it is how man judges man. If you were to pretend, for a moment, that there is/was a God, could we really use human ways to judge Him? (Or Her, if you prefer... :D)

Hypothetically, I suppose so, but it would seem to be an awful stretch to do so.

Interesting. "do not question the great Oz"

[Sketch]

Tyrannical dictator?

In what cruel, arbitrary way has God lorded over you recently?

he's been fine with me, not one iota of interference.

But this is a theoretical question about a theoretical overseer. I do not know how LDS deals with the afterlife and punishment. Punishment of the dead (not an idea that came into being until christianity) is quite a concept.

[Sketch]

1. Man falls from the ideal. Instead of leaving man in this state of dis-grace, God promises redemption.

2. God shows His love for us is so great, He will lay down His life for us.

3. We are assured sins ARE forgiven.

4. We are taught that the Kingdom of God is at hand--within everyone's reach--right here and now for our lives on earth.

Grace, redemption, forgiveness, and opportunity to take part in God's eternal life and promises right now, today. That has been God's revelation and invitation to us.

I am puzzled by your bitterness towards God and your continued wish to slander Him. Instead of non-belief that there is a God, you seem to me to have built a picture in your own mind of a monstrous God--a God you do not have to believe in. I encourage you in your disbelief of this god as it is a false one.

how does this fit with the concept of an eternal hell? Of the apocalypse?

If one finds himself in hell, is there any means of pardon? Is there any sentence other than "forever"?

[Sketch]

As much as you may hate this :) if there is a benevolent god, I think that entity would approve of this post. My concept of god (if god exists and is more than the clockmaker) is one of a deity who wants humans to use reason and to question EVERYTHING...otherwise, what do we have these great big cerebra for? :D If there is a god, that god treats the dissenters very well...it's god's "followers" who may not treat the dissenters well.

I like your god better.

however, yours doesn't seem so much like the god of the bible.

[yguy]

My concept of god (if god exists and is more than the clockmaker) is one of a deity who wants humans to use reason and to question EVERYTHING...otherwise, what do we have these great big cerebra for? :DEve to Adam:

"Why of course we're supposed to eat everything in the garden, you big dummy. What do you think we have these great big mouths for?"

[Jeemie]

Eve to Adam:

"Why of course we're supposed to eat everything in the garden, you big dummy. What do you think we have these great big mouths for?"

So there has been a divine command issued by God at some point telling us not to use our reason, analagous to telling Adam and Even not to eat the fruit?

Can you show us that command, please?

[signcut]

Interesting. "do not question the great Oz"

Not what I meant.

If an ant chooses to judge the sun, can it, logically, use ant measurements to do so? I suppose it would be easier to use aliens as an example, rather than a deity. If/when aliens show up here, they will be judged by our standards. Will this fit? Will it even be logical, really?

We will do so, not because we are innately illogical (though some may argue that :D), but because it is our only frame of reference. That, of course, does not make it right, or necessarily give us a usable answer.

[yguy]

So there has been a divine command issued by God at some point telling us not to use our reason, analagous to telling Adam and Even not to eat the fruit?Not that I know of. Why do you ask?

[Jeemie]

Not that I know of. Why do you ask?

Because of your choice of analogy in responding to Marley.

[Sketch]

How do you imagine "posterity" would have judged the Roman Empire had it maintained hegemony to this day?Do people like Stalin and Hitler qualify as "dissenters" in your mind?

Stalin and hitler, would seem to be dissenters, but this is by no means clear. I could be that one or both of them made the requisite confession and recognition god and were forgiven their sins prior to their death.

And I think its also fair to say that good people, much better than Hitler of Stalin, are likely to spend eternity in hell, if one believes in a literal reading of the bible. Me, for example.

[yguy]

Because of your choice of analogy in responding to Marley.God never told them not to eat anything, just to stay away from one tree out of God knows how many others.

[Jeemie]

God never told them not to eat anything, just to stay away from one tree out of God knows how many others.

I can never figure out what you're trying to say.

How does this response fit with the analogy you gave to Marley?

[yguy]

Stalin and hitler, would seem to be dissenters, but this is by no means clear. I could be that one or both of them made the requisite confession and recognition god and were forgiven their sins prior to their death.Barring that most unlikely possibility, would you have a problem with them being sent to Hell?And I think its also fair to say that good people, much better than Hitler of Stalin, are likely to spend eternity in hell, if one believes in a literal reading of the bible. Me, for example."Much better than Hitler or Stalin" isn't saying a whole lot.

However, I would remind you that arguably, there are at least three "dissenters" in the Bible: Abraham, Moses and Jonah. They don't seem to have been treated all that badly.

[yguy]

I can never figure out what you're trying to say.You're more likely to get it if you stop trying. ;)

[Jeemie]

You're more likely to get it if you stop trying. ;)

You're right...because I've come to the conclusion that people who think they're clever...usually aren't.

[Sketch]

Barring that most unlikely possibility, would you have a problem with them being sent to Hell?"

I don't think I have too much of a problem with such extreme examples of immoral behavior, but it is an interesting question. To burn and suffer every minute of every day for eternity - is there really a crime that deserves such punishment?

Much better than Hitler or Stalin" isn't saying a whole lot.

that's sort of my point. It seems that (and perhaps I am wrong in my understanding) hell is a one sentence fits all offenders, type of penal facility.

However, I would remind you that arguably, there are at least three "dissenters" in the Bible: Abraham, Moses and Jonah. They don't seem to have been treated all that badly.

Another interesting point. How does a believer deal with this? Take Moses as the example, if it were up to you and how you look at things, if you had captured Moses after he had killed a man, or after his murderous rampage after he came down from the mountain and found the golden calf, would you have argued for the death penalty?

[Meriweather]

how does this fit with the concept of an eternal hell? Of the apocalypse?

If one finds himself in hell, is there any means of pardon? Is there any sentence other than "forever"?

The concept of eternal hell only fits within the context of eternal life. In religious thought, it is only God who is eternal, without beginning and without end. If we follow our religious books we see within God's revelation of Himself to man that despite man's fall or failures, God intends to redeem; that sins are forgiven; that He will give His life for us. The eternal God is eternal love. This is what God offers.

When I teach, I explain to the students in my classroom I expect for them to remain in the room for the entire fifty minutes--so to use the restroom and get their drinks before class or wait until it ends. People moving into and out of the classroom disrupts the teaching and learning process. In every class I've ever taught, thirty-four out of thirty-five students instantly understand me. In every class one student always has to voice WHAT IF?

"What if" is what the concept of hell tries to answer. What if someone does not want God's love? What if someone does not want an eternity with God? What if someone wants out of God's kingdom? What if? If you have freedom of choice and you do not choose the eternal life, the eternal love, the eternal kingdom what is left for you? Death, indifference, and a place completely separate from God.

What astounds me, is that you then criticize God for your own choice. It makes it sound as if you do not know your own mind.

[signcut]

I can never figure out what you're trying to say.

How does this response fit with the analogy you gave to Marley?

I think that what's he saying is that, just because we are given mouths, doesn't mean that we should eat anything and everything, just as we shouldn't be using our reproductive abilities willy-nilly.

However, there is no such restraint that I have ever heard on using our brains, which is what originally brought this up:

As much as you may hate this if there is a benevolent god, I think that entity would approve of this post. My concept of god (if god exists and is more than the clockmaker) is one of a deity who wants humans to use reason and to question EVERYTHING...otherwise, what do we have these great big cerebra for?

[Jeemie]

I think that what's he saying is that, just because we are given mouths, doesn't mean that we should eat anything and everything, just as we shouldn't be using our reproductive abilities willy-nilly.

However, there is no such restraint that I have ever heard on using our brains, which is what originally brought this up:

I believe questions about God are most DEFINITELY something we should be using our brains about.

[Meriweather]

"not intended", or just a bit embarassing? If you don't believe your god possesses those three qualities, how much ELSE of your bible do you discount?

It's not at all embarrassing. I like keeping things within context. Too many non-believers may be likened to someone who does not understand sports. They like to run off the football field with a football, dunk it in a basketball hoop and declare they have scored two points.

It is not the Bible I discount, but people who take Biblical verses out of context.


I have been told before that my brusque 'debating' style comes across as harsh or aggressive. It's not my intent. It's just that I prefer to make my points directly. I AM dismissive of the arguments for the existence of gods (so are you, by the way - you're an atheist, minus one...:))), but, again, I CAN'T be hostile towards something I have no confidence in even existing. And no, I'm not acting out some deep felt grudge against god...!

I would not use the words, "brusque", "harsh", or "aggressive" in describing your debating style. But I do stand by what I said. You come across as hostile towards God.

I will also encourage you not to put words into my mouth. I am not "an atheist minus one."

Ah yes....the "one true god". By last count, there are about 10,000 of 'em, aren't there? All claiming to be 'The One' of course........

Or ten thousand perspectives of looking at One God. I do not find that at all disturbing. On the contrary, I find it quite understandable.

[Jeemie]

The concept of eternal hell only fits within the context of eternal life. In religious thought, it is only God who is eternal, without beginning and without end. If we follow our religious books we see within God's revelation of Himself to man that despite man's fall or failures, God intends to redeem; that sins are forgiven; that He will give His life for us. The eternal God is eternal love. This is what God offers.

When I teach, I explain to the students in my classroom I expect for them to remain in the room for the entire fifty minutes--so to use the restroom and get their drinks before class or wait until it ends. People moving into and out of the classroom disrupts the teaching and learning process. In every class I've ever taught, thirty-four out of thirty-five students instantly understand me. In every class one student always has to voice WHAT IF?

"What if" is what the concept of hell tries to answer. What if someone does not want God's love? What if someone does not want an eternity with God? What if someone wants out of God's kingdom? What if? If you have freedom of choice and you do not choose the eternal life, the eternal love, the eternal kingdom what is left for you? Death, indifference, and a place completely separate from God.

What astounds me, is that you then criticize God for your own choice. It makes it sound as if you do not know your own mind.

I could buy that, except that most christian representations of hell feature hell as a place of eternal punishment for sins, and not as simply a place you go when you "choose not to be with God". I.e. Jesus pays for your sins or you do- your choice.

That's the entire concept of having a redeemer/savior after all. What's there to be saved from otherwise?

Additionally, if one "chooses not to be with God", what's the point of making that person live forever with such a choice?

Would not the "more humane way" be to simply destroy them rather than make them live in an eternal hell.

Finally, we get back to the "choice/foreknowledge" problem. God KNEW there would be people who chose to sin...and yet God created them anyway.

Therefore, whether or not God "forced" a person to make such choices directly, the fact of the matter remains that God, by allowing such an individual to be born is, in fact, responsible.

And before you respond that I'm misunderstanding the situation, this is not the case.

Recall that in Romans, Paul addresses the very same questions...and his response is essentially "Who are we to question God"?

That is a clue that I'm understanding the situation PERFECTLY.

[Jeemie]

Or ten thousand perspectives of looking at One God. I do not find that at all disturbing. On the contrary, I find it quite understandable.

Not possible...at least not with a Christian belief.

Too many of the "different perspectives" are contradictory.

Christianity...which declares Jesus to be the "only name" under which we might be saved and come to God...does not allow such a viewpoint.

And no amount of telling me that I have taken the verses that say this "out of context" will change that fact.

[signcut]

I believe questions about God are most DEFINITELY something we should be using our brains about.

I heartily agree.

IMO, faith without question is weak. If we cannot answer the questions, how can we expect others to listen when we speak about our belief? And, of course, this goes to both sides of the issue; how can I really give credence to someone who speaks of their belief, or lack of, that has not ever questioned their own position?

I can respect a thoughtful position; I find it harder to do so for those who have not spent time pondering the issues.

[yguy]

I don't think I have too much of a problem with such extreme examples of immoral behavior, but it is an interesting question. To burn and suffer every minute of every day for eternity - is there really a crime that deserves such punishment?As the Duke said, "Life's tough, but it's tougher when you're stupd"...and perhaps death is even more so.

The way I look at it, Hell isn't some vast torture chamber built by God, but merely everywhere God is not. It's not a place we get thrown into, but a place we run to because Heaven is intolerable.that's sort of my point. It seems that (and perhaps I am wrong in my understanding) hell is a one sentence fits all offenders, type of penal facility.I really have no idea, and no particular desire to find out. ;)Another interesting point. How does a believer deal with this? Take Moses as the example, if it were up to you and how you look at things, if you had captured Moses after he had killed a man, or after his murderous rampage after he came down from the mountain and found the golden calf, would you have argued for the death penalty?I was actually thinking of the time Moses reminded the Lord of His promise to Abraham when He seemed about to wipe out all the Israelites. And I don't know that there was anything murderous about the "rampage" you refer to.

As to whether I would have argued for the spiritual DP in the case of, say, David's murder of Uriah, I can't imagine making an argument one way or the other.

[signcut]

Not possible...at least not with a Christian belief.

Too many of the "different perspectives are contradictory".

Christianity...which declares Jesus to be the "only name" under which we might be saved and come to God...does not allow such a viewpoint.

And no amount of telling me that I have taken the verses that say this "out of context" will change that fact.

There are differences in 'perspectives' even among the Christian churches. To say then that such are not allowed flies in the face of reality.

True, there are those, even within Christianity, that say that only one way will suffice, that all others are wrong, but I think that many Christians (and I won't even try to put a percentage on it) will not condemn another Christian to hell for being of the 'wrong' church.

Like politics, there is no monolithic bloc of 'Christians' that marches in lockstep.

[yguy]

I think that what's he saying is that, just because we are given mouths, doesn't mean that we should eat anything and everything, just as we shouldn't be using our reproductive abilities willy-nilly.Exactly. I thought it was pretty obvious.However, there is no such restraint that I have ever heard on using our brainsI would suggest that there is, since the mind can be misused just like anything else. Just as there was presumably unending variety in the fruit A&E were allowed to partake of, there are plenty of places the mind can go other than fondling doubts about that which is most undeniably true.

[signcut]

I would suggest that there is, since the mind can be misused just like anything else. Just as there was presumably unending variety in the fruit A&E were allowed to partake of, there are plenty of places the mind can go other than fondling doubts about that which is most undeniably true.

I was referring to using the mind for the pursuit of knowledge/understanding. However, since you bring it up, I see no reason to restrict the mind from questioning God. If there truly is a God, then He must be able to withstand the questions from his believers, or those who are considering being one.

Could any human expect less? Dealing with your immortal soul requires no less, and even more.

That you and I agree about truth matters not to one who is uncertain. There was a time when I was unsure as well, and only by asking questions was I able to believe. I could not ask myself to simply believe without understanding; as such, how could I ask another? We all have doubts at some time in our lives; even Mother Teresa. Did that make her a lesser believer?

As she answered her questions, as we all do, her faith continued, and was strengthened.

[Jeemie]

Just as there was presumably unending variety in the fruit A&E were allowed to partake of, there are plenty of places the mind can go other than fondling doubts about that which is most undeniably true.

If something is undeniably true, then it can withstand the mind's handling.

And if discovering the truth of God was something that he truly desired, then he, being God, could certainly make it so that there would be no room for doubt.

