"Those of you who are regular atheists must be getting worried. Not about the future, but about the fact that you know what the Bible had to say about the future. I watched CBS news this morning. This is how it began:"Breaking News. Global market’s plummet this morning after Wall Street’s nearly 900 billion dollar loss on Thursday. Credit markets around the world are seized up in a manner no one has ever seen before."
We are seeing Bible prophecy being fulfilled before our very eyes. Experts have long predicted that we would see a world-wide economic collapse, a one-world government, and the raising up of a charismatic world leader that will bring peace and stability and will not let people buy and sell without a mark...
As this unfolds, it is slowly dawning on you that the Bible is right, and that all those "mistakes" you found in the Bible were actually your mistakes. And that leads to a sobering revelation. It means that Hell is real. So, what are you going to do? I have a suggestion. Humble yourself, then admit you were wrong, and get right with God through repentance and faith in Jesus. Then begin to reach out to the lost with the same zeal you had as an atheist." Ray Comfort
Gosh... when did I read this same thing before?
ReplyDeleteOh, yeah -- it was when I was perusing my local library's microfiche slides of old newspapers, circa 1929.
Or was it during The Great War (later dubbed World War I) that the "End of Times" sermons were so prevalent...?
Or perhaps World War II...?
Come to think of it, wasn't Saddam Hussein a compelling figure for the Antichrist, symbolizing the pending return of Christ...?
Or was it Osama bin Laden and his coordinated effort to destroy the World Trade Center Towers...?
Damn.
I can't remember when, but I swear I've heard that same schtick before. It's amusing, really, that when logic fails, Christians can always be relied upon to pull out the Doomsday Defense, and appeal to the irrational fear of the end of the world.
My position will not be changed by this silly rhetoric, and I highly doubt I am alone in that resolve.
--
Stan
Ray seems to have gone off the deep end. Even if I granted that our current crisis is "a world-wide economic collapse" (far from it), only one out of the four things Ray mentions has come to pass. But he expects all us heathen to be rending our clothes and gnashing our teeth in fear of the End Times? Ray's attempt at spiritual terrorism is compelling to you, Dan? Compelling enough to "parrot" it?
ReplyDeleteWhat stan and dave say. People have been predicting the end of the world and the return of Jesus for centuries. Perhaps the first such prediction was from Jesus Himself, in Matthew 24:34-
ReplyDeleteVerily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Now I know that there's a whole sub-branch of apologetics dealing with this prediction, and some have raised it to an art form (the JW's, for instance). But the basic problem remains: there have always been catastrophes in human history, and the Bible prophecies can be bent to fit them all.
Now, if a man rose to rule the world, and required that we tattoo the number 666 (or 616; interpretations differ) on our foreheads, then I would reread Revelation. Until then, I will regard anything that the Banana Man or the Bible says with skepticism.
Oh, and this is not (strictly speaking) on topic, but I thought it was funny.
ReplyDeleteDan:
ReplyDeleteI would be very interested to learn where you think the bible predicts an economic collapse (worldwide or otherwise.) Oh, and lest you point to famine as a reinterpretation, I should point out that this collapse affect oil and wine as much as it does wheat and barley.
Dan, are you supporting Ray's opinion?
ReplyDeleteStan,
ReplyDelete"Gosh... when did I read this same thing before?"
Hilarious and true. It has been mistaken as the end (and maybe even this time also) many times but IMHO I believe we are in the end times, there is not much more that can happen. God is talked about more then ever before and the world is going to pot quickly. I believe the line has been drawn in that sand.
So a miricle is now due to win the last souls over.
Zilch who cares if it wasn't on topic, that was funny.
That was encouraging Zilch that you said "then I would reread Revelation."
I hope you do take it seriously once you yourself see the things that are in the Bible come to fruition, in a real way. I cannot see any of you, for that matter, falling for any of the rubbish that will come out of the mouth of the Antichrist, so that might be encouraging.
Possibly someday, the ones that will glorify God the most will be the Atheists, now wouldn't that be a wonderful twist of fate.
This is the real reason for parroting Ray because I believe things are being set in place to carry out the things described in Daniel/Revelation. Will Atheists be humble enough to admit they were wrong and then follow Christ to glory when the signs start to appear?
I sure hope so. I would hate to see all your fates be the same of Satan's. That would be a true shame and a waste.
I'll just repeat the major points others have made:
ReplyDelete- The end has been nigh for over 2000 years now.
- If/When biblical prophesies do start getting fulfilled, I'll be the first to sign up with Jesus.
- The signs of Darwin are here: the Evopocalypse is nigh! May natural selection have mercy on us!
That said, I'll happily bet anyone $50 that we'll be able to live out the rest of our lives without ever seeing the biblical end times (no bets involving the actual "end times", mind you: I still think they should cover up that big red button in the nuke silo...)
PS: I call intellectual copyright on "Evopocalypse".
ReplyDeleteDan wrote: Possibly someday, the ones that will glorify God the most will be the Atheists, now wouldn't that be a wonderful twist of fate.
ReplyDeleteWhat if that God chose to view Christianity as his red-headed stepchild...
Ouch, If I am the red-headed stepchild then it will be a long eternity for sure but I will accept my roll. It would be an honor to even wash your feet for eternity, if you make it that is.
ReplyDeletePlease make it.
Dan:
ReplyDeletePerhaps you missed my inquiry? Where do you think the bible predicts an economic collapse?
It has been mistaken as the end (and maybe even this time also) many times but IMHO I believe we are in the end times, there is not much more that can happen. God is talked about more then (sic) ever before and the world is going to pot quickly. I believe the line has been drawn in that sand.
ReplyDeleteSo let me get this straight:
1. Christians have mistaken their respective generational crises as the culmination of the Apocalypses of Daniel and John since the death of Jesus.
2. By your own admission, the current generational crisis may also be mistaken as these two sets of prophesies as well.
3. You find your opinion compelling yet humble.
4. Little more can happen to further support your apocalyptic claims.
5. The prevailing topic of discussion is god, in your view.
6. The world is in dire straits, and it is decision time.
Huh.
So you recognize that countless times past the crises of the day have been misinterpreted as the "second coming", and you further recognize that the current crisis is equally likely to be a misinterpretation, yet you [humbly] insist that this time must be different, failing, evidently, to note that your "reasoning" is identical to the "reasoning" spewed forth from doomsday enthusiasts since it became a hobby of delusionals.
Congratulations?
Despite your "humble" opinion, there is absolutely no compelling evidence whatsoever that any crisis visited upon humanity -- ever -- has anything to do with the hallucinations of some ancient authors.
Seriously -- the book of Daniel reads like The Diary of Anne Frank, except with a more positive spin (and a god who isn't quite as impotent), and John's Revelation gets radically more interesting the more hits of LSD its reader has ingested... but still no more capable of making a meaningful prediction than James Joyce's Ulysses (Note Ulysses and Revelation are both fascinating works, but only one commands entire year-long graduate school courses).
So again, Dan, you'll need to offer up some reasoned evidence in support of your "humble" opinion if you expect anyone to do you the courtesy of not obviously snickering when they respond to your warnings of impending doom.
Other than that, I couldn't resist highlighting the obvious fact that you don't learn from your mistakes:
So a miricle is now due to win the last souls over. (emphasis added)
It's "m-i-r-a-c-l-e", and an example of one would be if you posted something we didn't all laugh at as we corrected you...
--
Stan
P.S. - with your spelling [skills], I'd recommend the use of a text-editor which includes a rudimentary spell-checking function, so that you can avoid this sort of embarrassment in the future.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"Will Atheists be humble enough to admit they were wrong and then follow Christ to glory when the signs start to appear?"
Would your God be so stupid as to accept fear instead of faith?
If tomorrow, the seas turned to blood, the deserts froze and the Trump of Doom sounded, I would be as damned as I am today.
I would probably have some choice words to say about being wrong, but God demands belief in things unseen, Dan. As soon as proof of the Bible's teachings becomes evident, I am completely hosed whether I accept it or not.
And this is why Pascal's Wager is such an idiotic thing. It assumes that God can't tell the difference between fear of Hell on the one hand and actual faith on the other.
Any God that would accept fear over faith is not one that I would be willing to worship even if proof were available. That would be the sort of petty tyrant that deserves to be spit on even if it means eternal torture.
Don't you get this, Dan? Don't you understand that according to the Bible, the game is rigged, God already knows the outcome and there really isn't anything anyone can do about it? If that weren't true, then some mere mortal would be powerful enough to prove God wrong.
Can't have that, now can we?
Stan wrote:
ReplyDelete"P.S. - with your spelling [skills], I'd recommend the use of a text-editor which includes a rudimentary spell-checking function, so that you can avoid this sort of embarrassment in the future."
Firefox will helpfully red-underline Dan's mipslselings automatically, within the web-page text-entry boxes, no need for a separate text editor.
The chronological proximity of his "miricle" misspellings suggests he may be doing it intentionally. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but still poke fun at him as the situation warrants.
ReplyDelete--
Stan
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete"Perhaps you missed my inquiry?"
No I didn't but I was thinking about it. Perhaps I deduced it from the one world government and one currency. How else can we get there? If you haven't noticed yet the whole world is effected by our economy so it isn't a far stretch to believe we are already in a one world economy, INHO.
Stan,
1-6 YES
"and John's Revelation gets radically more interesting the more hits of LSD its reader has ingested."
If read literally sure, it's very symbolic, agree? But let's be honest for a moment. My bathroom wall is very interesting for hours on LSD so that isn't saying much.