[signcut]

If something is undeniably true, then it can withstand the mind's handling.

And if discovering the truth of God was something that he truly desired, then he, being God, could certainly make it so that there would be no room for doubt.

Ah, that's the rub of belief: if there were no room for doubt, then it really isn't belief.

It's like the saying: we never have all the information we need when we make a decision. If we had all the information, it would be a foregone conclusion, not a decision. ;)

[Jeemie]

There are differences in 'perspectives' even among the Christian churches. To say then that such are not allowed flies in the face of reality.

True, there are those, even within Christianity, that say that only one way will suffice, that all others are wrong, but I think that many Christians (and I won't even try to put a percentage on it) will not condemn another Christian to hell for being of the 'wrong' church.

Like politics, there is no monolithic bloc of 'Christians' that marches in lockstep.

You purposely limited your discussion to the different Christian sects, which, while different, pretty much all agree that Jesus is the only way to God.

Viewpoints about God that do not accept this tenet are therefore not merely "different perspectives about the One God" (the "One God" here being the Christian God) but are completely contradictory.

If you are saying there are Christians that believe that if you do not believe you require Jesus as your savior to connect with God, then in effect, you're telling me there are Christians that reject the central tenet of their faith.

It would take a great deal of convincing to prove to me that such people exist and are truly serious about their Christian beliefs.

[yguy]

I was referring to using the mind for the pursuit of knowledge. However, since you bring it up, I see no reason to restrict the mind from questioning God. If there truly is a God, then He must be able to withstand the questions from his believers, or those who are considering being one.Obviously, but that's not the point. What is at issue is how entertaining such thoughts affects the thinker and those under his sphere of influence.Could any human expect less? Dealing with your immortal soul requires no less, and even more.If there is no God, our fate is sealed, and there is nothing to think about as far as eternal life is concerned.We all have doubts at some time in our lives; even Mother Teresa. Did that make her a lesser believer?I'd say yes; but then I never thought she was anything to rave about to begin with.As she answered her questions, as we all do, her faith continued, and was strengthened.Some kinds of faith ought to be weakened rather than strengthened. ;)

[Jeemie]

Ah, that's the rub of belief: if there were no room for doubt, then it really isn't belief.

It's like the saying: we never have all the information we need when we make a decision. If we had all the information, it would be a foregone conclusion, not a decision. ;)

I was addressing yguy, not you.

[yguy]

And if discovering the truth of God was something that he truly desired, then he, being God, could certainly make it so that there would be no room for doubt.Yes, but that would take away the opportunity to sin, and with it the appreciation of the freedom which is its opposite.

[Jeemie]

Yes, but that would take away the opportunity to sin, and with it the appreciation of the freedom which is its opposite.

Regardless.

My other point still stands...if something is undeiably true, then the use of reason to study it cannot be considered a "misuse" of the powers of reason.

[yguy]

I was addressing yguy, not you.My, aren't we touchy today...and yesterday...and the day before...

[Jeemie]

My, aren't we touchy today...and yesterday...and the day before...

There was nothing touchy in that reply at all.

And if you are referring to that other incident, you were ruled in the wrong, and it was YOU that responded touchily...after I politely asked you to edit/remove your message.

[rhet 2]

NO!

Best friend.

If you don't want His friendship, He won't force Himself on you.

Which is the definition of hell: life without God to walk with you in the Garden -- abject misery, loneliness, incomplete shallow nothing worth a damn existence.

All the pitchfork, devils, etc., are NOT in Scripture -- pure Romanized holdover. There is a chasm described in the OT that separates the Bosom of Abraham from the other half -- and one soul crying out for a cup of water from another in the Bosom good side. But that is ALL we know about hell, except that the angels who follow Satan are cast into the Lake of Fire.

And God created our brains. He ENJOYS it when we ask questions and see to understand.

Blind faith -- belief without logic -- is seldom productive of the depth of friendship which is the Christian life.

[signcut]

You purposely limited your discussion to the different Christian sects, which, while different, pretty much all agree that Jesus is the only way to God.

Viewpoints about God that do not accept this tenet are therefore not merely "different perspectives about the One God" (the "One God" here being the Christian God) but are completely contradictory.

Not necessarily so. For instance, is the Great Spirit of the Native American automatically contradictory to the idea of the Christian God? The ideas that would be automatically contradictory are polytheistic, or monotheistic whose actions would be antithetical to the Christian God.

As I read it, and I may be incorrect (Meriweather would have to say), she was saying that other views of God may not be in total harmony with the Christian God, but may be variations of Him, as interpreted by that particular culture, or something along those lines. Personally, I don't know if I subscribe to that, although that may be because I don't know enough about other religions, or religious views.

If you are saying there are Christians that believe that if you do not believe you require Jesus as your savior to connect with God, then in effect, you're telling me there are Christians that reject the central tenet of their faith.

It would take a great deal of convincing to prove to me that such people exist and are truly serious about their Christian beliefs.

I think, I hope, that what I wrote above answers this part.

[yguy]

Regardless.

My other point still stands...if something is undeiably true, then the use of reason to study it cannot be considered a "misuse" of the powers of reason.We're not talking about studying it in a general sense, but about trying to find fault with it.

[Jeemie]

NO!

Best friend.

If you don't want His friendship, He won't force Himself on you.

Which is the definition of hell: life without God to walk with you in the Garden -- abject misery, loneliness, incomplete shallow nothing worth a damn existence.

All the pitchfork, devils, etc., are NOT in Scripture -- pure Romanized holdover. There is a chasm described in the OT that separates the Bosom of Abraham from the other half -- and one soul crying out for a cup of water from another in the Bosom good side. But that is ALL we know about hell, except that the angels who follow Satan are cast into the Lake of Fire.

Even accepting this, it does not answer the question about why God, knowing a person would reject him, would created said rejector, and then allow said rejector to have to experience the rejection eternally conscious, with no hope of relief.

Considering, as has been agreed, one has not been given all the information to make the decision, and must make a "leap of faith".

[Marleysdaddy]

Punishment of the dead (not an idea that came into being until christianity) is quite a concept.

What about Sisyphus, Ixion, or Tantalus? I am not saying that the idea has merit, but it has been around a while.

[yguy]

And if you are referring to that other incident, Not particularly, although it certainly was consistent with your general demeanor as it expresses itself here, in my view.you were ruled in the wrong, and it was YOU that responded touchily...after I politely asked you to edit/remove your message.I was not the least bit "touchy", just emphatically unrepentent - as I remain today, you may rest assured. :)

[signcut]

We're not talking about studying it in a general sense, but about trying to find fault with it.

Those who are truly trying to find fault will; we generally find what we seek, in many ways.

If, however, one comes with an open mind to an idea, and is unable to find fault, then the idea may be accepted. Even finding fault is not always bad; if the fault can be addressed, then it is no longer a fault.

Though I don't always feel it, I try to give the benefit of the doubt. :shhh:

[Jeemie]

Not particularly, although it certainly was consistent with your general demeanor as it expresses itself here, in my view.I was not the least bit "touchy", just emphatically unrepentent - as I remain today, you may rest assured. :)

OK..whatever.

Nor was I touchy in my response to signcut...it was a post of clarification, not of expressing annoyance.

[Jeemie]

We're not talking about studying it in a general sense, but about trying to find fault with it.

Sorry- that's part of trying to determine its veracity/worth.

Kind of like traying to falsify a theory!

Again, if a truth is "undeniable", it will stand up to even those who try and "find fault" with it...because they will be unable to.

[signcut]

Obviously, but that's not the point. What is at issue is how entertaining such thoughts affects the thinker and those under his sphere of influence.

If they are that easily influenced, they will be influenced anyway, one way or the other. Regardless of which way, they are not likely to stay the course on their own.

If there is no God, our fate is sealed, and there is nothing to think about as far as eternal life is concerned.

True, but if you're not sure, then what? Do you simply believe 'just in case'? If that's the answer, then you'd have to believe in every idea. Without proof, it requires faith, which requires a conscious choice; it cannot be made in the absence of belief. Belief doesn't 'just happen'.

I'd say yes; but then I never thought she was anything to rave about to begin with.

Just an example of how even those celebrated for their faith and works can doubt, or waver.

Some kinds of faith ought to be weakened rather than strengthened. ;)

I'm not going to say I know which is which.

[Jeemie]

Obviously, but that's not the point. What is at issue is how entertaining such thoughts affects the thinker and those under his sphere of influence.

Missed this one before.

This is not your concern.

This sounds very much like an elitist-type thought...that one cannot be trusted with one's own mind and thinking, and therefore must have a guide to tell them what's proper to think about and what's not.

It would be arrogant and presumptive of one to think they could know this about another person.

[Meriweather]

I could buy that, except that most christian representations of hell feature hell as a place of eternal punishment for sins, and not as simply a place you go when you "choose not to be with God". I.e. Jesus pays for your sins or you do- your choice.

We need to define sin. Sin is a rebellion against God and his ways. Jesus' life, death, and resurrection was a statement. Man does not need to live in rebellion against God; the will of God is perfect--even when obedience to it leads to a horrible death. Jesus showed that man can choose to walk in the ways of God instead of the ways of man. If we do this, we do not need to fear death.

That's the entire concept of having a redeemer/savior after all. What's there to be saved from otherwise?

Jesus came with a message. Note how he used the present tense: "Your sins are forgiven you." He said this more than once. He did not say, Your sins will eventually be forgiven, or that they might be forgiven. He said sins ARE forgiven. That is the message of the cross. God redeems, God forgives.


Additionally, if one "chooses not to be with God", what's the point of making that person live forever with such a choice?

Would not the "more humane way" be to simply destroy them rather than make them live in an eternal hell.

Are you saying that when people choose not to be with God, they don't know their own minds--they don't know who they are or what they stand for? Again, we come to "What ifs." What if they do not wish to be destroyed? Figuratively speaking it would be hell for me to have to stay up all night in a smoky casino with its bright, garish lights, its bells, the money, the drinking, and games without end. Heaven, for me (figuratively speaking) is getting up before dawn and literally hitting the ground running.

For those who long to see God, then the thought of never seeing God is a burning within us. For those who could not care less about God, the thought of never seeing him causes nary a twitch.

Finally, we get back to the "choice/foreknowledge" problem. God KNEW there would be people who chose to sin...and yet God created them anyway.

Therefore, whether or not God "forced" a person to make such choices directly, the fact of the matter remains that God, by allowing such an individual to be born is, in fact, responsible.

When my girls were little, each morning I would dress them in cute, clean little outfits and then allow them to go outside and play. I knew they would get dirty, but I allowed this anway because I knew they would wash--that I could clean them. God knows He can redeem us and He will do this unless we flat out refuse redemption.

And before you respond that I'm misunderstanding the situation, this is not the case.

Recall that in Romans, Paul addresses the very same questions...and his response is essentially "Who are we to question God"?

That is a clue that I'm understanding the situation PERFECTLY.


I don't believe it is so much people not understanding the situation, but making it more complicated than it needs to be. God loves, God saves and redeems, God forgives. If we let go of all the silly, "What ifs," we stop moving around in circles and start moving forward. The step forward is for us to walk in our Father's footsteps so that we love, we save and redeem, and we forgive our fellow man.

[Mikko]

For those who believe in the God of Abraham, particularly Christians, have you ever thought of his oversight in terms of how the "smaller" rulers rule?

Am I safe in equating God's universal role as leader of the universe?

If so, it seems safe in not qualifying as a democracy, or a republic. It only makes sense to assign his rule as a perpetual dictatorship, or absolute unrevolving monarchy.

And how does posterity judge dictators and absolute monarchs?

Maybe in how they treat their dissenters?

I invite your insights and comments.
God is not a dictator. The Biblical description of God must be taken as just that--a description. Despcirtions are not always accurate, and the biblical description of God is not completely accurate.

[rhet 2]

Even accepting this, it does not answer the question about why God, knowing a person would reject him, would created said rejector, and then allow said rejector to have to experience the rejection eternally conscious, with no hope of relief.

Considering, as has been agreed, one has not been given all the information to make the decision, and must make a "leap of faith".

Does it occur to you that God created a SYSTEM that reproduces itself? God does NOT create anyone for the express purpose of damning them to hell -- only for the purpose of offering them His eternal friendship because HE LIKES EVEN THOSE WHO REJECT HIM.

God created a PERFECT SYSTEM -- and without Adam and Eve's greed for omniscience required to make them God's rivals, the system wouldn't produce angry rebellious God-haters who want to make themselves the ultimate and highest authority in the cosmos.

Not God's fault that some of us produced by human lust cannot relax and enjoy being in Second Place.

He is NOT the Person who created greed for power and social rank and self-indulgence of whatever whims strike our fancy at the moment. We do that all by ourselves without any help from Him.

No child is born wanting to be like God: we LEARN it from others infected with the same psychosis.

[Marleysdaddy]

and the biblical description of God is not completely accurate.

at the very least...I would venture that since it is written by humans with finite minds, it is far less than not completely accurate...I'd say it's like the tip of the iceberg.

[Mikko]

at the very least...I would venture that since it is written by humans with finite minds, it is far less than not completely accurate...I'd say it's like the tip of the iceberg.
It's not even a completely accurate description of the tip of the iceberg.

[Hadassah]

NO!

Best friend.

If you don't want His friendship, He won't force Himself on you.

Which is the definition of hell: life without God to walk with you in the Garden -- abject misery, loneliness, incomplete shallow nothing worth a damn existence.

All the pitchfork, devils, etc., are NOT in Scripture -- pure Romanized holdover. There is a chasm described in the OT that separates the Bosom of Abraham from the other half -- and one soul crying out for a cup of water from another in the Bosom good side. But that is ALL we know about hell, except that the angels who follow Satan are cast into the Lake of Fire.

And God created our brains. He ENJOYS it when we ask questions and see to understand.

Blind faith -- belief without logic -- is seldom productive of the depth of friendship which is the Christian life.



Romanized holdover? Not quite sure what you mean by that......

[megs280]

We need to define sin. Sin is a rebellion against God and his ways. Jesus' life, death, and resurrection was a statement. Man does not need to live in rebellion against God; the will of God is perfect--even when obedience to it leads to a horrible death. Jesus showed that man can choose to walk in the ways of God instead of the ways of man. If we do this, we do not need to fear death.



Jesus came with a message. Note how he used the present tense: "Your sins are forgiven you." He said this more than once. He did not say, Your sins will eventually be forgiven, or that they might be forgiven. He said sins ARE forgiven. That is the message of the cross. God redeems, God forgives.




Are you saying that when people choose not to be with God, they don't know their own minds--they don't know who they are or what they stand for? Again, we come to "What ifs." What if they do not wish to be destroyed? Figuratively speaking it would be hell for me to have to stay up all night in a smoky casino with its bright, garish lights, its bells, the money, the drinking, and games without end. Heaven, for me (figuratively speaking) is getting up before dawn and literally hitting the ground running.

For those who long to see God, then the thought of never seeing God is a burning within us. For those who could not care less about God, the thought of never seeing him causes nary a twitch.