"So again, Dan, you'll need to offer up some reasoned evidence in support of your "humble" opinion if you expect anyone to do you the courtesy of not obviously snickering when they respond to your warnings of impending doom."
Sorry Stan, that is not my job. In reality none of us are to know that day right?
Matthew 24:36, Matthew 24:44, Matthew 24:50, Matthew 25:13, Mark 13:32
We are to be prepared as if it were tomorrow but no one knows for sure. Matthew 24:42-44, Luke 12:39-42
So wake up!
Revelation 3:2-3
You may be surprised when that day happens but I will not. I will be at peace and with joy that day.
1 Thessalonians 5:1-6
(egg faced) Did I really spell it miricle again? What is wrong with me? Incidentally I looked up in the setting of FireFox to see if I had it misspelled in the spell check and I did, so hopefully that won't happen again. But that sure doesn't excuse my atrocious spelling abilities.
Thank you though, because only a friend will tell a friend they stink.
Dave W,
"Would your God be so stupid as to accept fear instead of faith?"
What is wrong with fear? A child that refuses to honor a parent and they run into the middle of the street, after repeatedly being told not to by the parent, needs to be punished. Why is the parent scolding them, because that child can literally die because of the choices they are making, there are consequences for their actions.
The vision of hell, the Bible describes, should make all of us have fear, like a child fears a spanking if they run out in the street after the parent told them not to.(milk) When the child grows up then the child understand the perfect protecting love and does not fear the spankings but honors and respects the parent.(meat).
1 Corinthians 3:2
"I would probably have some choice words to say about being wrong, but God demands belief in things unseen, Dan. As soon as proof of the Bible's teachings becomes evident, I am completely hosed whether I accept it or not."
That is a good and sobering point, Dave. For your sake I hope He is merciful and gives you all one last chance, but I wouldn't bet your lives on that wish.
"Any God that would accept fear over faith is not one that I would be willing to worship even if proof were available. That would be the sort of petty tyrant that deserves to be spit on even if it means eternal torture."
That pride will be your downfall. You are delusional if you believe that. He is honest to tell you there is a jail for people that break the Law and He wants you to give honor to Jesus for taking your punishment and you won't so then you go to jail for not accepting the Gift offered to you and breaking His Laws. You can spit on Him all you want but that will not help your situation. If you do that to a judge it wouldn't change anything either. You would still be lead to jail, only this time you may have some Taser gun holes in you.
Dan responded to Dave W:
ReplyDelete“What is wrong with fear? A child that refuses to honor a parent and they run into the middle of the street, after repeatedly being told not to by the parent, needs to be punished. Why is the parent scolding them, because that child can literally die because of the choices they are making, there are consequences for their actions.”
I believe Dave’s point was that he’s unable to believe in the prophecies, beforehand, and that it’s too late to believe after the fact. The problem is that fear and faith are not the same thing and what your God demands is faith.
I, myself, cannot believe in an intelligent, omnipotent deity, because I see no evidence of such a thing. But, if such a being exists, I doubt it would be fooled by my “hedging my bets”, as I would if I were to give in to the fear of Pascal’s wager.
“The vision of hell, the Bible describes, should make all of us have fear, like a child fears a spanking if they run out in the street after the parent told them not to.(milk) When the child grows up then the child understand the perfect protecting love and does not fear the spankings but honors and respects the parent.(meat).”
The only way your analogy would fit is if, after my child ran into the street, I punished him by killing him. My understanding is that your God’s punishment for a lack of faith is rather permanent.
"Ha! Eternal damnation! I guess you won't be doubting ME anymore!"
First Unethical Chum Tin welcome,
ReplyDeleteSecond I fully understand what Dave’s point was and it was a very good one at that.
"The only way your analogy would fit is if, after my child ran into the street, I punished him by killing him."
Oh not true at all. Remember no one dies they just move on to a different existence and, depending on the results of Judgement Day, either eternal punishment or not.
I wish we would just all come to our senses and repent of all this sinning and trust in Jesus to save our lives through taking our punishment and that God is in charge and will right all wrongs, somehow someway that we don't understand right now. I will trust Him that He will follow through with His promises to us.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"What is wrong with fear?"
Fear isn't faith. No matter how much fear is in me, without faith I am doomed.
"A child that refuses to honor a parent and they run into the middle of the street, after repeatedly being told not to by the parent, needs to be punished. Why is the parent scolding them, because that child can literally die because of the choices they are making, there are consequences for their actions."
I don't ask the child for faith. And when he's old enough to understand the consequences, he won't need faith to prompt him to look both ways. In fact, looking both ways is the opposite of having faith, because it's empirical and experimental. As is reading accident reports about people who didn't look both ways.
"For your sake I hope He is merciful and gives you all one last chance, but I wouldn't bet your lives on that wish."
As I've already said: it wouldn't matter. What's the point of having faith in God when the proof would be staring me in the face?
You do realize, don't you Dan, that in Heaven or Hell, you will have no free will.
"That pride will be your downfall."
It's not pride, Dan, that would have me spitting on the tyrant, but instead principle.
"You are delusional if you believe that. He is honest to tell you there is a jail for people that break the Law and He wants you to give honor to Jesus for taking your punishment and you won't so then you go to jail for not accepting the Gift offered to you and breaking His Laws. You can spit on Him all you want but that will not help your situation. If you do that to a judge it wouldn't change anything either. You would still be lead to jail, only this time you may have some Taser gun holes in you."
Judges and juries don't ask me to have faith in some unseen being in return for forgiveness, Dan. Repentance of my earthly crimes might make a judge lighten my sentence, because I will have shown a willingness to change, but the judge won't generally let me off the hook completely.
There's no apt comparison with God, whose reward/punishment system is all-or-nothing.
"I will trust Him that He will follow through with His promises to us."
You're trusting the guy who created evil, the guy who ordered His "chosen people" to slaughter babies, the guy who punishes people eternally for a crime no greater than ignorance, to follow through on promises? Part of my main point in posting here at all is that the God of the Bible is not trustworthy.
Dave W,
ReplyDelete"You do realize, don't you Dan, that in Heaven or Hell, you will have no free will."
I semi addressed that HERE
"Part of my main point in posting here at all is that the God of the Bible is not trustworthy."
I believe the exact opposite. I trust He will do the right thing and stand on righteousness. If He is evil then I will become as Satan and fight him forever. But that just isn't the case. In this situation I believe Satan to be the liar and God to be Righteous, you believe the opposite. We will both see who made the right choice on Judgment Day. True?
Let me ask you why would the Creator of this universe be evil? Why would he Create beautiful things Nova's, planets, flowers, trees, warm sun, waterfalls, etc. and go through great lengths to create this world's intricacies if ultimately it wasn't for a good purpose.
I believe we are the one's that screwed things up and perverted the Created world for us. There needs to be a better understand what our purpose in this world is and I believe that Day is coming very soon.
I am giving Him the benefit of doubt and you condemned Him because of your doubt. Which is a better way to treat Him?
ReplyDeleteSo you do not want to hear any explanation? Talk about closed minded.
Ray said: "Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe.
Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence (I will add: Or the reasons why things are) of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible.
Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist. "
And why He is doing the things He is doing. There is a great explanation for all of it but you will just have to trust He knows what He is doing for now.
"Let me ask you why would the Creator of this universe be evil? Why would he Create beautiful things Nova's, planets, flowers, trees, warm sun, waterfalls, etc. and go through great lengths to create this world's intricacies if ultimately it wasn't for a good purpose."
ReplyDeleteNova's? Nova's are dying stars. Or is there another definition?
Let's use an analogy. If I created a virtual life simulator, complete with waterfalls, flowers and sunlight, and then waited for life to flourish on this virtual world... and then promoted warfare, told my chosen virtual people to kill virtual women and infants, set rules regarding virtual slavery and sent all those virtual creatures who didn't think they were created by Me specifically to eternal virtual torture... what would that make me?
I wouldn't do this even in a fake, virtual environment. It's just not in my nature.
Quasar,
ReplyDeleteYea Nova's? Who said that...oops.
Psst, I meant to say Nebulas, thanks.
"what would that make me?"
I don't know but I would buy the game, it sounds fun. Can I torture the atheinites with fire?
That is how you are viewing things through the lenses you are using, and I see thing entirely different then that. So why is that?
I see a God trying to save us from ourselves and you see quite the opposite with the exact same data. Is there any wonder there are two viewpoints in science. (Creation vs Evolution)
I guess it all depends on our worldview and presuppositions. I won't hold it against you, but I am not the one holding Judgement Day am I?
I believe Satan to be the liar and God to be Righteous, you believe the opposite.
ReplyDeleteSilly Dan, Trix are for kids.
You understate what you believe, and blatantly misrepresent our position. First, you believe Satan and god each exist. On top of that, you believe Satan is some kind of cosmic asshole, and that god is the supreme ruler of the cosmos who nonetheless tolerates extreme evil (and requires it of his subjects, on occasion). We don't believe they exist, much less believe that one or the other is the good guy.
Let me ask you why would the Creator of this universe be evil?
Sorry Dan, when you ask that question of us, it is rhetorical. When we ask it of you, it is something you cannot answer, and so you dodge it entirely. We have demonstrated many times that the god you worship would be classified by your own morals as evil and tyrannous, yet you ignore this simple truth and plod on as though you have "addressed" these issues. You have not.
I am giving Him the benefit of doubt and you condemned Him because of your doubt. Which is a better way to treat Him?
Who are we talking about here? Santa Claus?