When my girls were little, each morning I would dress them in cute, clean little outfits and then allow them to go outside and play. I knew they would get dirty, but I allowed this anway because I knew they would wash--that I could clean them. God knows He can redeem us and He will do this unless we flat out refuse redemption.




I don't believe it is so much people not understanding the situation, but making it more complicated than it needs to be. God loves, God saves and redeems, God forgives. If we let go of all the silly, "What ifs," we stop moving around in circles and start moving forward. The step forward is for us to walk in our Father's footsteps so that we love, we save and redeem, and we forgive our fellow man.

Meriweather, I am reminded of how much I enjoy and gain insight from reading your posts with this one. Beautifully written. The last part was especially touching for me -you are correct, sometimes the brain and all the 'what ifs' can hold us back when we really need our hearts to take us forward.

[Meriweather]

Thank you, megs. It's lovely to be among people who find God worthy of praise.

[Marleysdaddy]

Blind faith -- belief without logic -- is seldom productive of the depth of friendship which is the Christian life.

Then why does every attempt to logically prove the existence of god fail? I would argue that faith is the only tool we have for connecting with god.

[rhet 2]

Then why does every attempt to logically prove the existence of god fail? I would argue that faith is the only tool we have for connecting with god.

Why does every attempt to logically DISPROVE the existence of God also fail?

You have FAITH AND BELIEVE -- without any logical PROOF at all, just a huge pile of UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS -- that no God exists.

I KNOW He exists -- I see the evidence of His existence 24/7 in my own personal life -- and in your's too.

In point of fact, YOU are one walking talking proof that the Scriptures are dead right on: you are EXACTLY what many passages describe, acting and reacting EXACTLY like they say you will.

[yguy]

This sounds very much like an elitist-type thought...that one cannot be trusted with one's own mind and thinking, and therefore must have a guide to tell them what's proper to think about and what's not.Whether anyone else believes you can be trusted with your own thoughts is of no moment when, by virtue of having failed to trust your own insight, you think the thoughts of others in the vain belief that those thoughts are your own.

This phenomeon explains why so many people believe man evolved from lower primates, for instance. ;)

[rhet 2]

Romanized holdover? Not quite sure what you mean by that......

Our culture is Graeco-Roman with a Christian glaze on top. Remove the Christianity, and you get the Graeco-Roman without any sweetener to make it easier to swallow.

Even the concept of evolution with man as the highest life form is an ancient Roman idea. As is infanticide, euthanasia, and the removal of "inconvenient" humans. In most areas, Liberalism is actually Old Imperial Rome minus Christian moral values and behavioral norms.

Sanctity of life and humanism and individualism and separation of church and state -- most of America's finest culture norms -- are actually Christian tacked on top of the Graeco-Roman materialism and "pragmatics" and demand for "scientific proof" Plato-style.

[rhet 2]

Whether anyone else believes you can be trusted with your own thoughts is of no moment when, by virtue of having failed to trust your own insight, you think the thoughts of others in the vain belief that those thoughts are your own.

This phenomeon explains why so many people believe man evolved from lower primates, for instance. ;)

Considering that ideological indoctrination begins at birth, is it possible for any human to EVER experience a purely original and independent thought?

Our primary caregivers begin constructing a PERSPECTIVE on reality at birth -- a frame of reference, complete with pre-set definitions and thought processes and inter-connectivities and predispositions that determine what we see and do not see and HOW WE ARRANGE INFORMATION into some sort of logical frame of reference.

By the time we're walking and talking, we're already locked into certain patterns of thought. By the time we're 5, we're REALLY locked. Everything else is merely an extension of PATTERNS OF THOUGHT acquired within those first two years.

[Marleysdaddy]

Sanctity of life and humanism and individualism and separation of church and state -- most of America's finest culture norms -- are actually Christian tacked on top of the Graeco-Roman materialism and "pragmatics" and demand for "scientific proof" Plato-style.

Wow do you have it confused...check out Athens in the 5th century B.C.E. if you want some information on humanism and individualism...and Aristotle was the scientist...Plato had his head in clouds (the Theory of the Forms is about as unscientific as it gets ;) )

[Marleysdaddy]

Why does every attempt to logically DISPROVE the existence of God also fail?

Because any attempt to prove or disprove the existence of god will always fail...god lies outside of the realm of proof.

You have FAITH AND BELIEVE -- without any logical PROOF at all, just a huge pile of UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS -- that no God exists.
Excuse me, but YOU are the one making the assumptions...I believe that god does exist and I use faith, not logic to arrive at that conclusion. Please don't continue to mistakenly ascribe atheism to me in all caps...shouting will advance the discussion nowhere.

[rhet 2]

Wow do you have it confused...check out Athens in the 5th century B.C.E. if you want some information on humanism and individualism...and Aristotle was the scientist...Plato had his head in clouds (the Theory of the Forms is about as unscientific as it gets ;) )

Nope.

Humanism DOES NOT FEED UNWELCOME BABIES TO WOLVES -- just one example of where the two differ radically.

Aristotle based everything he knew on Plato -- IF Plato existed at all -- because the only evidence we've got that Plato existed is ARISTOTLE'S word for it.

And if you think the Athenians tolerated individual diversity, you're REALLY ill-educated.

Now, our educational system and our government system and our judicial system -- those ARE Rationalist modifications of Athenian systems.

Though the concept of UNIVERSAL KITERACY is a Judeo-Christian development, based on the first ever free public education system, the synagogue schools formed during the 2nd century BCE in order to counter Hellenic influences on Jewish populations.

[rhet 2]

Because any attempt to prove or disprove the existence of god will always fail...god lies outside of the realm of proof.


Excuse me, but YOU are the one making the assumptions...I believe that god does exist and I use faith, not logic to arrive at that conclusion. Please don't continue to mistakenly ascribe atheism to me in all caps...shouting will advance the discussion nowhere.

Assumption #1: the teacher who told you that the existence of God CANNOT be logically proven or disproven is correct.

Assumption #2: logical proof in the form of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis incorporating observable phenomena in a formulaic scientific logic pattern is the ONLY way to process data -- what Olbrechts-Tyteca term "natural logic" does NOT follow formal logical or scientific MODELS, yet yields the same rational conclusions as those two models.

[yguy]

Considering that ideological indoctrination begins at birth, Example, please.is it possible for any human to EVER experience a purely original and independent thought?Regardless of the foregoing, no. All our thoughts, good or bad, brilliant or vapid, come from a place outside ourselves.

[Marleysdaddy]

Humanism DOES NOT FEED UNWELCOME BABIES TO WOLVES -- just one example of where the two differ radically.
Uh, I think you are confusing Sparta and Athens.

Aristotle based everything he knew on Plato -- IF Plato existed at all -- because the only evidence we've got that Plato existed is ARISTOTLE'S word for it.
And here you are confusing Socrates with Plato and then Plato with Aristotle...Socrates is the philosopher who didn't write anything down, but is the subject of Plato's dialogs...we are quite certain that both Plato and Aristotle existed

And if you think the Athenians tolerated individual diversity, you're REALLY ill-educated.
Considering your above gaffes, I don't think you ought to be calling anyone ill-educated.

[Marleysdaddy]

Assumption #1: the teacher who told you that the existence of God CANNOT be logically proven or disproven is correct.

No one told me that...I have read numerous attempts to prove the existence of god and numerous attempts to disprove the existence of god and all are flawed in some way.

Nowhere here did you retract your heinous assumption that I did not believe in god. I will give you another opportunity to do so.

[yguy]

Assumption #1: the teacher who told you that the existence of God CANNOT be logically proven or disproven is correct.He is. Trying to prove God's existence by means of logic is like trying to verify the existence of the sun by pointing a flashlight at it.

[Marleysdaddy]

He is. Trying to prove God's existence by means of logic is like trying to verify the existence of the sun by pointing a flashlight at it.

Wow...we agree on something ;)

[rhet 2]

Example, please.Regardless of the foregoing, no. All our thoughts, good or bad, brilliant or vapid, come from a place outside ourselves.

Example: mommy is safe and comfortable -- not the conclusion formed by an infant with an abusive mother, but rather by an infant whose maternal caregiver supplies the biological needs of the infant

While I agree in part with the second sentence, I would not say "come from" so much as "extend through" -- the initial and essential perceptions we form are based on purely internal and individualized physical and psychological needs which cause us to bond with a Need Supplier and turn away from a Need Multiplier. We bond with and imitate Adults who supply necessary biological and psychological necessities, repudiate those who either do not supply or who cause other extreme needs to form.

From that bonding and imitation, we learn THOUGHT SYSTEMS -- value systems -- where we are encouraged to notice x phenomenon and ignore y phenomenon as insignificant.

Whenever a culture invents a new word for some phenomenon -- for example, "black ice," it is NOT the phenomenon which is new, but the RECOGNITION of the phenomenon. In the case of "black ice," pre-auto Westerners had no real need to recognize that phenomenon, because the phenomenon was not a biological risk. Once our means of transportation reached speeds where "black ice" was a safety factor, we acknowledged the phenomenon by coining the term "black ice" -- and we subsequently teach every new driver to "watch out for black ice" during cold weather experiences likely to cause that ice form to exist.

Such new cognitive awarenesses happen all the time.

[rhet 2]

He is. Trying to prove God's existence by means of logic is like trying to verify the existence of the sun by pointing a flashlight at it.

Not.

Is the sun real? Of course. Your five physical senses EXPERIENCE the reality of the sun 24/7.

What you mean by "trying to prove God's existence by means of logic" is that USING FORMAL LOGIC MODELS, including the scientific method is INEFFECTIVE in proving the existence of the sun.

However, the five physical senses -- PERCEPTION ITSELF -- is an equally valid form of logic.

There are MANY forms of logic, and some are more effective in explaining and exploring SOME phenomena while others are more effective with other phenomena.

Explain "love" using formal or scientific logic, and you'll fall on your face every time.

[Marleysdaddy]

Nowhere here did you retract your heinous assumption that I did not believe in god. I will give you another opportunity to do so.

Still waiting...

[Marleysdaddy]

Is the sun real? Of course. Your five physical senses EXPERIENCE the reality of the sun 24/7.
My senses could be tricking me...I only have phenomenal knowledge of the sun, not noumenal knowledge of the sun.

What you mean by "trying to prove God's existence by means of logic" is that USING FORMAL LOGIC MODELS, including the scientific method is INEFFECTIVE in proving the existence of the sun.

I won't speak for yguy, but when i say "trying to prove God's existence by means of logic" I am referring to the ontological, cosmological, or teleological types of arguments.

However, the five physical senses -- PERCEPTION ITSELF -- is an equally valid form of logic.
See the limitations of our senses as they relate to noumenal knowledge above.

Explain "love" using formal or scientific logic, and you'll fall on your face every time.

Science can explain what is happening chemically when we experience "love" - I am not completely satisfied by that answer and you may not be, but it hardly falls on its face.

[Marleysdaddy]

Aristotle based everything he knew on Plato -- IF Plato existed at all -- because the only evidence we've got that Plato existed is ARISTOTLE'S word for it.
And if you think the Athenians tolerated individual diversity, you're REALLY ill-educated.


I just have to keep this piece of irony preserved...bump.

[Marleysdaddy]

You have FAITH AND BELIEVE -- without any logical PROOF at all, just a huge pile of UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS -- that no God exists.


And I am still waiting for a recantation of this untruth.

[yguy]

Not.

Is the sun real? Of course. Your five physical senses EXPERIENCE the reality of the sun 24/7.There is no sensory input which cannot be rationalized as the effect of something other than the sun given the motivation to do so. Practically no one has such motivation in the case of the sun. God is of course another matter entirely.

[captusa]

Tyrannical dictator?

In what cruel, arbitrary way has God lorded over you recently?


If you accept the Bible, logically you have to accept God as a tyrant and a dictator.
Issuing COMMANDMENTS is dictatorial.

There is the concept of a benevolent despot.
Pericles was described as a tyrant but not always in the pejorative.

Leibnitz used the comforting apology, "This is the best of all possible universes and whatever God does is always for the best and we might not understand what God does but it is always for the best."

Voltaire wrote Candide to lampoon Leibnitz.

[Marleysdaddy]

There is no sensory input which cannot be rationalized as the effect of something other than the sun given the motivation to do so. Practically no one has such motivation in the of the sun. God is of course another matter entirely.

Very true...are you sure you aren't in the Matrix? ;)

[yguy]

Very true...are you sure you aren't in the Matrix? ;)The way I look at it, that's kind of what we're born into; and life is about finding our way out of it.

[rhet 2]

And I am still waiting for a recantation of this untruth.

You are correct. I did misstate the proposition. What I should have said is that "Atheists assume there is no god" -- you have asserted that God does indeed exist; therefore, you are not an atheist.

My apologies for careless verbiage.

The fact is that all humanity is subject to apriori assumptions that we rarely admit even to ourselves, assumptions which then affect what we do and do not see, affect how we arrange the data which we do consciously perceive, what we do and do not validate in terms of significance or probabilities, and the conclusions we reach.

And the fact exists that neither formal logic nor scientific rationalism are the only valid ways of processing whatever data is forced into consciousness, requiring some sort of orderly arrangement in our perspectives on and interpretations of existence.

[7ranz]

This reminds of Christopher Hitchen's point. It's like North Korea...but at least you can die out of North Korea.

[biggles53]

This reminds of Christopher Hitchen's point. It's like North Korea...but at least you can die out of North Korea.

Good one....:)

And you used to be able to "die out" of God's tyranny too....in the OT, even after God had visited the various tortures on those who displeased him, at least then you simply just...died.

It's only with the coming of "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild" (courtesy of Hitchens also) that we introduce the concept of continuing torture after death.

[biggles53]

It's not at all embarrassing. I like keeping things within context. Too many non-believers may be likened to someone who does not understand sports. They like to run off the football field with a football, dunk it in a basketball hoop and declare they have scored two points.

It is not the Bible I discount, but people who take Biblical verses out of context.

"You've taken it out of context" is a weak fall-back position for those who don't wish to confront the disagreeable portions of their case. It's an easy charge which is rarely substantiated. Who determines the 'right' context? Who rules on correct 'understanding? You use a sporting analogy - ever heard of shifting goalposts...?


I would not use the words, "brusque", "harsh", or "aggressive" in describing your debating style. But I do stand by what I said. You come across as hostile towards God.

I will also encourage you not to put words into my mouth. I am not "an atheist minus one."

No, you are wrong. By definition you ARE an "atheist minus one". Unless, of course, you are going to ignore at least two of the ten commandments that your god has laid down for your observance. You are instructed to discount all other gods - so, out goes Thor, Zeus, Baal, Krishna, Ra, Apollo, etc, etc, etc (I'm sure you don't want me to list them all...!). In this regard, you and I are one - I don't believe they exist either. However, you fall one god short of my position. Through an accident of time and geography, you have come to believe in one particular god only - you are a disbeliever of all gods, minus one.




Or ten thousand perspectives of looking at One God. I do not find that at all disturbing. On the contrary, I find it quite understandable.

But your god won't, according to his commandments...see above.