We have condemned no existing being. If any being feels we have wronged it by claiming its nonexistence, let that being feel free to show itself, so that we may stand corrected and apologize as need be.
We doubt because there is no compelling reason to believe. We have no need of your hypothesis, and even if a god were shown to exist, "worshiping" such a being is just silly. If this god required us to worship it, then it will have done nothing more than expose its insecurities. I'm perfectly happy to have a meaningful relationship with any god that shows up, but I'll not worship under any circumstances. That's just preposterous.
Put it this way:
I am vastly superior to my dog in virtually every way. What my dog can do that I cannot, I can build machinery to do much better even than my dog can.
Since my dog cannot survive on his own (or if he can, his survival would be tenuous at best), and since I consistently supply food, shelter, companionship, etc., he worships me.
Yet I do not demand his worship, and I would never presume to do so. The god you describe is infinitely more superior to me than I am to my dog, and yet he does not measurably impact my life, and yet you still insist that he requires my worship on pain of everlasting torment.
No. We have condemned nothing. You have given the benefit of the doubt to nothing. Instead, we have acknowledged that insufficient evidence exists for overt claims to be made concerning that which cannot be measured, while you have the audacity to make exactly those sorts of claims. Which is the more responsible approach?
Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe.
Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?
First, never let the unschooled attempt to puzzle you with a "math" problem. Ray's parlor trick can only work on people who never had, or completely forgot, a basic understanding of high school algebra.
The answer to his question? Yes. It is possible. Are you surprised? I don't see why -- we have said time and time again that it is possible for a god to exist, just not yours. We have furthered this statement such that even if, despite the logical impossibility, your god did exist as you describe, then it would be unworthy of worship, and out of sheer principle a truly good person would refuse to worship it.
Now then, to truly illustrate the futility of Ray's nonsense question, let me ask you a similar question:
Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe.
Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that Neo-Darwinian Evolution is absolutely true?
Or, how about this (given the same premise of 1% of the available knowledge in the universe):
Would it be possible that there might be ample evidence that there was no god?
Would it be possible that there was ample evidence of the veracity of Islam?
Would it be possible that there was ample evidence that 2+2=5, for very large values of 2?
Remember:
If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible.
I'm waiting for you show that you are reasonable, and admit that each of these is possible...
--
Stan
I wrote:
ReplyDelete"You do realize, don't you Dan, that in Heaven or Hell, you will have no free will."
Dan replied with a link:
"I semi addressed that HERE"
No, you didn't address it at all. God gave us free will so that we could (allegedly) choose to believe or not believe as we see fit. As soon as God is proven, we can no longer make that choice, regardless of whether we wind up in Heaven or in Hell. In other words, in Hell, I will have no doubt whatsoever that God exists, and that whatever sins I've committed were indeed sins, but there won't be anything I could do about that. I couldn't choose to suddenly have faith. No more than a person in Heaven could choose to reject knowledge of God's existence (if that were possible, then Heaven wouldn't be perfection).
I wrote:
"Part of my main point in posting here at all is that the God of the Bible is not trustworthy."
Dan replied:
"I believe the exact opposite."
Yes, I know that. I know that you trust God in spite of the evidence in the Bible.
"I trust He will do the right thing and stand on righteousness."
Why would you trust him to do that when He created the all the wrong things and unrighteousness?
"If He is evil then I will become as Satan and fight him forever."
No, you won't. You won't have a choice by the time you know. Every morning for all eternity, Satan will come grin at you and say in a squeaky Richard Simmons voice "sucks, don't it?" as he pitchforks you again into the fires where you will do nothing but remember all the time and effort you spent in praise and worship to a God who broke your trust.
"But that just isn't the case."
So you say.
"In this situation I believe Satan to be the liar and God to be Righteous, you believe the opposite."
No, I don't. Satan is no more real than God, Dan. Even if they are real, God created Satan to be Evil incarnate. Satan never had free will. God created the Tempter in order to test His pitiful mortal creations, and then punishes forever those who fail the test. That's why God is evil, and Satan is evil, too.
"We will both see who made the right choice on Judgment Day. True?"
False.
"Let me ask you why would the Creator of this universe be evil? Why would he Create beautiful things Nova's, planets, flowers, trees, warm sun, waterfalls, etc. and go through great lengths to create this world's intricacies if ultimately it wasn't for a good purpose."
Are you kidding? If I were a truly sadistic deity, I would make all sorts of rainbows and fluffy puppy dogs to keep people happy and thinking just like you think, and then toss you into a lake of fire just to see your "but why, God?!" face.
Besides, the Lord works in mysterious ways, Dan. Ecclesiastes assures us that whatever the ultimate plan is, we can never know it in this world. Kicking a puppy might be a good thing. Saving a drowning child could ultimately result in evil becoming stronger.
"I believe we are the one's that screwed things up and perverted the Created world for us."
Yes, I know. You believe that because of your willingness to roll over and expose your soft, white underbelly to the fangs of the beast. It's the only way you can justify your own self-loathing. Your wish for it all to be over makes that very clear. We wouldn't be having this conversation if you didn't also believe that suicide is a sin.
"There needs to be a better understand what our purpose in this world is and I believe that Day is coming very soon."
Ecclesiastes (written by God, remember) says that you are wrong.
You also wrote:
"I am giving Him the benefit of doubt and you condemned Him because of your doubt. Which is a better way to treat Him?"
I'm not condemning Him because of doubt. I am condemning Him because if what the Bible says is true, then God is a petty schoolyard bully worthy only of my scorn.
"So you do not want to hear any explanation? Talk about closed minded."
I'd love to hear an explanation.
"Ray said: "...Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist."
Aside from being a really bad argument from ignorance (what we don't know may perhaps prove you correct, possibly), this continues to demonstrate my own doom.
Because as soon as that evidence comes to light, my fate is sealed. I will live out whatever days I have remaining on Earth in full knowledge that I will go to Hell, because proof will deny my free will to choose. On the upside, I would then be free to commit whatever vile acts I felt like committing, because I couldn't be punished worse than going to Hell.
Really, if there is somewhere evidence of the existence of some god, I would hope that there is evidence that also confirms that it is not the God of Abraham. Evidence of a god who won't childishly punish his creations forever. Evidence of a god that understands real forgiveness and love.
"And why He is doing the things He is doing. There is a great explanation for all of it but you will just have to trust He knows what He is doing for now."
Oh, if I believed that God exists, I would still trust that He knows what sort of evil system He has set up. Thinking God is stupid isn't my problem, Dan (it is the problem of those who fall for Pascal's Wager), I just think He's a nasty, brutish deity whose idea of justice is pathetic and cowardly.
You also wrote:
"I see a God trying to save us from ourselves..."
If He were, why did He set the rules up so that there are no second chances? What is the benefit of faith in light of the fact that we cannot know we didn't get it right until we can't fix whatever problems we missed but intended not to miss? The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but unlike in our Earthly form, we will get no forgiveness for acting with good intent but accidentally promoting evil.
Whoa, dave. You really went on the attack with that one. I don't agree with everything you said, but that was an impressive barrage.
ReplyDeleteDan: let me know which elements of my Virtual Reality to fix to make the analogy more appropriate. The fact is that I have no reason to virtually torture any of them, so I wouldn't. I have too much empathy to do such a thing even in a game environment.
OK, so I'm a wuss. But it's still valid: they're my virtual creations, if they start doing things I don't want them to do, the options are:
a) Make them stop. (I'm the programmer, after all)
b) Ask them to stop.
c) Do nothing.
d) Torture them for all eternity.
I'd probably do c).
And I'll let you torture the atheinites, so long as I can torture the evangelites.
"Is there any wonder there are two viewpoints in science. (Creation vs Evolution)"
There aren't. No, seriously. In science, there is only one explanation for the diversity of life. If you don't believe me, try speaking to someone in the field.
quasar wrote:
ReplyDelete"Whoa, dave. You really went on the attack with that one. I don't agree with everything you said, but that was an impressive barrage."
I'm just tired of blowing rainbows and butterflies up the butts of believers, assuring them that it's okay to believe as they wish. It's not okay. Even beliefs have consequences, and a failure to recognize bullies for what they are has far-reaching ramifications for all of society. In other words, Dan's beliefs indirectly affect all our lives, and because those beliefs have negative impacts, it is morally wrong for him to maintain them.
Which part(s) did you not agree with? I'll be more than happy to convince you, too, or else be shown that my arguments are screwed up.
Yesterday, Dan wrote: Let me ask you why would the Creator of this universe be evil?
ReplyDeleteI will answer you, but please answer the question that follows.
ANSWER: No one suggests what you've asked. To wit, no one thinks that, if this universe has a creator, he could very well be evil.
How do I know this?
Well, no one has really (as far as I've ever seen) tried to describe a creator god without also trying to describe what he's like.
A "creator god" is a very general, non-specific entity. Other than the notion that he's able to somehow create the universe, nothing else is said about him. In and of itself, the idea is plausible (see Aristotle's First cause argument).
However, most people who claim to be talking about "God" are in fact talking about "their religion's view of what God's like and what he wants".
So - no one suggests that a mere creator God is evil. Only the more specific Gods of the Bible and Quran (and any other Gods quantified by terrestrial books)
---
QUESTION: why do those who believe in the Bible always ask general questions such as "Why would God be evil?" when in actuality, they're really asking "Why would the God of the Bible be evil?"
Why do they always suggest a fairly uncontroversial God, one completely different from the God they claim to believe in? Is it to sound reasonable, and then ambush the open-minded with Sin and the Bible and Hell and Redemption when they've let their guard down?