[Hardtruths]

Romans 9:20-22 (King James Version)


20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&verse=20&end_verse=22&version=9&context=context

[Meriweather]

"You've taken it out of context" is a weak fall-back position for those who don't wish to confront the disagreeable portions of their case. It's an easy charge which is rarely substantiated. Who determines the 'right' context? Who rules on correct 'understanding? You use a sporting analogy - ever heard of shifting goalposts...?

I beg your pardon, but it is not a weak, fall-back position when one can show what is being taken out of context. It's an easy charge because of how often it happens. Not only that, do you realize how obvious it is to those who have studied scripture when something is lifted out of context?

Different perspectives within the contexts cited is entirely different. For example, it happens all the time between Jewish and Christian posters here. Those of the Jewish faith prefer that Old Testament scriptures be looked at on purely a historical perspective. Christians, however look at these scriptures through the lens of what the New Testament teaches us. Naturally enough, those of the Jewish faith do not wish to study from the perspective of the New Testament.

As far as who rules on the correct understanding, that can depend. For example, when you begin posting about the God I believe in (you say you don't believe in God), then I rule on the correct understanding I have of God. You then usually reply by trying to use selected, out of context scriptures, to support your view of a monstrous god that you insist I believe in. I know the God I believe in. You don't. My call. As simple as that.

No, you are wrong. By definition you ARE an "atheist minus one". Unless, of course, you are going to ignore at least two of the ten commandments that your god has laid down for your observance. You are instructed to discount all other gods - so, out goes Thor, Zeus, Baal, Krishna, Ra, Apollo, etc, etc, etc (I'm sure you don't want me to list them all...!). In this regard, you and I are one - I don't believe they exist either. However, you fall one god short of my position. Through an accident of time and geography, you have come to believe in one particular god only - you are a disbeliever of all gods, minus one.

Take another look at the First Commandment. "I am the Lord your God. You shalt not have false gods before me." How can false gods be God?

[Mikko]

How can false gods be God?That's a question I keep asking around here. It also raises the question of how one determines whether or not any given god is a false or a true god.

[biggles53]

I beg your pardon, but it is not a weak, fall-back position when one can show what is being taken out of context. It's an easy charge because of how often it happens. Not only that, do you realize how obvious it is to those who have studied scripture when something is lifted out of context?

Different perspectives within the contexts cited is entirely different. For example, it happens all the time between Jewish and Christian posters here. Those of the Jewish faith prefer that Old Testament scriptures be looked at on purely a historical perspective. Christians, however look at these scriptures through the lens of what the New Testament teaches us. Naturally enough, those of the Jewish faith do not wish to study from the perspective of the New Testament.

As far as who rules on the correct understanding, that can depend. For example, when you begin posting about the God I believe in (you say you don't believe in God), then I rule on the correct understanding I have of God. You then usually reply by trying to use selected, out of context scriptures, to support your view of a monstrous god that you insist I believe in. I know the God I believe in. You don't. My call. As simple as that.

Whoops! There goes that goalpost again!

Take another look at the First Commandment. "I am the Lord your God. You shalt not have false gods before me." How can false gods be God?

Exactly! You view all those other gods as FALSE! Me too! But I go one further!! So I am a 'complete' atheist - you are an atheist minus one! (It isn't mathematics you teach, is it...?)

[Meriweather]

That's a question I keep asking around here. It also raises the question of how one determines whether or not any given god is a false or a true god.

God exists, and I believe He does work to reveal Himself to us and I believe many of us work hard to understand the revelations given to us and what God wants/expects of us. It is not God who is false, but our human perceptions of Him can be incomplete or even false. We are limited. But here is the bottom line for me. God has revealed Himself as One who loves, redeems, and forgives mankind. I believe I can most fully embrace this love, redemption, and forgiveness in the faith I have chosen to follow.

Other faiths and belief systems do not worry me, nor am I concerned about their well-being because I ALWAYS come back to who God is: Love, Redeemer, and One who forgives.

I have never bought into, "This faith believes in this god, and that faith believes in that god." People believe in God or they don't. It is our perceptions of Him that differ and I don't see that as a huge problem. My perception of my mother certainly differs from my dad's perspective of her and no one would expect anything different.

[Meriweather]

Whoops! There goes that goalpost again!

The goal post is where it has always been. It's interesting that in your mind it appears to be moving.

Exactly! You view all those other gods as FALSE! Me too! But I go one further!! So I am a 'complete' atheist - you are an atheist minus one! (It isn't mathematics you teach, is it...?)

Let me say this again. I personally find it annoying when people tell me what I think. I thought I was quite clear in voicing my own beliefs.

"I (notice the singular) am the Lord your God. You shall not have false gods before me." False gods are not God. Therefore, I believe in God and I do my best to observe the First Commandment and not put what is not God before God. In other words, I believe in the concept of false gods. However, I don't believe false gods are God.

Do you see the distinction between this and your assertion that I am "an atheist minus one!"? I repudiate your description of me as such as false and inaccurate. I would consider your spreading this falsehood about me as slander, so I ask you to cease and desist and allow me to speak for myself.

[Marleysdaddy]

The way I look at it, that's kind of what we're born into; and life is about finding our way out of it.

very interesting...I would have never guessed that based on our previous exchanges...thanks for sharing that

[Marleysdaddy]

My apologies for careless verbiage.


Apology accepted...now about that "open mouth, insert foot" episode... ;)...didn't you call me really uneducated?

[Snow]

May I get this one Sketch?

The entire premise upon which his 'rule' is predicated is both cruel and arbitrary in the extreme.

You have NO choice - other than Hobson's choice...

You WILL observe no other gods. And this applies not only to your actions, but also to your THOUGHTS. To do so will ensure a pathway to the eternal abyss. Your 'eternal' survival depends upon toeing the totalitarian line.

His 'love' is very much conditional. If you deviate from the required path...you burn. Fall into line and you take the prize.You must live your entire life, knowing that the possibility always exists that you may not make muster, and will be condemned to the flames.

And the most heinous part is that, as a supposedly omniscient being, he knew at the outset whether or not you would 'pass' or 'fail' - and yet he continues throughout your life to dangle in front of you the promise, while at the same time re-issuing the threat.

Thought-crime, intimidation, deception.....what a guy...!


What a bunch of nonsense.

You define God in a way that seems arbitrary and cruel and then cry, "look, your god is arbitrary and cruel."

I am completely Christian. I do not believe in a god who condemns you to eternal flames, one whose love is conditional, one who gives you false hope.

You'll have to do better than that.

[biggles53]

"I (notice the singular) am the Lord your God. You shall not have false gods before me." False gods are not God. Therefore, I believe in God and I do my best to observe the First Commandment and not put what is not God before God. In other words, I believe in the concept of false gods. However, I don't believe false gods are God.

Do you see the distinction between this and your assertion that I am "an atheist minus one!"? I repudiate your description of me as such as false and inaccurate. I would consider your spreading this falsehood about me as slander, so I ask you to cease and desist and allow me to speak for myself.

Now, this gets really confusing for a dummy like me....:think:

So, your contention is that your god says you can't have "false" gods before him, right? By "false", do you take that to mean that they don't exist, or that they do exist, but you aren't allowed to worship them?

If you're not an "atheist minus one", I presume this means that you do believe in the existence of Ra, Baal, Poseidon, etc, etc, - am I right?

And it's not intended as slander - I'm just trying to find a description that best fits the information you're providing about your belief......

[Snow]

he's been fine with me, not one iota of interference.

But this is a theoretical question about a theoretical overseer. I do not know how LDS deals with the afterlife and punishment. Punishment of the dead (not an idea that came into being until christianity) is quite a concept.

Our concept is that God is just and compassionate.

Man is that he might have joy.

God's work and glory is to bring about "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39)

We reap what we sow - we are responsible for our own behavior and sins - not someone else's (original sin).

Although there may be eternal punishment for some, eternal refers to the type of punishment, not that there is no end to the punishment.

Man's station in the afterlife ultimately is a big improvement upon this life--- with far fewer Batman sequels.

[biggles53]

What a bunch of nonsense.

You define God in a way that seems arbitrary and cruel and then cry, "look, your god is arbitrary and cruel."

Wrong. I don't "define" him that way - those of you who believe in him define him that way!

You claim that he demands total loyalty.
You claim that he will bestow immortality, if we toe the line.
You claim that we will not know whether we pass or fail until after we are dead.
You claim that he is "all-seeing" and "all-knowing", and would therefore know the outcome for each of us at the moment he 'created' us.

I didn't create this tyrant. You did.

I am completely Christian. I do not believe in a god who condemns you to eternal flames, one whose love is conditional, one who gives you false hope.


Then I would suggest that you are totally at odds with most other "complete Christians".(uh-oh, I sense a No True Scotsman in 3...2...1...)

[Frazzled]

........... No True Scotsman in 3...2...1...)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/scrappydo89012/smilies/redcard.gif - nope, you've already used that 'oh so clever' :rolleyes: catch phrase in this thread......got anything else?

[biggles53]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/scrappydo89012/smilies/redcard.gif - nope, you've already used that 'oh so clever' :rolleyes: catch phrase in this thread......got anything else?

Umm...yes. All those other words that preceded it....:rolleyes:

[Frazzled]

Umm...yes. All those other words that preceded it....:rolleyes:

So, when any professed Christian points out the errors in your assumptions about their faith you pull out the 'No True Scotsman' card....................what is that, like the trump card?

[Meriweather]

Now, this gets really confusing for a dummy like me....:think:

So, your contention is that your god says you can't have "false" gods before him, right? By "false", do you take that to mean that they don't exist, or that they do exist, but you aren't allowed to worship them?

By false, I mean false--i.e., not true. There is gold and there is fool's gold. One is true gold, one is not. One is something else.

If you're not an "atheist minus one", I presume this means that you do believe in the existence of Ra, Baal, Poseidon, etc, etc, - am I right?

I believe in God. There is only one God. One minus one is zero. I don't believe in zero, I believe in One. Wealth, power, possessions, Ra, Baal, Poseidon, etcetera are not God, and I do not make false gods out of them.


And it's not intended as slander - I'm just trying to find a description that best fits the information you're providing about your belief......

And I've given you the description. There is no need for you to go out and "find" anything.

[biggles53]

By false, I mean false--i.e., not true. There is gold and there is fool's gold. One is true gold, one is not. One is something else.

Nice hedging. Let's be specific. Fool's gold, while not gold, nevertheless exists. Is it your contention that Ra, Baal, etc exist - you know, floating around somewhere out there in the ether - but that you just don't recognise them? Or do you simply state that they don't exist - they're fictional?

I believe in God. There is only one God. One minus one is zero. I don't believe in zero, I believe in One. Wealth, power, possessions, Ra, Baal, Poseidon, etcetera are not God, and I do not make false gods out of them.

Yep. Got that. You 'believe' in one god. What I want to know is how you view the others. Do they exist (in your opinion), or are they fictional?

[Meriweather]

Nice hedging. Let's be specific. Fool's gold, while not gold, nevertheless exists. Is it your contention that Ra, Baal, etc exist - you know, floating around somewhere out there in the ether - but that you just don't recognise them? Or do you simply state that they don't exist - they're fictional?

Ra, Baal, etcetera are not God. I can't say I really care how you think of them, or whether you believe they are floating around in some ether. If you are saying they are not God, then we have nothing to discuss, because I agree they are not God.

Yep. Got that. You 'believe' in one god. What I want to know is how you view the others. Do they exist (in your opinion), or are they fictional?

The Lord God said, "I am God. There is no other."

[Snow]

Wrong. I don't "define" him that way - those of you who believe in him define him that way!

You claim that he demands total loyalty.

False. I claimed no such thing. You are making things up.

You claim that he will bestow immortality, if we toe the line.

False. I claimed no such thing. You are making things up.

You claim that we will not know whether we pass or fail until after we are dead.

False. I claimed no such thing. You are making things up.

You claim that he is "all-seeing" and "all-knowing", and would therefore know the outcome for each of us at the moment he 'created' us.

False. I claimed no such thing. You are making things up.

I didn't create this tyrant. You did.

You're doing plenty good fabricating on your own without me.

[biggles53]

Ra, Baal, etcetera are not God. I can't say I really care how you think of them, or whether you believe they are floating around in some ether. If you are saying they are not God, then we have nothing to discuss, because I agree they are not God.

Excellent! They don't exist then. You have no belief in them as gods, which is the most precise definition of atheism you'll find. Me too. We both have an atheistic view of them.



The Lord God said, "I am God. There is no other."

Wonderful! I say there are no others too! So do you! With regard to those "others", we're atheists!

[biggles53]

False. I claimed no such thing. You are making things up.



False. I claimed no such thing. You are making things up.



False. I claimed no such thing. You are making things up.



False. I claimed no such thing. You are making things up.



You're doing plenty good fabricating on your own without me.

Oh really? You don't believe those things about your god? Which religion do you follow then, if not Christianity?

[Meriweather]

Excellent! They don't exist then. You have no belief in them as gods, which is the most precise definition of atheism you'll find. Me too. We both have an atheistic view of them.

Wonderful! I say there are no others too! So do you! With regard to those "others", we're atheists!


You seem to have a huge problem. I believe in God. There is only one God, there is no other. Therefore, how can I be an atheist?

Are you so insecure in your atheism that you must attempt to draft believers to stand beside you to give yourself and your form of atheism credibility?

[biggles53]

You seem to have a huge problem. I believe in God. There is only one God, there is no other. Therefore, how can I be an atheist?

Are you so insecure in your atheism that you must attempt to draft believers to stand beside you to give yourself and your form of atheism credibility?

You're hard to pin down, aren't you...!? I'm impressed!

I didn't call you an atheist, per se. You come close however. What I did say was that you have an atheistic view about any other god than your own. Given that atheism is simply the disbelief in a god or gods, this would seem to be a fair 'label'.

The "minus one" is simply because I go one god further in that withholding of belief...

[Frazzled]

Oh really? You don't believe those things about your god? Which religion do you follow then, if not Christianity?


...you do realize that Christianity is composed of many faiths, not all of which agree, right?

[Meriweather]

You're hard to pin down, aren't you...!? I'm impressed!

I didn't call you an atheist, per se. You come close however. What I did say was that you have an atheistic view about any other god than your own. Given that atheism is simply the disbelief in a god or gods, this would seem to be a fair 'label'.

The "minus one" is simply because I go one god further in that withholding of belief...


I don't see myself as hard to pin down. I am presenting truths as I see them. Surely you see that if there is only one God there can be no other? A person can only have one biolgical mother--there is no other. I can only have one God as there is no other. It is the atheists position that there are a lot of gods "out there" to not believe in.

Not believing in a false god does not make me an atheist. An atheist is a person who does not believe in God. Calling me an atheist-minus-one is not something I warm to. Being thin-skinned, I find it a very disrespectful way to describe my beliefs and what I stand for.

[JenT]

I think I understand what biggles is saying, if you define athiest as just an unbeliever, but you can't say we're atheists because we do have a belief. Doesn't the A in atheist mean opposing?