---
You really need to understand the truth of the following quote:
"We are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- S. Roberts
Actually, you know, my Question was rhetorical - although I'd enjoy an answer, I think I've decided I'd rather have you do the following:
ReplyDeleteCan you very sincerely explain to me the logic behind the quote I posted above? I feel I understand it; I also feel that its intent is fairly obvious.
However, I might be wrong about this. So Dan, I'd really like it if you tried to explain to me what you think the author is trying to say.
Thanks (sincerely)
Whateverman,
ReplyDeleteQUESTION: why do those who believe in the Bible always ask general questions such as "Why would God be evil?" when in actuality, they're really asking "Why would the God of the Bible be evil?"
We have been privileged to know the Creator by His Word. Other gods, that you claim may exist, has yet to communicate with his creation as intimately and precisely and thoroughly as Jesus. Jesus walked the earth and explained to us the fulfillment of God's plan. What has any other god done to explain himself?
As far as your quote the explanation above explains why other perceived gods are not the True God of Creation because we have recorded history of Jesus Christ. We can confidently reject other claims of deity because there is only one that actually claims the deity and that is Jesus Christ Himself.
I guess it is not necessary to point out that besides Jesus we do have The Hebrew Tanakh that explains Jesus' coming and explains exactly the fate of man.
ReplyDeleteI guess I can always point to the post about the Bible being Supernatural also.
The evidence is overwhelming, agree?
As far as your quote the explanation above explains why other perceived gods are not the True God of Creation
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I asked, Dan. I wanted you to explain to me, from the perspective of the person who authored that quote, what he was trying to say.
Dave W,
ReplyDelete"Dan's beliefs indirectly affect all our lives, and because those beliefs have negative impacts, it is morally wrong for him to maintain them."
OK, would you come to the same conclusion about homosexuals? Do there beliefs indirectly affect all our lives? Are there negative impacts in our society because of their beliefs?
Whateverman,
I believe I did exactly what you asked. I understand why he can disregard ALL gods to become an atheist, but as I explained, There is a vast amount of evidence that points to the Deity of Christ as to point to only one God.
I believe I did exactly what you asked. I understand why he can disregard ALL gods to become an atheist,
ReplyDeleteBut you really did not explain this understanding - not at all.
Can you tell me why the author says that A) he rejects Gods and B) he says this is the same as the way you reject Gods
Step into his shoes temporarily, and try to make his argument for him.
Whateverman,
ReplyDelete"We are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
You asked: "Can you tell me why the author says that A) he rejects Gods"
No I cannot
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods"
I reject other gods because of the supernatural aspect of the Bible and the claim of no other gods before Him. (Yes there are other gods) Some people worship themselves as a god. The Creator is just above all other gods as God the Creator (of even the other gods)
"you will understand why I dismiss yours"
Nope sorry, you cannot explain how my reasoning for rejecting other gods correlates to you rejecting my God. I don't understand sorry the quote fails to prove anything.
Better?
Dan:
ReplyDelete"The evidence is overwhelming, agree?"
No, I don't, actually. The events that supposedly fulfill the prophecies are not independently verifiable; and the original "prophecies" seem to reinterpretations of passages meant to indicate things that had already happened at the time that they were written.
There is something I would like you to consider. This world could be a test to see who has the courage to resist an evil fiend, even one he believes unbeatable. Who denounces the obvious descriptions of evil? And who cops out with sayings like "there must be a good purpose; we just don't know it"?
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteThere is something I would like you to consider.
OK I considered it and I reject your reality and replace it with my own.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"OK, would you come to the same conclusion about homosexuals? Do there beliefs indirectly affect all our lives? Are there negative impacts in our society because of their beliefs?"
Way to dodge, once again, the more important stuff, but if it could be shown that homosexuality was nothing more than a belief, and if it could be shown that it had a negative impact on society, then yes, I would come to the same conclusion. But it's not and it doesn't.
You also wrote:
"I guess I can always point to the post about the Bible being Supernatural also."
What a piece of tripe that thing was. 14 out of 15 points simply assert that people don't have enough imagination or intelligence to have written the Bible without supernatural help. There's no evidence presented, just a bunch of empty and depressing assertions that people are stupid and without vision. No wonder you have such a dim outlook on life, Dan.
The 15th point (number 13, actually) tries to make true the absurdity that because people learn, but the Bible doesn't change, the Bible is therefore written by God. And it ends with nothing more than a much more bald-faced lie than the other 14.
What an amazingly daft author this Derickson character is.
Dave W,
ReplyDelete"and if it could be shown that it had a negative impact on society, then yes, I would come to the same conclusion. But it's not and it doesn't."
I disagree, Just look at the statistics.
Care to change your stance?
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"I disagree, Just look at the statistics."
That was a bunch of numbers, with no meaningful comparisons, Dan. That's not "statistics," it is innumeracy.
Besides, you asked about homosexuality, not risky sexual behaviors which affect gay and straight alike. Unsafe sex is definitely something that needs to vanish, but that includes unsafe hetero sex, like the kind that kids who've been taught "abstinence only" engage in, that gets them in big trouble.
Furthermore, nothing you've provided suggests that homosexuality is a belief except your own belief that it is.
"Care to change your stance?"
Not if that was your best argument.
And of course, we're getting further and further away from the important points. I wonder why that is...
Dan:
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I said to consider the possibility. This world really could (though we don't know) be such a test. I am not convinced that you considered it. If someone had given you that response, verbatim, to your speaking of your faith, I have no doubt that you would conclude that they did not consider your faith.
But you say you considered it; so I would like you to answer. If that turned out to be correct, which group would you find yourself in?
Understand, in the same vein, people here do not believe your god exists; but they have responded as to what the implications would be if he did. Or is your faith so weak that you really can't consider other possibilities?
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteLike I said if God is found to be the actual evil out there I would do as I can to expose that and fight it. Evil is the problem I want to eradicate and Jesus has the answer for that solution. Jesus has done so many things for me in my life so far He gets my loyalty.
On the other hand though if he tries to convince me that raping babies for fun is God's will I will fight it until I am either cast into hell or am turned into dust.
Common sense says that Heaven could not sustain itself with that sort of scenario so why ponder it? If all of us were deceived by an evil Creator then we do what we could to change that position and/or fight that entity. If we could not and our free will is removed then we would accept our fate as the ones who were duped into a Jesus who was kind. Our trust would be violated. So what we would all be like the little old lady taken by the evil contractors that is currently going on. You would be the winners and atheists would be ethically sound for eternity.
Now if that is how you want to view it as you get sent to hell so be it. But that is not the case and not the plan and not reality. God's word declares the fate of mankind whether you believe it to be fiction or non-fiction. One could rewrite the ending but that would not make it any more credible now would it?
Dave W,
"And of course, we're getting further and further away from the important points. I wonder why that is..."
I just thought your angry rant is a personal gripe with God that needs to be worked out between you two. No need to intervene I feel. BTW a gripe about God doesn't negate the validity of his existence.
It appears you are not looking to change your mind, but only push your viewpoint. For that I can say, welcome to the club. But for me to try to change your mind is futile as it would be the same with me. We are strong believers in what we believe. Nothing wrong with that it itself but one of us is absolutely wrong. Time will have to be the thing to work that out.
Listen, guys... If Dan gets out of line and starts gay-bashing, all you have to do is remind him that according to his bible, Jesus is the product of brother-sister incest (via Seth) and father-daughter incest (Ruth, David's great-grandmother, was a Moabite, meaning she is a direct descendant of Lot's incestual relationship with his daughter in the aftermath of the destruction of Sodom).
ReplyDeleteThat's right -- to get Jesus to be born, god had to suspend the incest taboo both for sibling sex and for father-daughter sex.
We've gotten woefully off-topic here, and it's because Dan is pathologically avoiding the questions which most directly pertain to his chosen topic.
As has been shown, every generation since the NT was written has claimed that certain local events are precursors to the apocalypse, and it goes without saying that each of them has been proven incorrect.
Despite this, and despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, Dan insists that the current local crises (specifically, the economic crisis in the U.S. which seems to have spread around the globe) signify the real precursors to the apocalypse.
Put up, Dan, or shut up. Nothing you have offered is remotely compelling.
--
Stan
"Which part(s) did you not agree with? I'll be more than happy to convince you, too, or else be shown that my arguments are screwed up."
ReplyDeleteMainly, I don't believe that Dan is filled with self-loathing and such for his sin. I'm not quite sure how he justifies loving life (given that I do agree with you that self-loathing is a logical emotion when you believe everything is worthy of eternal hellfire), but his posts make it reasonably clear that he does.
The reason I wrote that, though, was that I disagree with the tone you used (as opposed to your opinions). But that's just because I'm too nice. :)
On the other hand though if he tries to convince me that raping babies [for fun] is God's will I will fight it until I am either cast into hell or am turned into dust.
ReplyDeleteThen run, don't walk, away from the evil religion called "Christianity" -- you know full well that the bible endorses immoral acts, including raping young girls, offering one's virgin daughter(s) to throngs of horny gay men for a gang-rape session, murdering children, slavery, murdering one's own son, etc.
Which one of these isn't an evil action?
We welcome you to Atheism, or at least to Agnosticism. Don't worry if you're confused or if you have feelings of extreme guilt, or recurring shame -- it's normal, and the process of accepting that your worldview is false is not, strictly speaking, an overnight affair. It takes time.
--
Stan
P.S.:
In your quote above, you apparently felt it necessary to add the qualifying phrase, "for fun", when discussing the validity of a divine request to rape babies.
What does this say about your thought process? If god told you to rape a baby "to suit some purpose", but not "for fun", would you then consider it? Isn't that what your statement implies?
Raping babies falls into the category of evil into which each of the items I outlined above fall -- except that it alone is not explicitly endorsed in the bible.
Stan,
ReplyDelete"If Dan gets out of line and starts gay-bashing, all you have to do is remind him that according to his bible, Jesus is the product of brother-sister incest (via Seth)"
Are you postulating that homosexual behavior is equal to incest? Um OK
"Despite this, and despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, Dan insists that the current local crises (specifically, the economic crisis in the U.S. which seems to have spread around the globe) signify the real precursors to the apocalypse."
Possibly, but only time will be able to prove that but for now I cannot.
"you know full well that the bible endorses immoral acts"
Or possibly allows free will of men to do such acts but I cannot intelligently answer that question, for now I will give God the benefit of any doubt.
"If god told you to rape a baby "to suit some purpose", but not "for fun", would you then consider it?"
Nope
"Isn't that what your statement implies?"
Nope, I have been discussing the 'raping baby's for fun' in a philosophical discussion as an absolute wrong or an objective fact that shouldn't be condoned by a society, for the past couple of days so it spilled over to this conversation.
For your point I could of easily just said raping babies. Good point Smartyface
I cannot intelligently answer that question
ReplyDeleteStating the obvious?
Are you postulating that homosexual behavior is equal to incest?
No, I'm just pushing your buttons. It's interesting to note, however, that you seem to be suggesting that homosexual behavior is worse than incest. I suppose that since your Jesus was a product of incest, and since you maintain that homosexuality is evil, you are logically forced into that position. How unfortunate.
Homosexuality is, for the purposes of this discussion, consenting sex between adults of the same gender. Incest, for the purposes of this discussion, falls into two categories:
1) Sibling incest
2) Father-daughter incest
Sibling incest can generally be considered consensual, and you have noted in the past that it is acceptable in certain situations. Father-daughter incest can be consensual, but it cannot be ignored that the father in these situations is likely to be abusing his paternal authority, eroding the notion of consent.
So technically speaking, father-daughter incest should be considered the more vile of any of these three types of sexual pastimes, not homosexuality. Since your Jesus was a product of just this sort of unholy union, you should clearly denounce him more loudly than you here denounce homosexuality.
But enough of that.
You again have ignored the fact that the bible explicitly endorses various immoral acts, and you even have the ignorant audacity to cite some other conversation which presumably involves moral relativism, without recognizing that you have poisoned your own well.
If your position is that raping babies is absolutely evil, then it stands to reason that your position on raping anyone is absolutely evil, and from this presumption, we can also extrapolate your position on infanticide, genocide, and slavery -- that all of these are absolutely evil.
Yet your bible endorses each of these at least once, and in virtually every one of these examples, the endorsement stems not merely from a human, but ostensibly from god himself.
(I got all ten correct, but I am not swayed, and I like the asinine analogy regarding the bail -- failing to note that every aspect could have at any time been altered by the "father" if he had so chosen)
I find it telling that you would refuse an edict from god to rape a baby to suit his presumably good purpose(s) -- your admission on this point echoes precisely our sentiment in refusing to worship the tyrant your religion describes: it's a matter of principle.
Raping babies is wrong.
Creating a place of eternal torment is wrong.
Since we refuse to believe an evil god might exist, and since we accept our fate if we are wrong, and such an evil god does exist, we have stood upon what we recognize as sound and proper principles, while you seem to take a pick-and-choose approach, latching onto principle with respect to baby-raping, and releasing principle with respect to hell when it suits you.
Stick with the principles.
Remember Revelation 3:15? Be either hot or cold, just not lukewarm.
Certainly we are polar opposites with respect to this religion, and many social issues as well. I doubt any would argue that I am anything other than either 'hot' or 'cold' (depending on your preference -- I prefer 'cold'), but to maintain the argument I would suggest that you may not actually be considered 'hot' (in my parlance).
If you're right (you're not, but go with me here), then principled atheists should be fine, because of our principles. If you're wrong, but some other religion is right, we'll still be principled -- but you will have been deluded. If we are right, you'll still be deluded, but at least you won't have an eternity in hell to worry about...
So basically, you're probably deluded, and we're definitely principled.
I'm happy with that assessment -- how about you?
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete"Raping babies is wrong.
Creating a place of eternal torment is wrong."
So you believe a jail for people that rape babies is wrong? How ethical is that?
"Be either hot or cold, just not lukewarm."
Amen, you are now preaching to the choir.
"If you're right..."
Are you claiming that Christians are not principled? If so then you would have to rewrite that entire spiel to come to a very different conclusion.
And the spiel is based on your wrong assumption that God is evil. So junk in will indeed get junk out.
So no I don't agree with that assessment.
quasar wrote:
ReplyDelete"Mainly, I don't believe that Dan is filled with self-loathing and such for his sin. I'm not quite sure how he justifies loving life (given that I do agree with you that self-loathing is a logical emotion when you believe everything is worthy of eternal hellfire), but his posts make it reasonably clear that he does."
I'm not sure that I've seen that. He seems rather intent on proving that nobody (least of all himself) is worthy of any sort of saving, and he hopes that the end comes sooner rather than later, even though he knows that if the end came tomorrow, billions would end up in the fire.
It looks to me like Dan is clinging to the Bible much like a drug addict clings to heroin. Without the crutch, life is too agonizing to be worthwhile. This isn't without precedent, nor is it without plenty of examples of people who've thrown away the crutches and found a more fulfilling life (although the withdrawal can be a bitch - either from drugs or from fundamentalism).
Seems to me that's how a lot of drug addicts get turned on to the Bible: it's one crutch being replaced by another. The similarities between both activities and their effects upon a person are pretty astounding.
"The reason I wrote that, though, was that I disagree with the tone you used (as opposed to your opinions). But that's just because I'm too nice. :)"
Possibly. Or it's possible that I was unreasonably harsh. It was intended as somewhat of a wake-up call, but Dan seems to be immune and willing to make up excuses for why it's my problem and not his that was the subject of discussion.
Addicts are good at that sort of deflection, too. It's not the alcohol or speed or gambling that's the real problem, oh no! It's those other people making all those pesky demands of them.
The time for being nice to addicts is after they've agreed that the problems are theirs. Just don't confuse "not being nice" with "not helping." After all, if I didn't give a damn, why would I be commenting here? Surely I've got other stuff to do.
Dave W,
ReplyDelete"Surely I've got other stuff to do."
Aw come on you can admit that you love me. Want a hug?
"Seems to me that's how a lot of drug addicts get turned on to the Bible: it's one crutch being replaced by another."
That is pretty close, good job. The addiction I had was with sin. I lived for it. I cling to the Bible in hopes I can avoid the sin I used to love. These days I have a new heart and wouldn't want to sin anymore so I feel I am cured and I have Jesus to thank for that.
Don't get me wrong I have a Type A personality and get addicted to something quite easily, even a good conversation. It comes with the personality along with high blood pressure. Yea, I would rather be addicted to Christ then anything else.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"I just thought your angry rant is a personal gripe with God that needs to be worked out between you two. No need to intervene I feel. BTW a gripe about God doesn't negate the validity of his existence."
Dan, the only reason I would write an angry rant about God is because for the sake of argument I am agreeing that He exists. Otherwise, what would be the point? I don't get angry with unicorns or little green men, either, and I'm not angry with God now.
The anger comes from you thinking that it is a good idea that I submit myself to the same tyrant that you've submitted yourself to. You don't see Him as a tyrant, though, and I can't say that I'm not curious as to why not.
Is it just that you do your best to ignore the fact that He must have created evil, because He created a tree which bore the Fruit of the knowledge of good and evil before the Fall?
"It appears you are not looking to change your mind, but only push your viewpoint."
No, I'm actually trying to have a meaningful dialog here, but that won't work with only one of us being open and sharing, and the other one traipsing off on inconsequential tangents about homosexuality (for example).
Come on, Dan! You know that God must have created Satan, and you know that Satan has no Free Will. You may be in denial of those facts, which thus leads to your attempts to beg off such discussions or simply ignore them, but what purpose does such dishonesty with yourself serve?
"But for me to try to change your mind is futile as it would be the same with me."
And you accuse me of being close-minded?
Dan, I think it would be awesome to get eternal life in return for faith. The problem I have is not with demanding that such a deal is false, it's with the utter lack of evidence that it's true. And the more I examine the God of the Bible, the more I hope it's not true, at least not with Him in charge.
"We are strong believers in what we believe. Nothing wrong with that it itself but one of us is absolutely wrong."
Actually, Dan, I would much prefer it if both of us are wrong.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"The addiction I had was with sin."
What kind of sin? I mean, was it "I killed a man just to watch him die," or was it slow dancing, or was it any sort of hedonistic thing you could get your mitts on? Is there a statute of limitations on it which has not yet expired? Inquiring minds want to know.
"Yea, I would rather be addicted to Christ then anything else."
Well, the number-one sign that you've got an addiction is that the addictive behavior causes negative consequences to you and/or your loved ones. I would suggest that the amount of credulity you display for really, really bad arguments that support your beliefs is indicative that such negative consequences will be forthcoming, because someone, some time, will be able to exploit the heck out of you, Dan. If it hasn't happened already. How much do you tithe, Dan?
Dave W,
ReplyDelete"Come on, Dan! You know that God must have created Satan, and you know that Satan has no Free Will."
Yes I agree
"And you accuse me of being close-minded?"