We believe in a theist

[JenT]

How can we be A-(opposing) theist?

the·ism (thē'ĭz'əm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

[JenT]

Why would you call any of us atheists? What do you gain? I'm really curious. You're not trying to trick Christians into denying God are you?

[Snow]

Oh really? You don't believe those things about your god? Which religion do you follow then, if not Christianity?

Stop playing games. You asserted that I claimed those things when you know perfectly well I claimed no such things. You just fabricated what you think I might believe.

It is pointless to debate it if you are going to assert what you want me to say and then rebut yourself.

[JenT]

Romans 9:20-22 (King James Version)


20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&verse=20&end_verse=22&version=9&context=context


AWESOME Verses!

[JenT]

Nice hedging. Let's be specific. Fool's gold, while not gold, nevertheless exists. Is it your contention that Ra, Baal, etc exist - you know, floating around somewhere out there in the ether - but that you just don't recognise them? Or do you simply state that they don't exist - they're fictional?

Yep. Got that. You 'believe' in one god. What I want to know is how you view the others. Do they exist (in your opinion), or are they fictional?

If I told you what I believe of other gods, I'd get banned. Are you trying to bait?

[Sketch]

Why would you call any of us atheists? What do you gain? I'm really curious. You're not trying to trick Christians into denying God are you?

the point is simple. I assume you do not believe in Zeus. Your disbelief in Zeus is the same to you as my disbelief in the god of abraham. As it applies to Zeus, you are an atheist (or, to avoid any discomfort an A-Zeusian)

There have been thousands of gods, once believed in by multitudes of faithful. As it relates to all of them (save one) you are the same as an atheist.

[JenT]

the point is simple. I assume you do not believe in Zeus. Your disbelief in Zeus is the same to you as my disbelief in the god of abraham. As it applies to Zeus, you are an atheist (or, to avoid any discomfort an A-Zeusian)

There have been thousands of gods, once believed in by multitudes of faithful. As it relates to all of them (save one) you are the same as an atheist.

You can't call me an athiest, don't you understand the definition? I have a belief. Why is that even an issue (sorry I came in late)

[Constantine the Great]

the point is simple. I assume you do not believe in Zeus. Your disbelief in Zeus is the same to you as my disbelief in the god of abraham. As it applies to Zeus, you are an atheist (or, to avoid any discomfort an A-Zeusian)

There have been thousands of gods, once believed in by multitudes of faithful. As it relates to all of them (save one) you are the same as an atheist.

Not true. You believe in no gods whatsoever. We believe in one God and that is not a simple distinction, but is what sets us worlds apart.

[RayMan]

You can't call me an athiest, don't you understand the definition? I have a belief. Why is that even an issue (sorry I came in late)


Biggles is philosophizin' Jen.

[JenT]

As far as people believing in thousands of gods, at least they recognized that there is a God. There are a lot of similar beliefs in ancient times, but that's because there was one truth and a lot of different speculation about that truth.

If there is a God, then that God would stand the test of time, wouldn't He?

(jeapordy music in the background)

which God would that be?

[hben]

You're hard to pin down, aren't you...!? I'm impressed!

I didn't call you an atheist, per se. You come close however. What I did say was that you have an atheistic view about any other god than your own. Given that atheism is simply the disbelief in a god or gods, this would seem to be a fair 'label'.

The "minus one" is simply because I go one god further in that withholding of belief...

It only takes ONE GOD to knock your whole foundation out from under you.

[JenT]

and which God is the God that authored a book written by over 40 "secretaries in dictation" , over 1500 year span, different cultures, different professions, yet all come together in one book with the same message, the Messiah... the one with prophesies that COME TRUE and are still COMING TRUE, and even the SCIENTISTS that can't look back and get it straight, GOD looked forward, wrote it down and it all came true.

Which God would you believe in?

[Meriweather]

the point is simple. I assume you do not believe in Zeus. Your disbelief in Zeus is the same to you as my disbelief in the god of abraham. As it applies to Zeus, you are an atheist (or, to avoid any discomfort an A-Zeusian)

There have been thousands of gods, once believed in by multitudes of faithful. As it relates to all of them (save one) you are the same as an atheist.


You assume Zeus is a god, but I have no such assumption. There is only one God.

An analogy: While there may be many perspectives on God, there is only one God just as there is only one Sketch.

I do not believe there are four of you. Does that mean I don't believe in you? No, I believe in Sketch and in the oneness of Sketch. How does believing in the uniqueness of Sketch underscore that I don't believe in three other Sketches? Isn't the point that I believe in Sketch?

[Sketch]

Not true. You believe in no gods whatsoever. We believe in one God and that is not a simple distinction, but is what sets us worlds apart.

of course I get it.

it's simply a means of relation, and it's also true to a point. I disbelieve in one more god than you. Surely you would not deny that other peoples at other times believed in - I'll be very generous - what they really thought of as supernatural supreme beings with attributes of a god. And I'm sure I am not being misleading in saying that you do not believe in what they did as it applies to their idea of god.

[JenT]

of course I get it.

it's simply a means of relation, and it's also true to a point. I disbelieve in one more god than you. Surely you would not deny that other peoples at other times believed in - I'll be very generous - what they really thought of as supernatural supreme beings with attributes of a god. And I'm sure I am not being misleading in saying that you do not believe in what they did as it applies to their idea of god.

Satan is called the "prince of the power of the air" in Ephesians 2:2. He is called the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31.

Is this who you're talking about Sketch?

I believe there are other powers, and without Adonai, Eloheim, El Shaddai, the Great "I AM" <--- God of many names but one God, there is no protection. What are we trying to do with that again?

[Constantine the Great]

of course I get it.

it's simply a means of relation, and it's also true to a point. I disbelieve in one more god than you.
Except you are oversimplifying a much more complex situation. The difference is not in the amount of gods we disbelieve in, but in the possession of faith. We have it, you don't. That's a difference that cannot be quantified based on the number of gods.


Surely you would not deny that other peoples at other times believed in - I'll be very generous - what they really thought of as supernatural supreme beings with attributes of a god. And I'm sure I am not being misleading in saying that you do not believe in what they did as it applies to their idea of god.
Yes, but this has nothing to do with the categorization of "Christian=atheist-1". It is the faith and conviction thereof that separates us and is therefore unquantifiable. A more appropriate equation would be "Christian=1 to the infinite power" vs. "atheist=0"

ETA: When speaking of mathematical equations, when the end result of two equations is the same, then the equations are considered equal. If they are not the same, they are not equal. Atheism and Christianity are not equal, mathematically speaking.

[hben]

of course I get it.

it's simply a means of relation, and it's also true to a point. I disbelieve in one more god than you. Surely you would not deny that other peoples at other times believed in - I'll be very generous - what they really thought of as supernatural supreme beings with attributes of a god. And I'm sure I am not being misleading in saying that you do not believe in what they did as it applies to their idea of god.

May I ask a simple question? What point are you trying to make?

[Sketch]

You assume Zeus is a god, but I have no such assumption. There is only one God.

An analogy: While there may be many perspectives on God, there is only one God just as there is only one Sketch.

I do not believe there are four of you. Does that mean I don't believe in you? No, I believe in Sketch and in the oneness of Sketch. How does believing in the uniqueness of Sketch underscore that I don't believe in three other Sketches? Isn't the point that I believe in Sketch?

you do recognize that there have been people who have believed - deeply and whole heartedly believed - that something other than what you think god is, was god.

your reluctance to recognize these entities as god, reveals the point - you don't believe in them. They are defined as "god', yet you don't believe that these gods existed.

So the point stands - you do not believe in anything as god, but your god. as it relates to all other entities aside from the one you believe in that are called "god" or have been believed in as "god" you do not believe.

I'm starting to sound like Mojoe JoeJoe.

[hben]

So the point stands - you do not believe in anything as god, but your god. as it relates to all other entities aside from the one you believe in that are called "god" or have been believed in as "god" you do not believe.

Just because you believe a tin can created the universe does not make it so. There is only ONE GOD who created the universe and only ONE GOD sent His Son to die for the sins of the world. Any other imposters are completely irrelevant.

I'm starting to sound like Mojoe JoeJoe.

Sounds a little like Moe, Larry and Curly Joe.

[Sketch]

May I ask a simple question? What point are you trying to make?

well, it was not my point to begin with, but I agree with it to a certain degree. But i'm pretty sure Biggles wont mind my taking a stab a his point.


The point is (and Constantine makes a good case against) is that in the grand scheme of things, reletive to all the gods that have been believed in by peoples throughout history the atheist and the theist are only separated by the belief in one-out-of-thousands of gods.

[JenT]

you do recognize that there have been people who have believed - deeply and whole heartedly believed - that something other than what you think god is, was god.

your reluctance to recognize these entities as god, reveals the point - you don't believe in them. They are defined as "god', yet you don't believe that these gods existed.

So the point stands - you do not believe in anything as god, but your god. as it relates to all other entities aside from the one you believe in that are called "god" or have been believed in as "god" you do not believe.

I'm starting to sound like Mojoe JoeJoe.

But God always was. Everyone except the Jews followed His commands, wrote a lot of their own stuff just like today, got a lot of similar facts right, like most have a belief in a huge flood, but they added a lot to it. That's why you see so many similar ancient beliefs. So an atheist will point at all that and say AH HA!!! YOu guys copied each other, when the truth is, they all had the same foundation, everyone except the Jews just corrupted their versions over the ages.

The Jews were amazingly careful in their maintaining ancient records, as all agree. They were His chosen people, and He always brought them back to Him.

[Sketch]

Satan is called the "prince of the power of the air" in Ephesians 2:2. He is called the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31.

Is this who you're talking about Sketch?

I believe there are other powers, and without Adonai, Eloheim, El Shaddai, the Great "I AM" <--- God of many names but one God, there is no protection. What are we trying to do with that again?

Jen, I have absolutely no idea what you are saying here.

But if it helps - I don't believe in any invisible conscience beings whatever.

[Sketch]

But God always was. Everyone except the Jews followed His commands, wrote a lot of their own stuff just like today, got a lot of similar facts right, like most have a belief in a huge flood, but they added a lot to it. That's why you see so many similar ancient beliefs. So an atheist will point at all that and say AH HA!!! YOu guys copied each other, when the truth is, they all had the same foundation, everyone except the Jews just corrupted their versions over the ages.

The Jews were amazingly careful in their maintaining ancient records, as all agree. They were His chosen people, and He always brought them back to Him.

this brings about something I've been curious about and was thinking I should start a thread on. Why did god wait so long to tell the Chinese about his son????

[Meriweather]

you do recognize that there have been people who have believed - deeply and whole heartedly believed - that something other than what you think god is, was god.

your reluctance to recognize these entities as god, reveals the point - you don't believe in them. They are defined as "god', yet you don't believe that these gods existed.

So the point stands - you do not believe in anything as god, but your god. as it relates to all other entities aside from the one you believe in that are called "god" or have been believed in as "god" you do not believe.

I'm starting to sound like Mojoe JoeJoe.


I believe people, even the Greeks and Romans believed in God to the best of their understanding of who and what God is. Therefore, when you claim I don't believe in Zeus, that is not entirely true. There are many faiths, and many perspectives. Mankind's understanding of God is imperfect. Two thousand years after the Greeks, I would hope our understanding is better than it was. As God's revelation continues, I have no doubt that in two thousand years, mankind's understanding of God will have continued to increase.

Therefore, when I say I believe in God, and that God is one, it does not dismiss other beliefs, but coalesces them. One God means one God for the Romans and the Greeks and the same One God for me. . . a rose by any other name and all of that. Just because none of us fully grasp and comprehend God does not diminish anything about God. The Greeks and Romans worshipped what they understood, and I am no different from them. It is understanding that has grown.

[Frazzled]

this brings about something I've been curious about and was thinking I should start a thread on. Why did god wait so long to tell the Chinese about his son????

Isn't the passing of time relative?

[JenT]

this brings about something I've been curious about and was thinking I should start a thread on. Why did god wait so long to tell the Chinese about his son????

Better question, "Why did the Chinese leave Him"

[Constantine the Great]

this brings about something I've been curious about and was thinking I should start a thread on. Why did god wait so long to tell the Chinese about his son????

If God exists outside of time, what does it matter?

[RayMan]

I believe people, even the Greeks and Romans believed in God to the best of their understanding of who and what God is. Therefore, when you claim I don't believe in Zeus, that is not entirely true. There are many faiths, and many perspectives. Mankind's understanding of God is imperfect. Two thousand years after the Greeks, I would hope our understanding is better than it was. As God's revelation continues, I have no doubt that in two thousand years, mankind's understanding of God will have continued to increase.

Therefore, when I say I believe in God, and that God is one, it does not dismiss other beliefs, but coalesces them. One God means one God for the Romans and the Greeks and the same One God for me. . . a rose by any other name and all of that. Just because none of us fully grasp and comprehend God does not diminish anything about God. The Greeks and Romans worshipped what they understood, and I am no different from them. It is understanding that has grown.

Meri,
This put me in mind of Paul's discourse in Athens.

Act 17:22 So Paul, taking his stand in the centre of the Areopagus, spoke as follows: "Men of Athens, I perceive that you are in every respect remarkably religious.
Act 17:23 For as I passed along and observed the things you worship, I found also an altar bearing the inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' "The Being, therefore, whom you, without knowing Him, revere, Him I now proclaim to you.
Act 17:24 GOD who made the universe and everything in it--He, being Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries built by men.
Act 17:25 Nor is He ministered to by human hands, as though He needed anything--but He Himself gives to all men life and breath and all things.
Act 17:26 He caused to spring from one forefather people of every race, for them to live on the whole surface of the earth, and marked out for them an appointed span of life and the boundaries of their homes;
Act 17:27 that they might seek God, if perhaps they could grope for Him and find Him. Yes, though He is not far from any one of us.
Act 17:28 For it is in closest union with Him that we live and move and have our being; as in fact some of the poets in repute among yourselves have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'

[JenT]

It all started with Adam and Eve, Sketch, all roots go back there. Why did the Chinese leave Him?

[hben]

well, it was not my point to begin with, but I agree with it to a certain degree. But i'm pretty sure Biggles wont mind my taking a stab a his point.


The point is (and Constantine makes a good case against) is that in the grand scheme of things, reletive to all the gods that have been believed in by peoples throughout history the atheist and the theist are only separated by the belief in one-out-of-thousands of gods.

Why not use Elvis to prove that your point is irrelevant? There was only one Elvis, but many imitators. It doesn't matter how many imitators try to be Elvis, they aren't and never can be. They are irrelevant to who Elvis was as a part of music history no matter how hard they try to become relevant. The thousands of gods you refer to are simply irrelevant to who God is, and they are irrelevant to the existance of the universe, to life, to death, to heaven and/or to hell. So if all other gods are non-existant and irrelevant, then the only ONE that matters is the one who created you and me.

[Constantine the Great]

I'm starting to sound like Mojoe JoeJoe.
Dude, you don't watch the PowerPuff girls do you?

[RayMan]

Dude, you don't watch the PowerPuff girls do you?

Doesn't everybody. BTW - Mojo JoJo is voiced by a guy I worked with a few years ago.