Better is to say strong willed not closed-minded.
"The problem I have is not with demanding that such a deal is false, it's with the utter lack of evidence that it's true."
Adam was persuaded that he would know things also but that defiance against God was unacceptable. Maybe it is better for us not to know for our own good. Look what we have done with the little knowledge of spiting atoms.
A sinner without being washed of sins cannot be in the presence of God because he would burst into flames. (Genesis 32:30) Without the mediator we would perish (1 Timothy 2:5) Many want to see proof of God, but as sinners, they would all perish so God stays away, for their own good. Look what happened to Saul (now Paul) he was blinded by God's holy presence of light.
"What kind of sin?"
For the record, I have literally broken all ten commandments, ten times over. (Not murder but hate in my heart, not adultery but lusting)
God was never first in my life since I was raised in an atheist home. I ran from God for years until he grabbed me and never let go. I still was fighting Him for years until one day I fell with a broken and contrite heart (Psalm 34:18,Psalm 51:17) and became and stayed a Christian, never to look back again.
"Well, the number-one sign that you've got an addiction is that the addictive behavior causes negative consequences to you and/or your loved ones."
Is that always true Socrates? If I am addicted to helping people or being the best father/husband, would it still show negative consequences?
Inquiring minds want to know.
"How much do you tithe, Dan?"
Zero, but we have our own family ministry where we go out and make lunches and grooming/care kits for homeless people. My 7 year old loves it.
Keep in mind my credulity applies only to God and His Word and ends there. If you are eluding that I would fall for some flake televangelist then you don't know me too well.
"Dan, the only reason I would write an angry rant about God is because for the sake of argument I am agreeing that He exists."
If only you would take out the "for the sake of argument" part. One can only hope for that day.
So you believe a jail for people that rape babies is wrong? How ethical is that?
ReplyDeleteThat's not at all what I said, and you know it. Rather than engaging in willful deceit, try addressing the implications of what I did say:
Raping babies is wrong.
Creating a place of eternal torment is wrong.
No mention of jails for baby-rapists. Jail is temporary, see, eternal torment is, by definition, eternal.
Creating such a place, and, more importantly, placing anyone into it, is wrong.
Are you claiming that Christians are not principled?
No -- read it again if you must. The scenarios have no dependencies on the principles of Christians, and I make no claims regarding unprincipled atheists.
And the spiel is based on your wrong assumption that God is evil.
No, you're again misreading. The "spiel" notes that there are three possibilities in the end:
1. I'm right
2. You're right
3. Neither of us is right
In fact, this is a more apt version of Pascal's wager...
Since I am refusing your claims (and those of competing religions) based on principle, and you're refusing my claims (and those of competing religions) out of faith, each of our positions boils down to this key aspect.
If I'm right, you're deluded, regardless of your principles. If you're right, I'm principled, despite my lack of faith. If neither of us is right, you're still deluded, and I'm still principled. Get it?
Also, regarding Pascal's wager, since I have the additional advantage of being principled, I may escape eternal torment on that note alone, depending on the winning deity. You, however, if incorrect, face definite eternal torment as an adherent of a false religion. My odds are astronomically better than yours.
Now then, I haven't attached to Atheism out of a selfish desire to avoid eternal torment -- I don't believe such a scenario can exist -- I instead have chosen Atheism out of principle.
You're getting there, Danny-boy, but you just have to think about it a little more, and do so objectively (which is the real trick). I wish you luck.
Oh, and it's a given that your god is evil -- you have just consistently avoided addressing the evidence so blatantly spelled out in your bible and in your theodicy.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete"No mention of jails for baby-rapists. Jail is temporary, see, eternal torment is, by definition, eternal."
Oh I perfectly understand what you are saying now. You believe that people that rape babies should be placed in a temporary prison to be let out later.
"Oh, and it's a given that your god is evil -- you have just consistently avoided addressing the evidence so blatantly spelled out in your bible and in your theodicy."
Sigh, Time to shoot it strait to you Stan the man and even to Dave W. I will start with a Psalm.
"Destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions; for they have rebelled against thee." (Psalm 5:10)
It is one thing to commit an act of wickedness when overcome by temptation; it is quite another thing for men to deliberately rebel against God, Himself, seeking by their "counsels" to turn others against Him, and even, if it were possible, to destroy Him and His Word altogether.
This is the age-long sin of Satan, as well as that of the leaders of both ancient paganism and modern evolutionary humanism. Like the psalmist David, we must pray for God to defeat them and their counsels, for otherwise they will continue to lead multitudes of others into their own transgression. There is still room for forgiveness of individual sinners, of course--even among such as these--if they come in true repentance, but most such rebels are already irrevocably hardened against God and His Word. The appropriate prayer in such a case is (as David prayed in another of the imprecatory psalms): "scatter them by thy power; and bring them down, O Lord our shield. . . . let them even be taken in their pride" (Psalm 59:11-12).
Please change for your own sake.
I didn't give credit to Henry Morris, Ph.D. for the last part starting with Psalm 5:10 and ending with Psalm 59:11-12.
ReplyDeleteI found it was strange that it was given to me just this morning and it fit our conversation so well.
That happens to me a great deal. I will read a section of the Bible (or something written by a Christian) and then that same day it comes alive in front of me within a day. Some would write it off as coincidental but I wouldn't.
Oh I perfectly understand what you are saying now. You believe that people that rape babies should be placed in a temporary prison to be let out later.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I believe you when you say that you understand perfectly. Unfortunately, despite your understanding, you seem still to insist upon lying -- deliberately misrepresenting my position.
Fortunately for me, the straw men you continuously erect have no effect on my position, which is merely that raping babies is wrong, as is creating and populating a place of eternal torment.
Is torture wrong, Dan?
Is hell not eternal torture?
Before you start claiming that hell wasn't created for us, consider how futile an "argument" that is -- god didn't create hell for humans, he just puts them there, like the hypothetical psychopath doesn't build cages for his victims, he just puts them there.
Shall I erect a straw man of my own to illustrate their clumsy lack of effectiveness?
Do you believe in eternal punishment for petty theft? DUI? Perjury?
Sigh, Time to shoot it strait (sic) to you Stan the man and even to Dave W. I will start with a Psalm.
That's shooting it "strait" (I imagine you meant "straight")?
Did you even read that Psalm? "Destroy them"? That doesn't sound especially forgiving...
...most such rebels are already irrevocably hardened against God and His Word.
Sorry, but that gold-painted turd is still a turd. Or did you forget who does the hardening?
Exodus 10 is a great example:
10:1 -- Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them
10:20 -- But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.
10:27 -- But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he was not willing to let them go.
Not enough? How about Joshua 11:19-20:
Except for the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Not evil? It sounds to me like your god wanted to do some ass-kicking, and suppressed the free will of these people specifically so he could show off his majick by way of genocide.
Not evil? Then address the various depictions of god-ordained evil, such as rape, gang-rape, enslavement, genocide, infanticide, filicide, fratricide -- and virtually every other -cide, with the unfortunate exception of deicide.
According to the passages above, your god wanted to get his hands bloody, and he's evidently even willing to suspend your beloved notion of "free will" to do it. The way it is stated, it even sounds as though god is attempting to justify his malevolence.
According to the various examples of murder, etc., that god ordains, regulates, and commands, your god has no qualms whatsoever with demanding atrocities be committed in his name.
Sure, roses have thorns, but so do prickly thistles. Your god is such a prick.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"I am vastly superior to my dog in virtually every way."
OK, tell me how you will get youself set up in a nice house with no rent, free room and board, free medical, never have to work and nap 18 hours/ day. Hmmmm?
Dogs are so successful because they have learned how to exploit humans, and you are falling for it.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"I found it was strange that it was given to me just this morning and it fit our conversation so well.
That happens to me a great deal."
Coincidences like that happen to every person.
That's how superstitions get started, like religion, and they are pervasive and unhealthy.
Yesterday I was hunting through my office for a book on some federal regulations pertaining to our organization. Just as I was getting very frustrated, my assistant walked in with the mail and in it was the brand new book with those regulations.
I could have said, "God is smiling on me," or, as any rational person would, I sad, "What a happy coincidence."
Recently I had been trying to get in touch with an opld friend but he had moved a couple times and I figured I'd just have to wait for him to call me. So, last evening after work I was on my way to fill up my car with gas near my home but there was an accident I detoured around and went home. Instead of going to another station, even though I hate to stop in the morning. In fact, I rarely- almost never get gas in the morning. So, this morning I head over to fill up and I walk into the store and there is my friend standing there much to each of our surprise!
You are mentally tricking yourself with that drek.
You have a lot of really strange beliefs.
A belief is not an idea the mind posesses, a belief is an idea that posesses your mind, and, I'll tell you what lil buddy, you are posessed by some wacky and yes, dangerous beliefs.
Respectfully submitted,
/dale
Dogs are so successful because they have learned how to exploit humans, and you are falling for it.
ReplyDeleteNow you're just being silly.
Dogs are successful because humans recognized the utility of having relatively tame ("domesticated") animals to assist in hunting, tracking, and similar duties. As such, an animal (or, more precisely, a set of animals) was captured and domesticated for this purpose, and after eons of selective breeding, the various specialized breeds of dog have emerged -- many of which are completely useless in the utilitarian sense, but still valued for the companionship.
Also, it should be noted that humans have evolved to be more receptive to having certain types of pets -- even otherwise useless dogs.
For the record, I do not at present have any pets, and for much of my life I lived in a scenario in which my room and board were provided for free. Indeed, I managed to relive those "glory" days last year, after moving and choosing to remain unemployed while my wife worked. Rather than be a good house-husband and do the dishes, clean, etc., I played Xbox Live until 3am every day.
The life can be had, but one must actively pursue it. The dog's life, while superficially ideal, is still one of master/slave. If you want to argue that a particular pet has it made, you should consider cats. Those things would just as soon eat you as let you pet them.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteThat's shooting it "strait" (I imagine you meant "straight")?
Oops my GED is showing. Thanks.
"Not evil?"
I see it differently obviously.
Who is more evil the one that admits they broke the Law and does everything to prevent breaking said Law again or the person that denies any wrong doing and continues to do the evil acts throughout their lives?
The latter is you, which one did you chose as more evil?
Changing the subject much?
ReplyDeleteWe're talking about your god, remember?
It's a given, I should think, that humans are at the very least capable of evil, and it is equally well a given that many humans are in fact evil, but we're not talking about humans -- we're talking about your god, who is a clear advocate of torture: eternal torture.
That wasn't my choice, and no matter my crimes in the ~80 years I manage to survive on this planet, eternal torture is both extreme and evil. Remember, too, that according to your theology, this evil punishment applies not only to me, but even to the most ethical and moral individual ever to have graced the earth -- if that individual happens not to have accepted Christianity for any reason whatsoever.
Remember, too, that despite the implication that you feel baby-rapists should be put to death, or should experience life-imprisonment, neither of these punishments is eternal, and neither involves torture of any kind (in the U.S., that is). Furthermore, your evil god, with his asinine interpretation of "justice", is willing to pardon even the baby-rapist if he rapes babies every day of his life until the moment before he dies, when he has a "genuine" conversion to Christianity -- at which point he escapes any punishment whatsoever.
I see it differently obviously.
Yes, that is clear, and I think I know why:
...my GED is showing.
If you can't see that the mere creation -- and certainly the population -- of a place of eternal torment/torture is evil, then you're blind.
You find Satan to be evil, right? All he does is live there and run the place. He has no say in who goes there, and he did not create the place. Your god did (allegedly).
Stop dodging simple questions, stop pretending that somehow creating and filling a place of eternal torture is a "good" thing, and start thinking rationally.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete"Stop dodging simple questions, stop pretending that somehow creating and filling a place of eternal torture is a "good" thing, and start thinking rationally."
Admittedly, I honestly don't want anyone burning in hell forever and ever. I cannot even imagine the horrific images. For this reason you will find me witnessing on any given day to as many people that I come across.
"this evil punishment applies not only to me, but even to the most ethical and moral individual ever to have graced the earth -- if that individual happens not to have accepted Christianity for any reason whatsoever."
Sadly, this also goes for my own children too. If they reject Jesus then they will have that same fate and I hate it and will do anything to prevent it, but I also accept it.
"If I lie to a child, I'll get away with it.
If I lie to my wife, I'll be sleeping on the couch.
If I lie to a police officer, I'm obstructing justice and I'll go to jail.
If I lie to a judge, it's called perjury, and I'll go to prison.
If I lie to the government, it can be called treason, and the punishment might be death.
So how much more egregious is a lie to God?"
All I can do rationally is plead with (all of) you to do the right thing.
Let me pose it this way, You drink every single night, I feel you are too drunk and I hide your keys from you every night and we bloody each other every night fighting about the location of the keys, we even break skin and bones, and I stop you from breaking the law every night but then sometimes you manage to come up with another key or hot wire the car and manage to go drinking and driving.
My question is: Do you deserve to go to jail if you get caught with a DUI?
Follow up question is: Should I be blamed also for your DUI?
If you end up in hell it will destroy me but it will be your fault. I will go through the grieving process and probably stay in the angry stage for a long time. You see this just doesn't effect you but your family and friends also.
Sin, like alcoholism, is a very selfish disease that needs to be eradicated, otherwise it effects everyone around you. Please stop killing yourself before it's too late. Give God the keys and let Him lead your life and think of others instead of just your selfish sinning. Repent today!
Clearer?
I honestly don't want anyone burning in hell forever and ever
ReplyDelete...then your feelings run counter to those of your god, else he wouldn't send people there.
So how much more egregious is a lie to God?
I love this anecdote! Seriously!
The problem is that you focus on the last line, rather than the fact that your assessment (and the author's) is backward.
It is far worse to lie to one's child than it is to a police officer. It is far worse to lie to one's wife than it is to the government. Yet despite the fact that the offenses are listed in order from worst to least, the punishments are listed from mild to fierce.
What does that say about your position?
If the concluding statement holds any merit, then lying to god is worse than lying to one's child, but its punishment should be moot.
Nice try.
You asked me:
My question is: Do you deserve to go to jail if you get caught with a DUI?
Follow up question is: Should I be blamed also for your DUI?
But you haven't yet answered my questions:
Do you believe in eternal punishment for petty theft? DUI? Perjury?
Absolutely, someone guilty of a DUI should go to jail -- for ~90 days, depending on the local statutes, opportunity to commute notwithstanding.
Absolutely, someone enabling a person guilty of a DUI should be prosecuted -- this is why many states have enacted penalties against bars when the bartender fails to prevent a patron from driving away. If the involved third party enables the guilty party, then that enabler is also guilty. If that third party is merely a witness, then obviously not.
In any case, your point is counterfeited by the fact that the punishments involved are all temporary. Your jerk of a god preempted any sin by first creating a hell, and then when sin occurred (a contingency for which he has no excuse for being unprepared), he started tossing humans into eternal Gitmo.
Not only is your god guilty of the use of cruel and unusual punishment, but he has also ensured that this torture is eternal.
If you end up in hell it will destroy me but it will be your fault.
This is an exaggeration of the truth, even if we accept for the moment your contention. If god had created a temporary place of punishment, and called it "Disneyland's It's A Small World Ride", your statement would not be fundamentally changed. Indeed, only the degree of punishment would be changed, and any objection to this punishment would be necessarily diminished since the punishment is no longer eternal.
Additionally, if god had made it undeniably clear exactly what was required to avoid his punishment, it would also be difficult to cry foul -- but only if the punishment is temporary.
By making his punishment eternal -- no parole -- and universal -- no degree with respect to the crime -- god has classified himself as a bloody tyrant. It doesn't matter how good or bad his edicts are -- his punishment is disproportionately severe, so he's wrong.
For all your rhetoric, apologetics, and fluff, you've never yet addressed the fact that the punishment you claim awaits "sinners" is excessive. You've failed to address the fact that the very creation of, and assigning of souls to, hell, is an act of extreme evil. You've failed to address the fact that according to your bible, your god has endorsed, regulated, or required, on multiple occasions, for his adherents to commit heinous atrocities. You've failed to address the fact that according to your bible, your god has suspended "free will" specifically so that he can engage in further bloodletting.
Enough of the [false] anecdotes, enough of the bullshit rhetoric. Address the issues I've identified -- your god is guilty.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete"Now you're just being silly."
Stan, I like reading your stuff but surely you saw that I was attempting humor? Satire? Get it?
You need to chill.
Froggie - I recognized it as such, but figured Dan wouldn't, so I made sure to show why.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I could've made it more clear, but a little false controversy amongst unbelievers is humorous enough, yes?
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteDo you believe in eternal punishment for petty theft? DUI? Perjury?
Yes, I trust God knows what He is doing and I have faith He will always do the right thing.
"For all your rhetoric, apologetics, and fluff, you've never yet addressed the fact that the punishment you claim awaits "sinners" is excessive."
Excessive, huh? I remember applying for a job as a kid and they asked me if it was wrong to steal and I said sure it is. Later on, towards the end of the interview, they asked me if someone should be fired for stealing a $2 item. I said no because I thought that might be a tad "excessive". Needless to say I didn't get that job because they had a zero tolerance policy for such things. They explained that over the entire company they had many employees that just took few of items at $1 to $2 and over the whole company it was costing them millions of dollars because of it.
Same mind set: Let's just say you only sin a little bit each day, to round it off say just 5 times. Within a year that would be 1,825 sins. If you sin for 70 years (average of 85 year life) that would be sinning for an astounding 127,750 times. Our laws would consider that habitual, right? Would that amount of sinning be excessive?
What punishment would you give someone that had stolen from little old ladies or raped for 127,750 times? Would you put him in jail FOREVER? Sorry, for the rest of his life?
What punishment would you give someone that had stolen from little old ladies or raped for 127,750 times? Would you put him in jail FOREVER? Sorry, for the rest of his life?
ReplyDeleteAnd therein lies the rub.
Even if you agree with life sentences for repeat offenders, with or without a possibility of parole, you have tacitly admitted that the punishment you claim awaits "sinners" is indeed excessive.
Sure, when you make up arbitrarily high numbers regarding a person's "sins", you can make it appear that they are deserving of a great deal of punishment -- but eternal torment?
Get real.
Let's take your pretentious example and alter it only slightly: Let's say you sin once, ever, and that the sin in question was of coveting an especially extravagant meal your neighbor had. Let's also say that you never acknowledge the existence of god, nor convert in any way to Christianity, and remain a one-sin atheist for your entire life.
What will your punishment be, hmm?
"What punishment would you give someone that had [coveted his neighbor's meal once]? Would you put him in jail FOREVER? Sorry, for the rest of his life?"
What about a child who is under the Age of Accountability (whatever you believe that to be), who has been raised as a Mormon, who, the day he has reached Accountability, harbors momentary hatred for his parents, and is shockingly killed by a drunk driver. He has been accountable to god for only minutes, but he has nonetheless sinned in those few minutes. What would his fate be?