[Constantine the Great]

Doesn't everybody. BTW - Mojo JoJo is voiced by a guy I worked with a few years ago.

Ummm no :shifty: who are they :shifty:

[hben]

If God exists outside of time, what does it matter?

Maybe God created time to confuse the atheist.

[JenT]

Dude, you don't watch the PowerPuff girls do you?

:)) :)) :))

I'm laughing so hard my kids are going to start spying on me from their computers!

[Meriweather]

Meri,
This put me in mind of Paul's discourse in Athens.

Act 17:22 So Paul, taking his stand in the centre of the Areopagus, spoke as follows: "Men of Athens, I perceive that you are in every respect remarkably religious.
Act 17:23 For as I passed along and observed the things you worship, I found also an altar bearing the inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' "The Being, therefore, whom you, without knowing Him, revere, Him I now proclaim to you.
Act 17:24 GOD who made the universe and everything in it--He, being Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries built by men.
Act 17:25 Nor is He ministered to by human hands, as though He needed anything--but He Himself gives to all men life and breath and all things.
Act 17:26 He caused to spring from one forefather people of every race, for them to live on the whole surface of the earth, and marked out for them an appointed span of life and the boundaries of their homes;
Act 17:27 that they might seek God, if perhaps they could grope for Him and find Him. Yes, though He is not far from any one of us.
Act 17:28 For it is in closest union with Him that we live and move and have our being; as in fact some of the poets in repute among yourselves have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'


Thanks for posting that here. I love that story because Paul reached out to people where they were and what was familiar to them.

[Frazzled]

Hmmm......I'm really liking the Elvis analogy.

[Constantine the Great]

Maybe God created time to confuse the atheist.

No, I think that atheists are so wrapped up in the tangible world that they do not consider anything existing outside of the tangible realm. Time is an artificial construct in man's attempt to categorize the world around him. God is not tied to this realm in the manner that mankind is. We are the creation, He is the Creator. We are bound to Creation, He is not.

[hben]

Hmmm......I'm really liking the Elvis analogy.

Well uh, thank you...thank vury much. :cool:

[hben]

No, I think that atheists are so wrapped up in the tangible world that they do not consider anything existing outside of the tangible realm. Time is an artificial construct in man's attempt to categorize the world around him. God is not tied to this realm in the manner that mankind is. We are the creation, He is the Creator. We are bound to Creation, He is not.

Agreed. God needs no Timex or Rolex. ;)

[Meriweather]

Well uh, thank you...thank vury much. :cool:

:))

[JenT]

Hey I think I'm gonna take Sketch's side cuz he's all alone with all of us...

So, RayMan, explain those batman ears, will ya? Is that a sign of evolution?

[RayMan]

Ummm no :shifty: who are they :shifty:

You don't know who the PowerPuff girls are? They were huge when my 18 year old daughter was 8. We watched them all the time with her sitting on my lap. Great cartoon. Little girls with super-powers battling the super intelligent monkey Mojo Jojo.

[Constantine the Great]

:)) :)) :))

I'm laughing so hard my kids are going to start spying on me from their computers!

Remember, if you're about to get busted, do a hard-reboot.

[RayMan]

Hey I think I'm gonna take Sketch's side cuz he's all alone with all of us...

So, RayMan, explain those batman ears, will ya? Is that a sign of evolution?

Now you're pickin' on my ears? I can't help it, it's genetic!

[hben]

:))

Elvis has left the building, so now all the thousands of imitators can hit the stage.

Wait a minute. Where did everybody go? The atheists say there is no difference between the real thing and the imitation. hmmmm...:think:

[Constantine the Great]

You don't know who the PowerPuff girls are? They were huge when my 18 year old daughter was 8. We watched them all the time with her sitting on my lap. Great cartoon. Little girls with super-powers battling the super intelligent monkey Mojo Jojo.

Of course I do. You mean the smilies didn't convey the faux-ignorance of the question? I have nieces and cousins too you know (thank God it was only the female ones watching).

[JenT]

WAIT! Rayman those aren't batman ears, that's a yellow spike coming out of your head...is that a lightning post for Zeus? Or the latest in quantum science...microwave cell phones?

[RayMan]

Thanks for posting that here. I love that story because Paul reached out to people where they were and what was familiar to them.

Exactly. He was totally inclusive instead of being antagonistic.

[Meriweather]

You don't know who the PowerPuff girls are? They were huge when my 18 year old daughter was 8. We watched them all the time with her sitting on my lap. Great cartoon. Little girls with super-powers battling the super intelligent monkey Mojo Jojo.


Was it that long ago? We still have Power Puff Girls Christmas decorations and a Power Puff Girls game stored with CandyLand and Chutes and Ladders. . . .

[RayMan]

Was it that long ago? We still have Power Puff Girls Christmas decorations and a Power Puff Girls game stored with CandyLand and Chutes and Ladders. . . .

Pretty sure they came out in 1998.

[Constantine the Great]

Exactly. He was totally inclusive instead of being antagonistic.

Was he being inclusive and using the "unknown god" momument for didactic purposes or did he understand that the worship of Zeus, Baal, Apollo, etc were manifestations of people and nations gradually progressing to and in knowledge of and worship of the Living God?

[hben]

Pretty sure they came out in 1998.

I think I missed that era. Teenage Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers and Barney the Purple Dinosaur were all big around our house over the years though.

[Sketch]

Dude, you don't watch the PowerPuff girls do you?


Is this is a case of "it takes one to know one"?

I'm glad someone caught the reference, and yes I do (or did, when I had cable) watch the powerpuff girls.

[RayMan]

Was he being inclusive and using the "unknown god" momument for didactic purposes or did he understand that the worship of Zeus, Baal, Apollo, etc were manifestations of people and nations gradually progressing to and in knowledge of and worship of the Living God?

I am thinking the latter. Especially in light of the next couple verses.

Act 17:29 Since then we are God's offspring, we ought not to imagine that His nature resembles gold or silver or marble, or anything sculptured by the art and inventive faculty of man.
Act 17:30 Those times of ignorance God viewed with indulgence. But now He commands all men everywhere to repent,

Seems to me he was praising them for their desire to move in the right direction as concerned worship of God and that he was gently and respectfully helping to move them along in their understanding of God.

[Constantine the Great]

Is this is a case of "it takes one to know one"?

I'm glad someone caught the reference, and yes I do (or did, when I had cable) watch the powerpuff girls.


AS I stated in an earlier post, I have young nieces and cousins too, that and I'm a big Cartoon Network fan (although Johnny Bravo had to be my favorite).

[RayMan]

AS I stated in an earlier post, I have young nieces and cousins too, that and I'm a big Cartoon Network fan (although Johnny Bravo had to be my favorite).


Loved Johnny Bravo and Dexter's Lab.

[Constantine the Great]

I am thinking the latter. Especially in light of the next couple verses.

Act 17:29 Since then we are God's offspring, we ought not to imagine that His nature resembles gold or silver or marble, or anything sculptured by the art and inventive faculty of man.
Act 17:30 Those times of ignorance God viewed with indulgence. But now He commands all men everywhere to repent,

Seems to me he was praising them for their desire to move in the right direction as concerned worship of God and that he was gently and respectfully helping to move them along in their understanding of God.

I agree. I also think (call it nationalistic snobbery :razz: ) that there is a reason why St. Paul delivered this sermon where he did (in Athens in the Agora). The Greeks (and especially the Athenians) were industrious, adventurous and intellectual people. The Agora was the gathering place for people to discuss and debate (sort of like an ancient hannity.com) and they reveled in such discussions and speculations, be they religious or otherwise. The Greek language was already spread throughout the then known world (thanks to fellow Macedonian Alexander the Great) and the intrepid Athenians were ever willing to go to the ends of the earth to accomplish something they had set their minds to. They didn't always succeed, but that was never a deterrent for them.

[THE LIGHT]

As far as people believing in thousands of gods, at least they recognized that there is a God. There are a lot of similar beliefs in ancient times, but that's because there was one truth and a lot of different speculation about that truth.

If there is a God, then that God would stand the test of time, wouldn't He?

(jeapordy music in the background)

which God would that be?

Would that be the God that through various prophets has authored hundreds of prophecies, all of which have come true?:lol:

[JenT]

DING DING DING DING!

THE LIGHT gets the gold star!

:dance::dance:

[THE LIGHT]

DING DING DING DING!

THE LIGHT gets the gold star!

:dance::dance:

http://bestsmileys.com/tropheys/3.gif

[biggles53]

I don't see myself as hard to pin down. I am presenting truths as I see them. Surely you see that if there is only one God there can be no other? A person can only have one biolgical mother--there is no other. I can only have one God as there is no other. It is the atheists position that there are a lot of gods "out there" to not believe in.

Not believing in a false god does not make me an atheist. An atheist is a person who does not believe in God. Calling me an atheist-minus-one is not something I warm to. Being thin-skinned, I find it a very disrespectful way to describe my beliefs and what I stand for.

My intention, as I might have said somewhere else, is not to be disrespectful or insulting. If I have caused that impression in you, I apologise.

My intention was to try to point out (maybe a little smart-assedly) that the (sometimes) revulsion that people of faith have for atheists, is something they should pause and consider, given that they are dismissive of all the other gods that many other people of faith have, and do, worship in various places and at various times.

That "dismissal" of their gods is exactly what atheists do for all gods.

If you think about it logically, the primary reason that you worship the god you do has much more to do with the location and era you were born in, rather than any superior claim that yours is the one "true" god. Had you been born in Iran, you would almost certainly worshipping the Islamic god, in India you would observe the bevy of gods under Krishna. If you were born in Greece now, you'd probably be Orthodox - a few thousand years ago and Apollo would be your guy.

Now, in dismissing the gods of many of the people who were born in those times and places, you do exactly as I do with your god. That is, you consider them as being unworthy to be classified as (to use your description) "true".

[Dancer]

My intention, as I might have said somewhere else, is not to be disrespectful or insulting. If I have caused that impression in you, I apologise.

My intention was to try to point out (maybe a little smart-assedly) that the (sometimes) revulsion that people of faith have for atheists, is something they should pause and consider, given that they are dismissive of all the other gods that many other people of faith have, and do, worship in various places and at various times.

That "dismissal" of their gods is exactly what atheists do for all gods.

If you think about it logically, the primary reason that you worship the god you do has much more to do with the location and era you were born in, rather than any superior claim that yours is the one "true" god. Had you been born in Iran, you would almost certainly worshipping the Islamic god, in India you would observe the bevy of gods under Krishna. If you were born in Greece now, you'd probably be Orthodox - a few thousand years ago and Apollo would be your guy.

Now, in dismissing the gods of many of the people who were born in those times and places, you do exactly as I do with your god. That is, you consider them as being unworthy to be classified as (to use your description) "true".I think that those persons who have a 'revulsion' for atheists are far fewer than it might seem like to you. It is always the squeaky wheel that gets the attention as opposed to the quiet ones. I believe the vast majority of people have no revulsion for atheists other than when it seems like the atheism of certain people is interfering with their right to show or practice their own faith.

Our beliefs are based partially upon what you have relayed (environment) but they are also based upon personal experience and the fundamental (NOT fundamentalist...that is something different) teachings which we find to be True when we apply them to our lives. It is through the practices of the faith that people are often converted between faiths because they see the beneficial application in their lives and the lives of others. Those of us who know that God is the only God know that he has said that he allows the same rain to fall on the righteous and the unrighteous. That still doesn't explain the application of faith in one's life though and how my faith affects my relationships with others. When I actively practice my faith, it makes miraculous changes in my life and the lives of the people around me. When I coast along in my faith with an attitude of "I'll leave it up to God completely and not worry about using my gifts as God intended" I rarely see a difference between my faith and that of the atheist or the person who believes in Allah.

[Marleysdaddy]

Aristotle based everything he knew on Plato -- IF Plato existed at all -- because the only evidence we've got that Plato existed is ARISTOTLE'S word for it.
...you're REALLY ill-educated.


Just a bump...I'm not letting this one go...this should be the new online definition of irony

[signcut]

Why would you call any of us atheists? What do you gain? I'm really curious. You're not trying to trick Christians into denying God are you?

He is trying to support his own position by drafting others into it. 'Even those who believe in God are really atheists, minus one'...

As Meriweather pointed out, this is akin to saying that I am an orphan, minus two.

:rolleyes:

[biggles53]

Our beliefs are based partially upon what you have relayed (environment) but they are also based upon personal experience and the fundamental (NOT fundamentalist...that is something different) teachings which we find to be True when we apply them to our lives. It is through the practices of the faith that people are often converted between faiths because they see the beneficial application in their lives and the lives of others. Those of us who know that God is the only God know that he has said that he allows the same rain to fall on the righteous and the unrighteous. That still doesn't explain the application of faith in one's life though and how my faith affects my relationships with others. When I actively practice my faith, it makes miraculous changes in my life and the lives of the people around me. When I coast along in my faith with an attitude of "I'll leave it up to God completely and not worry about using my gifts as God intended" I rarely see a difference between my faith and that of the atheist or the person who believes in Allah.

Just a few points.

The 'flavour' of your faith is almost entirely determined by your environment. You were, most likely, baptised into your particular faith even before you knew your own name. You probably grew up with an automatic acceptance of your 'brand' of faith. So any "personal experiences" would have to be evaluated through that frame. Yes, people are sometimes "converted", but not much. Most African nations are Muslim, most Middle East countries are Muslim, most of Israel worships the Jewish god, most of India is Hindu, most of Sweden and Denmark is secular, most of the US is Christian. Where mass 'conversions' have occurred in the past, it was often at the point of a sword, rather than people making a subjective decision to change.

And a minor point. Atheists, by definition, don't have a 'faith'.....!

[signcut]

And a minor point. Atheists, by definition, don't have a 'faith'.....!

Annoying, isn't it, that you are said to have a faith?

Not as much as it is to be called an "atheist, minus one" for a believer. By definition, impossible. :cool:

[Constantine the Great]

And a minor point. Atheists, by definition, don't have a 'faith'.....!

No, that's the only point.

Bumping the following to the forefront.

of course I get it.

it's simply a means of relation, and it's also true to a point. I disbelieve in one more god than you.
Except you are oversimplifying a much more complex situation. The difference is not in the amount of gods we disbelieve in, but in the possession of faith. We have it, you don't. That's a difference that cannot be quantified based on the number of gods.


Surely you would not deny that other peoples at other times believed in - I'll be very generous - what they really thought of as supernatural supreme beings with attributes of a god. And I'm sure I am not being misleading in saying that you do not believe in what they did as it applies to their idea of god.
Yes, but this has nothing to do with the categorization of "Christian=atheist-1". It is the faith and conviction thereof that separates us and is therefore unquantifiable. A more appropriate equation would be "Christian=1 to the infinite power" vs. "atheist=0"

ETA: When speaking of mathematical equations, when the end result of two equations is the same, then the equations are considered equal. If they are not the same, they are not equal. Atheism and Christianity are not equal, mathematically speaking.

[Hardtruths]

............................You claim that he will bestow immortality, if we toe the line.
.......................

Nope its that he freely gives immortality, knowing that we will fall short of His Just requirements and pays the price of said disobedience for us so that His Justice is served

[biggles53]

Annoying, isn't it, that you are said to have a faith?

Not as much as it is to be called an "atheist, minus one" for a believer. By definition, impossible. :cool:

Not an "annoy[ance]" at all - merely an area of ignorance that needed to be corrected.

[biggles53]

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the categorization of "Christian=atheist-1". It is the faith and conviction thereof that separates us and is therefore unquantifiable. A more appropriate equation would be "Christian=1 to the infinite power" vs. "atheist=0"

ETA: When speaking of mathematical equations, when the end result of two equations is the same, then the equations are considered equal. If they are not the same, they are not equal. Atheism and Christianity are not equal, mathematically speaking.

Umm.....just to help you out there....1 to any power is still.....1.

Now, "Atheism and Christianity are not equal"

Phew! Thanks for that revelation....for just a moment there I thought they were the same thing!

To get back to matters of sense, the point that was being made (ad nauseum), was that the process by which the 'believer' discounts all the other gods that have existed or still exist, is the same process that the atheist uses to discount ALL gods!

[Meriweather]

My intention, as I might have said somewhere else, is not to be disrespectful or insulting. If I have caused that impression in you, I apologise.

Thank you. I was trying to have a serious, good faith discussion, and it seemed to me all you wanted was reason to sneer.

My intention was to try to point out (maybe a little smart-assedly) that the (sometimes) revulsion that people of faith have for atheists, is something they should pause and consider, given that they are dismissive of all the other gods that many other people of faith have, and do, worship in various places and at various times.

Why did you feel the need to point revulsion out to me, a poster who is married to an atheist and who loves the other atheists in her family as well? I am curious what caused you to believe I have a revulsion for any atheist.

That "dismissal" of their gods is exactly what atheists do for all gods.

Again, you have made a wrong assumption about me. I have a great love of mythology--not only for the stories themselves but because of the insight it gives on how people of earlier times related to God. Certainly that view of God is not the same as the view today--and the view today probably will not be the same as it is two thousand years from now. I believe God's revelation of Himself is ongoing. I do not dismiss any of these gods, but my understanding is that there is one God--and has always been one God despite the fact that in ancient times people worshipped Him in the form of many gods.

If you think about it logically, the primary reason that you worship the god you do has much more to do with the location and era you were born in, rather than any superior claim that yours is the one "true" god. Had you been born in Iran, you would almost certainly worshipping the Islamic god, in India you would observe the bevy of gods under Krishna. If you were born in Greece now, you'd probably be Orthodox - a few thousand years ago and Apollo would be your guy.

I am always mystified by why atheists see such a problem in this. I believe God reaches each one of us no matter what culture we are born into. If I had been born in Iran, I would be worshipping the One God (they, too, see God as One), but there is an excellent chance my faith would have been Islamic. Belief in God and the faith one chooses to worship by are two very different things.

Now, in dismissing the gods of many of the people who were born in those times and places, you do exactly as I do with your god. That is, you consider them as being unworthy to be classified as (to use your description) "true".

But as you see, I don't and never have dismissed the concept of many gods, just as I do not dismiss the concept of Islam. What I have been trying to point out to you is that there is One God and billions of people throughout the ages who have seen Him and described Him in thousands of different ways. I believe there is a God to describe. You don't believe in the existence of any such being. This is a huge difference in our two beliefs.

I respect that you are an atheist--I really do. I was born into a family that has an atheist or six--and then I married into a family of atheists. Whatever I did or said to give you the impression I have a revulsion for atheists I am deeply sorry for. Atheist and theist beliefs are not the same, and calling me an "atheist-minus-one"--to me--shows a blatant disregard for the beliefs I took the care and the time to lay out for you.

I know you kept insisting I was "moving goal posts" and was "hard to pin down" but what I was patiently trying to do was to widen your parameters to give you a clearer glimpse into why people believe. Therefore I took your comments as just another sneer.

I never read it, but years ago there was a book with the title, "Your God Is Too Small." Your perspective on God and those of Believers seemed too small to me. I wanted to widen your parameters a little, and maybe that is why you had that sensation of moving goal posts and finding me hard to pin down.

P.S. I hope you read Constantine's posts. He has a great way of approaching this discussion. . . .if, indeed, you are after a serious discussion.

[Dancer]

Just a few points.

The 'flavour' of your faith is almost entirely determined by your environment. You were, most likely, baptised into your particular faith even before you knew your own name. You probably grew up with an automatic acceptance of your 'brand' of faith. So any "personal experiences" would have to be evaluated through that frame. Yes, people are sometimes "converted", but not much. Most African nations are Muslim, most Middle East countries are Muslim, most of Israel worships the Jewish god, most of India is Hindu, most of Sweden and Denmark is secular, most of the US is Christian. Where mass 'conversions' have occurred in the past, it was often at the point of a sword, rather than people making a subjective decision to change.

And a minor point. Atheists, by definition, don't have a 'faith'.....!Yes you do. You have faith that nothing exists after. There being no faith does not change the effect of the lack thereof, thus, for the purpose of this discussion, your 'lack' of faith is, in fact, faith that there is nothing.

I am not going to argue with you about environment. I was willing to meet you halfway in the discussion with my statement regarding environment, but you clearly have no desire to discuss, and instead work at creating strawmen.

[Meriweather]

To get back to matters of sense, the point that was being made (ad nauseum), was that the process by which the 'believer' discounts all the other gods that have existed or still exist, is the same process that the atheist uses to discount ALL gods!

You do not seem to understand that we reject your point that the process which the believer discounts all other gods is the same process that the atheist uses. The believer believes in God and then tries to voice and describe this understanding. There are and have been many ways believers have described God. It is the descriptions of God we can either relate with or not. Our belief in God stands.

Atheists don't believe there is any God to describe.

Surely you can see this:

Belief there is a God to describe vs belief there is no God to describe.

These are oppostie beliefs. Therefore you cannot claim a similarity of beliefs between atheists and believers. These beliefs are diametrically opposed.

Once again, I have to wonder why you feel the need to have your non-belief in God given some kind of validation by people who do believe in God.

[biggles53]

Thank you. I was trying to have a serious, good faith discussion, and it seemed to me all you wanted was reason to sneer.



Why did you feel the need to point revulsion out to me, a poster who is married to an atheist and who loves the other atheists in her family as well? I am curious what caused you to believe I have a revulsion for any atheist.



Again, you have made a wrong assumption about me. I have a great love of mythology--not only for the stories themselves but because of the insight it gives on how people of earlier times related to God. Certainly that view of God is not the same as the view today--and the view today probably will not be the same as it is two thousand years from now. I believe God's revelation of Himself is ongoing. I do not dismiss any of these gods, but my understanding is that there is one God--and has always been one God despite the fact that in ancient times people worshipped Him in the form of many gods.



I am always mystified by why atheists see such a problem in this. I believe God reaches each one of us no matter what culture we are born into. If I had been born in Iran, I would be worshipping the One God (they, too, see God as One), but there is an excellent chance my faith would have been Islamic. Belief in God and the faith one chooses to worship by are two very different things.



But as you see, I don't and never have dismissed the concept of many gods, just as I do not dismiss the concept of Islam. What I have been trying to point out to you is that there is One God and billions of people throughout the ages who have seen Him and described Him in thousands of different ways. I believe there is a God to describe. You don't believe in the existence of any such being. This is a huge difference in our two beliefs.

I respect that you are an atheist--I really do. I was born into a family that has an atheist or six--and then I married into a family of atheists. Whatever I did or said to give you the impression I have a revulsion for atheists I am deeply sorry for. Atheist and theist beliefs are not the same, and calling me an "atheist-minus-one"--to me--shows a blatant disregard for the beliefs I took the care and the time to lay out for you.

I know you kept insisting I was "moving goal posts" and was "hard to pin down" but what I was patiently trying to do was to widen your parameters to give you a clearer glimpse into why people believe. Therefore I took your comments as just another sneer.

I never read it, but years ago there was a book with the title, "Your God Is Too Small." Your perspective on God and those of Believers seemed too small to me. I wanted to widen your parameters a little, and maybe that is why you had that sensation of moving goal posts and finding me hard to pin down.

P.S. I hope you read Constantine's posts. He has a great way of approaching this discussion. . . .if, indeed, you are after a serious discussion.

Always.

And I must congratulate you. If all the above is sincere, then you truly have the most accommodating position on what constitutes the 'deity' that I have ever read! It must be the sobering influence of all those atheists you cavort with.... ;)

Seriously, what a shame that so many other believers (of all stripes) seem so unable to stomach the idea of such an all-encompassing concept of god. Most, I'm sure you will agree, are devout in protecting their own 'patch'...their own version of god. Even to the point of persecution, discrimination and genocide...

Your position is well put....

[JenT]

He is trying to support his own position by drafting others into it. 'Even those who believe in God are really atheists, minus one'...

As Meriweather pointed out, this is akin to saying that I am an orphan, minus two.

:rolleyes:

excellent analogy!

[Jeemie]

You do not seem to understand that we reject your point that the process which the believer discounts all other gods is the same process that the atheist uses. The believer believes in God and then tries to voice and describe this understanding. There are and have been many ways believers have described God. It is the descriptions of God we can either relate with or not. Our belief in God stands.

Atheists don't believe there is any God to describe.

Surely you can see this:

Belief there is a God to describe vs belief there is no God to describe.

These are oppostie beliefs. Therefore you cannot claim a similarity of beliefs between atheists and believers. These beliefs are diametrically opposed.

Once again, I have to wonder why you feel the need to have your non-belief in God given some kind of validation by people who do believe in God.

Meriweather, if this is how you truly believe (that all beliefs in the different gods are simply different ways of relating to the One God), then you are not a Christian in any traditional sense.

Christianity is a "one way" religion- the apostles, like Paul, may have thought like you for teaching purposes, but once they held up the other relgions as "reflections" or "different perspectives" of the true way to God through Jesus, their next step was always...ALWAYS...to teach these people "the way of God more accurately".

Are you saying you do not feel the need to preach the Gospel to all nations?

That you do not feel the need to convert those who have "different perspectives" on God to the "more accurate way of God"?

That the Christian belief is the "most accurate perspective" on God?

That at some point, a person MUST call upon Jesus to be saved?

If you do not believe these things above, then you are NOT a Bible-believing Christian.

Not saying this to be critical, but for clarification- so it may guide any future discussions with you.

[biggles53]

Yes you do. You have faith that nothing exists after. There being no faith does not change the effect of the lack thereof, thus, for the purpose of this discussion, your 'lack' of faith is, in fact, faith that there is nothing.

I am not going to argue with you about environment. I was willing to meet you halfway in the discussion with my statement regarding environment, but you clearly have no desire to discuss, and instead work at creating strawmen.

What strawmen?!

But more importantly, you don't understand atheism. It is an absence, nothing more. There is no "faith" in a "nothing after". There is simply a position that says there is no evidence of an "after", likewise, there is no evidence of a god. That being the case, the atheist says "I withhold all belief in gods and their pronouncements." That's it! I don't "believe" in it. I don't "hope" it's true. I don't pray to it! Nor, as has been suggested by other posters, do I have a need (or a point) in "drafting" others to the 'cause'. Because there is no cause!

Can I be clearer....?

[Jeemie]

Yes you do. You have faith that nothing exists after. There being no faith does not change the effect of the lack thereof, thus, for the purpose of this discussion, your 'lack' of faith is, in fact, faith that there is nothing.

Not true.

Some do...some, like Dawkins or Stenger or Dennett...have fashioned arguments that God definitely doesn't exist.

However, most atheists simply say there's no evidence for God, so there's no compelling reason to believe God exists.

A deity may very well exist...there's just no evidence for one. That is atheism in a nutshell.

[biggles53]

excellent analogy!

Ummm....Jen? You may love the analogy, but the math sucks! What he(?) should have said is that "I'm an orphan PLUS two".

Oh dear....:wall:

[biggles53]

Not true.

Some do...some, like Dawkins or Stenger or Dennett...have fashioned arguments that God definitely doesn't exist.

However, most atheists simply say there's no evidence for God, so there's no compelling reason to believe God exists.

A deity may very well exist...there's just no evidence for one. That is atheism in a nutshell.

You sum it well, but just one slight correction. Dawkins (I'm not sure about the others), describes himself as "6 leaning to 7" on the atheism 'scale'. That is, rather than the 'strong' atheist position that "There are definitely no gods", he is more like as you describe in your last two sentences.

[Jeemie]

You sum it well, but just one slight correction. Dawkins (I'm not sure about the others), describes himself as "6 leaning to 7" on the atheism 'scale'. That is, rather than the 'strong' atheist position that "There are definitely no gods", he is more like as you describe in your last two sentences.

Yes- but he acts like he's on the maximum of the scale (can't remember- does it go to 10?)

[biggles53]

Yes- but he acts like he's on the maximum of the scale (can't remember- does it go to 10?)

Can't remember to be honest, but in "The God Delusion" he clearly states that he does NOT assign a probability of zero to the existence of god/ gods.

[Jeemie]

Can't remember to be honest, but in "The God Delusion" he clearly states that he does NOT assign a probability of zero to the existence of god/ gods.

OK- no biggie.

I know Stenger pretty much does...but that's relatively unimportant to the point I made.

[biggles53]

OK- no biggie.

I know Stenger pretty much does...but that's relatively unimportant to the point I made.

Sure mate. No prob.

[Marleysdaddy]

I believe God reaches each one of us no matter what culture we are born into. If I had been born in Iran, I would be worshipping the One God (they, too, see God as One), but there is an excellent chance my faith would have been Islamic. Belief in God and the faith one chooses to worship by are two very different things.
But as you see, I don't and never have dismissed the concept of many gods, just as I do not dismiss the concept of Islam. What I have been trying to point out to you is that there is One God and billions of people throughout the ages who have seen Him and described Him in thousands of different ways.

Thank you...

[Marleysdaddy]

Not true.

Some do...some, like Dawkins or Stenger or Dennett...have fashioned arguments that God definitely doesn't exist.

However, most atheists simply say there's no evidence for God, so there's no compelling reason to believe God exists.

A deity may very well exist...there's just no evidence for one. That is atheism in a nutshell.

:clap:

Everyone should read this article, and then come back to the forum and discuss :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

[Talk2Bill]

I enjoy these kinds of topics. it so happens that the best form of goverment would be one or a few that hold all the power. But it only works when:

1) the power holders are 100% correct 100% of the time and totally beyond corruption
2) they have unlimited resources
3) total compliance (by whatever means is needed)

On the other hand we would be ok if we had 2 and 3....

[JenT]

:clap:

Everyone should read this article, and then come back to the forum and discuss :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

I started it, but it wasn't going anywhere very fast, can you put it in a nutshell? I've always known there were "atheists" that I could talk with, and then there were the ones that I described as "hatetheists" because they were all about...well, killing Christians, and the majority of atheists were nothing like that.

Kind of like Islam, majority that we know in America are peaceful, but the difference is the holy book of Islam sides with the Islamonazis. Atheists don't have that, (a book of atheism that says to hurt believers) thank goodness!

[Marleysdaddy]

Kind of like Islam, majority that we know in America are peaceful, but the difference is the holy book of Islam sides with the Islamonazis. Atheists don't have that, (a book of atheism that says to hurt believers) thank goodness!

The Koran doesn't side with Radical Muslims anymore than the Bible sides with Radical Christains. Both groups miss the forest for the trees, and pick certain passages to support heinous acts.

[yguy]

I started it, but it wasn't going anywhere very fast, can you put it in a nutshell?In theory, a strong atheist professes belief in the absence of any God. A weak atheist professes a lack of belief in any God, which is essentially an agnostic position.

In practice, strong atheists often claim to be weak atheists when it starts to become clear that their actual position is indefensible. ;)

[Jeemie]

In theory, a strong atheist professes belief in the absence of any God. A weak atheist professes a lack of belief in any God, which is essentially an agnostic position.

In practice, strong atheists often claim to be weak atheists when it starts to become clear that their actual position is indefensible. ;)

Agnosticism is not a with-holding of belief.

Agnostics think the question of whether God exists or not cannot be answered.

This is a critically important distinction.

[Meriweather]

Meriweather, if this is how you truly believe (that all beliefs in the different gods are simply different ways of relating to the One God), then you are not a Christian in any traditional sense.

Christianity is a "one way" religion- the apostles, like Paul, may have thought like you for teaching purposes, but once they held up the other relgions as "reflections" or "different perspectives" of the true way to God through Jesus, their next step was always...ALWAYS...to teach these people "the way of God more accurately".

Are you saying you do not feel the need to preach the Gospel to all nations?

That you do not feel the need to convert those who have "different perspectives" on God to the "more accurate way of God"?

I am Catholic, and was brought up with Vatican II, so it is the current Catholic Catechism I am most familiar with. In it states that God has an everlasting covenant with the Jews--they were His first born. It describes Protestants as, "Our brothers and sisters in Christ." Those who are not Christian the Church makes no judgment, but leaves to the mercy of God.

All this being said, the Church (and I) take very seriously the command to spread the Good News to every nation--or, perhaps in my particular case, to live and tell the Good News to the atheists in my care. That does not mean I am overbearing about it, it means I stand true to my own beliefs and position. Some of the things I have done and the results that have come about have seriously rocked 'my' atheists back on their heels, even though they haven't given up their own beliefs. (i.e., their conclusion always is, 'Nah, I don't believe in God, so there has to be another explanation for this.') I do spread the Good News to those around me--LIVE the Good News, but no, I don't go around bashing people over the head with it. Bashing people with the Gospel was NOT Jesus' command.


That the Christian belief is the "most accurate perspective" on God?

When I was little I had an experience of God that naturally enough aroused love, belief, curiosity, etcetera. There is no getting around that people relate best to what matches their own personal experience. Christianity matches best what I experienced. I do not question, nor does it bother me, that there are most likely others who say their own experience, matches closely the religion they follow.

In teaching/telling people about God, I would make a total hash of it if I were to try and lead people to God through the Hindu perspective.


That at some point, a person MUST call upon Jesus to be saved?

If you do not believe these things above, then you are NOT a Bible-believing Christian.

Jesus came to preach the Good News. The Gospel that he preached was, The Kingdom of God is at hand (within reach); and, Sins are forgiven.

As a Catholic, I am a little bewildered by the "saved" philosophy that other Christian churches emphasize so much. Catholics pray the Stations of the Cross with a response that state, "By your holy cross, you have redeemed the world." Catholics don't necessarily go around claiming a personal savior, although of course, that does describe Jesus' work. The Catholic outlook is broader than this--it is the world that is redeemed not just the individual. The Catholic perspective has me looking at people and seeing people of all faiths living in a world that Christ redeemed. I don't go around looking at individuals wondering if they are "saved."

Sins are forgiven. The world being redeemed. The Kingdom of God within everyone's reach. What about people who reject this utterly? If one does not accept Jesus' teachings on these, then they have condemned themselves to believe their sins are not, and never will be forgiven; they condemn themselves to believing God cares nothing for this world; if they don't believe there is any Kingdom of God to be had on earth, they condemn themselves to never finding and entering into this Kingdom.

That is why Christians are anxious to spread the good news and are sorrowful when people do not accept it. It's like a mother offering her child a coat on a cold day, and the child rejects it and runs off without it. The child has condemned himself to being cold.

Not saying this to be critical, but for clarification- so it may guide any future discussions with you.

These were good questions, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position. My central truth is that God is love. Every other position of mine springs from that truth, and so does the faith of the Catholic Church.

[Marleysdaddy]

In theory, a strong atheist professes belief in the absence of any God. A weak atheist professes a lack of belief in any God, which is essentially an agnostic position.

In practice, strong atheists often claim to be weak atheists when it starts to become clear that their actual position is indefensible. ;)

A strong atheist's position is no less defensible than a theist's position ;)

[Marleysdaddy]

Agnosticism is not a with-holding of belief.
Agnostics think the question of whether God exists or not cannot be answered.
This is a critically important decision.

:clap:Thank you

[Dancer]

Not true.

Some do...some, like Dawkins or Stenger or Dennett...have fashioned arguments that God definitely doesn't exist.

However, most atheists simply say there's no evidence for God, so there's no compelling reason to believe God exists.

A deity may very well exist...there's just no evidence for one. That is atheism in a nutshell.What you have described in your final sentence is agnosticism to me, not atheism.

I see those two beliefs, or non beliefs, as separate and distinct. Whenever they are used interchangably, I am frustrated because I truly see a difference between 'not knowing' if there is a God and 'knowing for certain' there is NOT a God.

[Marleysdaddy]

What you have described in your final sentence is agnosticism to me, not atheism.

Agnosticism is the suspension of judgment on the matter...it is not that we don't know, it is that we can't know

[7ranz]

A strong atheist's position is no less defensible than a theist's position ;)

It's at the very least as defensible as not believing in fairies, unicorns the flying spagetti monster and Russell's teacup.

[Dancer]

Agnosticism is the suspension of judgment on the matter...it is not that we don't know, it is that we can't knowdo not know and cannot know...

If one cannot know then one does not know, but if one does not know, they consider the jury out on whether or not they CAN know? :confused:

[yguy]

A strong atheist's position is no less defensible than a theist's position ;)So in your view the assertion that a complete search of the universe will yield no God is as defensible as the assertion that one can find God without leaving one's living room.

Which presumes a greater knowledge of the universe? And which presumes at least a million times more knowledge of the universe than is possessed by the totality of humankind?

If you agree that it's the former, I invite you to construct a defense for it. :)

[signcut]

Not an "annoy[ance]" at all - merely an area of ignorance that needed to be corrected.

Like... what Meriweather was trying to do...? :cool:

[Jeemie]

What you have described in your final sentence is agnosticism to me, not atheism.

I see those two beliefs, or non beliefs, as separate and distinct. Whenever they are used interchangably, I am frustrated because I truly see a difference between 'not knowing' if there is a God and 'knowing for certain' there is NOT a God.

Common misconception.

A truer definition of agnosticism is that we cannot know.

The definition I gave pretty much covers "weak" atheism.

[Jeemie]

do not know and cannot know...

If one cannot know then one does not know, but if one does not know, they consider the jury out on whether or not they CAN know? :confused:

No- agnostics think the question CANNOT be answered.

Weak atheists think it can be answered, but haven't seen any confirming evidence that it has.

[Jeemie]

So in your view the assertion that a complete search of the universe will yield no God is as defensible as the assertion that one can find God without leaving one's living room.

Which presumes a greater knowledge of the universe? And which presumes at least a million times more knowledge of the universe than is possessed by the totality of humankind?

If you agree that it's the former, I invite you to construct a defense for it. :)

I would say neither is defensible under the criteria you gave.

You can never make a defense for saying you can find God by never leaving your living room- you can only BELIEVE you have done so.

[signcut]

Ummm....Jen? You may love the analogy, but the math sucks! What he(?) should have said is that "I'm an orphan PLUS two".

Oh dear....:wall:

It is a ridiculous position. To quibble and split hairs about what it 'should be' is even more so...

Oh dear.

:rolleyes:

[Dancer]

No- agnostics think the question CANNOT be answered.

Weak atheists think it can be answered, but haven't seen any confirming evidence that it has.It sounds like splitting hairs to me. ;) Similar to the hair splitting that we, theists, are accused of on occassion.

Edit: ok, that was funny. :))

[matt2442]

What you have described in your final sentence is agnosticism to me, not atheism.

I see those two beliefs, or non beliefs, as separate and distinct. Whenever they are used interchangably, I am frustrated because I truly see a difference between 'not knowing' if there is a God and 'knowing for certain' there is NOT a God.

In reality, anyone who claims to know for sure about the existence or non-existence of God should be left out of any discussion, debate, or argument. They are claiming to know something that, by the very definition of it, they cannot know.

Therefore, any atheist who claims they can definitely disprove one's God is just as foolish as those who say they know for certain that God exists. Of course, someone can be absolutely convinced one way or the other, which is what I think people usually mean when they say they "know."

I must point out, regarding you last sentence, that while your 'not-knowing' definition of agnosticism seems to be accurate, your 'knowing for certain' definition of atheism misses the mark. Atheism is only a disbelief, not a claim of knowledge.

[Jeemie]

It sounds like splitting hairs to me. ;) Similar to the hair splitting that we, theists, are accused of on occassion.

Edit: ok, that was funny. :))

It's not splitting hairs.

Agnostics refuse to enter the discussion....they think the discussion is fruitless.

Atheists think there could be some evidence that could settle the question one way or the other.

[Dancer]

It's not splitting hairs.

Agnostics refuse to enter the discussion....they think the discussion is fruitless.

Atheists think there could be some evidence that could settle the question one way or the other.I have met some very educated agnostics who claim agnosticim and do not behave as though they believe discussion is fruitless.

[Marleysdaddy]

So in your view the assertion that a complete search of the universe will yield no God is as defensible as the assertion that one can find God without leaving one's living room.
Which presumes a greater knowledge of the universe? And which presumes at least a million times more knowledge of the universe than is possessed by the totality of humankind?
If you agree that it's the former, I invite you to construct a defense for it. :)

Sure...that is easy. Here is my defense...There is no phenomenal evidence that god exists and there is no phenomenal evidence that god does not exist.

[Marleysdaddy]

I have met some very educated agnostics who claim agnosticim and do not behave as though they believe discussion is fruitless.

yes they do...'fruitless' as in "having no potential to bear fruit (an answer)" if they don't, they ought to reconsider whether they are really agnostic. But I disagree with jeemie on this point - This doesn't mean they can't discuss it...I love engaging in dialectic about it, but I don't think we can find an answer. A LOT of things in philosophy are like that - thought-experiments with no end.

[yguy]

Sure...that is easy. Here is my defense...There is no phenomenal evidence that god exists By the same logic, we may reasonably assert that nothing exists beyond the visible universe because we can't see it.and there is no phenomenal evidence that god does not exist.How is this supposed to support the strong atheist position?

[biggles53]

Damn....being on the other side of the planet to most of you means that several pages get added while I'm asleep.....

OK, to help summarise the various 'positions'...

1. 'Strong' atheist (about 25% of all atheists) says "There is definitely no god/ gods. The probability is zero."

2. 'Weak' atheist says "There is no evidence for god/ gods or their pronouncements, therefore I withhold all belief in such entities. The probability of a god is greater than zero."

3. The agnostic sits on the fence. He/ she says "It is not possible to investigate if there is a god or not." The agnostic opts out of the debate.

[Marleysdaddy]

It sounds like splitting hairs to me. ;) Similar to the hair splitting that we, theists, are accused of on occassion.

Edit: ok, that was funny. :))

Are you being difficult or do you really not understand the difference between the statement

We can't know that god exists.

and

We don't know that god exists.

I am not being demeaning...not everyone has had a class in Epistemology...I would be happy to try to help, or point you to a good source., that is assuming you're not just being difficult ;)

[Marleysdaddy]

By the same logic, we may reasonably assert that nothing exists beyond the visible universe because we can't see it.
Yes...that is a perfectly reasonable assertion. What point were you attempting to make?

How is this supposed to support the strong atheist position?
I said that the strong atheist position was as defensible as the theist position. Then I gave a defense for that statement (at your request). My defense was

"There is no phenomenal evidence that god exists and there is no phenomenal evidence that god does not exist."

the first clause supports the position of the strong atheist who says "gods do not exist" (my defense says there is no evidence to the contrary)
and the second clause supports the position of the theist who says "gods exist" (and my defense says there is no evidence to the contrary)

[biggles53]

Yes...that is a perfectly reasonable assertion. What point were you attempting to make?

I said that the strong atheist position was as defensible as the theist position. Then I gave a defense for that statement (at your request). My defense was

"There is no phenomenal evidence that god exists and there is no phenomenal evidence that god does not exist."

the first clause supports the position of the strong atheist who says "gods do not exist" (my defense says there is no evidence to the contrary)
and the second clause supports the position of the theist who says "gods exist" (and my defense there is no evidence to the contrary)

The one thing that yguy can take from the above is that the ball is in his court. He's in a position whereby his 'opponent's' case can be falsified ("god's do not exist"), whereas his own position cannot ("god/s exist")......;)

[yguy]

Yes...that is a perfectly reasonable assertion. What point were you attempting to make?It's only a reasonable assertion for someone who is sanguine about claiming knowledge he cannot possibly have.and the second clause supports the position of the theist who says "gods exist" (and my defense there is no evidence to the contrary)Perhaps you are familiar with the term "strawman"?

[Marleysdaddy]

The one thing that yguy can take from the above is that the ball is in his court. He's in a position whereby his 'opponent's' case can be falsified ("god's do not exist"), whereas his own position cannot ("god/s exist")......;)

Can you explain that? :confused:

[darknessesedge]

For those who believe in the God of Abraham, particularly Christians, have you ever thought of his oversight in terms of how the "smaller" rulers rule?

Am I safe in equating God's universal role as leader of the universe?

If so, it seems safe in not qualifying as a democracy, or a republic. It only makes sense to assign his rule as a perpetual dictatorship, or absolute unrevolving monarchy.

And how does posterity judge dictators and absolute monarchs?

Maybe in how they treat their dissenters?

I invite your insights and comments.

but there is no other choice but him.

[Marleysdaddy]

It's only a reasonable assertion for someone who is sanguine about claiming knowledge he cannot possibly have.
If your goal was to confuse me, you have succeeded...how is only believing in things our five senses can perceive making any claim about knowledge we cannot possibly have?

1) Really...logically speaking, there is no knowledge that we cannot possibly have, but I understand what you meant to say.

2)"Nothing exists beyond the visible universe because we can't see it."
"God exists beyond the visible universe even though we can't see god"

Which of those two statements is claiming knowledge we cannot possibly have?


Perhaps you are familiar with the term "strawman"?
Which argument of yours did I misrepresent? If I did so, I apologize, but I don't understand why you replied to my explanation of my defense with this.