I trust God knows what He is doing and I have faith He will always do the right thing.
Then your whole claim of moral superiority is bankrupt. Did god know what he was doing when he hardened the hearts of Canaanites, so that he could have Joshua and the armies of Israel massacre them?
Get your story straight, Dan. If you truly believe in moral absolutism, then you need to start being honest in your posts and tell us whether or not contemplated genocide, coupled with suspension of "free will", is evil.
You are happy to claim that baby-raping is evil, and you are so calloused as to claim that a first-offense perjurer should share a cell for eternity with a serial baby-rapist.
Furthermore, you are happy to acquit a serial baby-rapist if he has a death-bed conversion, and let him avoid any punishment whatsoever, and you have the audacity to claim that justice has somehow been served.
Riddle me that, Dan.
In fact, riddle me this, too:
Do you support torture?
It's a simple yes/no question -- I'd appreciate an answer.
--
Stan
Dan said: I have faith He will always do the right thing.
ReplyDeleteBy your definition, God can not do the wrong thing, since everything God does is right.
God doesn't need your trust (in your world view).
The fact that there's no need to trust God to do the right thing (ie. eternal turture) to a person driving drunk has got to be is one of the scariest bits of twisted theology I've seen in a while.
This is what happens when you worship a bronze-age religioun that's struggling to keep itself relevant.
Stan,
ReplyDelete"Do you support torture?"
No, I would not ever condone torture.
In the same breath, and I know where you are going with this, God said vengeance is His and His alone.
Remember I did a post about enacting God's will and where it leads us.
So you don't condone torture, but you support a god who utilizes eternal torture, for his glory?
ReplyDeleteIt's sad, isn't it, that you'd so brazenly embrace something with which you so completely disagree.
You don't support torture, but you support a god who tortures.
You don't support rape, but you support a god who encourages rape.
You don't support slavery, but you support a god who regulates slavery.
You don't support father-daughter incest, but you support a god who's "son" is a direct descendant of the same.
You don't support filicide, but you support a god who would command such a deed of his adherents.
You don't support genocide, but you support a god who consistently engages in it.
You don't support "sport" killing, but you support a god who has suspended free will to "justify" doing exactly that.
You don't support the death penalty in the case of rebellious youth, but you support a god who made this a law.
You don't support the practice of stoning criminals (for various crimes), but you support a god who chose this method for capital punishment.
You don't support the brutal mutilation of youths who tease bald men, but you support a god who did exactly that.
You don't support [insert atrocity, evil action, absolutely wrong action, or deliberate malevolence here], but you support a god who [has probably advocated, performed, regulated, required, commanded, endorsed, praised, or accepted it].
-----------
Have you never considered just what sort of a god you do support? Sure, you can spout the lovey-dovey crap, the mercy, the grace, etc., but that doesn't excuse any of the above, which you would (I presume) outright condemn -- except you inexplicably except god from any responsibility for his actions, and you bend your notion of "absolute morals" so as to conveniently exclude your god.
If it is absolutely wrong to commit any of the above acts/atrocities, then your god is guilty as charged. If these actions are not absolutely wrong, then I challenge you to explain why.
--
Stan
(Dan -- I went back and re-read the entire post and comments on the "Enacting God's Will" topic, and despite the fact that my points were never fully addressed -- indeed, you punted, in the end -- I couldn't help but laugh as I noticed what is clearly a point of contention for you:
ReplyDelete"miricle"
I wonder what it is about that word, that you so often misspell it in exactly that way. Although I can't think of them right now, there are certain words that I find myself quite unable to type correctly the first time [finger dyslexia], and I wonder if that is related to your struggle with "miracle" -- I also wonder what Freud would say.
--
Stan)
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI just knew the rant was coming and you were going to say what you said. That is why I said "I know where you are going with this..."
But that is just where we differ (among other things) and I don't fault you for it, but God will.
Sure, you can spout the lovey-dovey crap, the mercy, the grace, etc.,
Actually I believe in the God of the Bible who is not all loving and peace, as you may know. He is about wrath, justice, anger, and righteousness. For the first time after reading the Bible I understood God for hating evil. When I read, for the first time, Jesus got very angry and turned over the merchant tables in the Temple, I celebrated that moment. Anger is, after all, a God given gift that serves us very well if used properly. Anger to me is very close to passion and I am very passionate about eradicating evil and if God says He must chain Satan for a 1000 years in the eternal lake of fire in order to get rid of it then I believe Him. If in order to get rid of the virus of evil God must cast them into an eternal lake of fire then so be it. Because my hatred for evil surpasses my reasoning to fix it, I must trust Him. Psalm 58:10-11, Psalm 33:21 But I don't celebrate bad things happening to bad people, humbly Proverbs 24:16-18 comes to mind. I just want us ALL to HATE evil and to soldier with God to stop it, what ever it takes. But if you side with Satan and rejoice in evil then you will get your deserved punishment.
So you think "miricle" was bad, well I have a little nugget for you then, there was a moment I was spelling reveal like "revile" as in 'God will revile himself to you'.
Talk about Freudian slip. Needless to say, I did get a good ol' fashioned knuckle raping for that one from an atheist.
What can I say other then (1 Corinthians 2)
"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God...And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."
Needless to say, I did get a good ol' fashioned knuckle raping for that one from an atheist.
ReplyDeleteThat's disgusting.
:)
(Knuckle-rapping)
Too funny.
--
Stan
Dan, with the signs I had so tediously erected as to the pending rant, I would really have been surprised if you hadn't expected it.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you've done nothing whatsoever to truly defend your position. Instead, you've merely turtled back to "but I trust god and he can do whatever he wants".
That's bullshit.
If you believe in absolute morality, then you have to answer in the negative when asked if you find rape, as but one example, to be absolutely evil.
I cannot make it any clearer! You would, from what I've understood of your position, convict any father of conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder, and you would remove his child from his care as he was placed into a mental health facility, if he claimed that god told him to murder his child in the woods.
The only reasons you wouldn't treat Abraham in this way is because it is written in your holy book, and because you endear him.
This is not absolute morality.
Your whole position hinges on the notion that god cannot do evil, and as such you must accept the evil things god has done (or commanded, or expected, or suggested, or condoned, etc.), and to satisfy your conscience, you explain it away as being somehow god's right to treat his creation as he pleases -- including the use of capricious malevolence. If not this explanation, you may also wave your hands and claim that god has some deeper purpose that we cannot possibly fathom, which must in the end be a perfect, good plan.
Poppycock.
Look -- you need to start exercising some personal honesty. Your lack of integrity on these matters has been tolerated to this point by myself and most of your readers, but it's getting old, and getting old fast.
You cannot maintain your simultaneous claims that there exists some sort of absolute moral code, while endorsing the evil acts your god has committed. Likewise, you cannot maintain the goodness of god without denying that these actions are indeed evil, which bankrupts your claims to the contrary.
If you want to lie to yourself, that's your prerogative, but your consistent unwillingness to critically assess your own position(s) is unacceptable.
You can no longer hide from the fact that, according to your bible, your god has directly committed various purely evil atrocities, or has commanded, expected, suggested, condoned, regulated, etc., the same from his followers.
Don't just plug your ears and scream, "but god is good, I trust him, and you should too" -- that does nothing to engage the argument. All your statements to date have done on this subject is show that you are perfectly willing to engage in willful deceit -- self-deceit, if nothing else.
I fully expect that you will ignore my plead here, but I nonetheless sincerely hope you will reexamine your system for these anomalies, and spell out your thought process, so that we can see just how you rationalize the existence of evil despite your claim that an infinitely powerful, all-knowing deity exists who doesn't like evil. Show us how you can rationalize the explicit acts of evil committed by your god or his followers -- just the ones in the bible -- despite your claim that god only does good things. Show us how the rules which apply universally (absolute morality) somehow don't apply to your god.
Show us, Dan, or, better yet, admit that you cannot, and consider the ramifications of that admission. If you recognize that you worship an alleged being who so frequently resorts to the evil actions he later (or previously) prohibits, or if you recognize that the existence of evil undermines every claim regarding god's omni-attributes, then you will be making progress, even if you later deny your recognitions.
Stop lying to yourself, and stop lying to us.
--
Stan
It does all boil down this this: the absolute standards of morality do not, in fact, exist. This has indeed been demonstrated by Dan's unwillingness to hold his deity to those standards.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this problem may or may not be seen as important (by Dan), but I'll sincerely offer a method by which it may be resolved:
Stop asserting that every passage in the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
If you instead view it as a collection of stories which may or may not be based in fact, written by humans who may or may not have been inspired by miraculous events - it becomes clear that much of what was written comes from humanity.
It may still contain an accurate account of Jesus' life/death (I wont make a claim either way). But asserting each and every word as historical fact and absolute morality leads dogmatic believers into patently absurd conclusions.
Clinging to these absurdities is not an example of faith. It's an example of rejecting the brain that God supposedly gave you.
Dan, one warning. Take that image down off of my book on Amazon now. You have no right to do that and I reported it to Amazon. I call on everyone to report it to Amazon. Take it down of you own volition or you will be banned from DC and I will summarily delete all of your comments.
ReplyDeleteStan,
ReplyDelete"Your whole position hinges on the notion that god cannot do evil,"
How so?
Exodus 32:14 "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
ReplyDeleteExodus 32:14 "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Well, I must say first that I had never read this verse, or if I had, I had not recognized its value to my current position. I imagine that where I may have encountered this verse, I was likely a Christian at the time, and I almost certainly didn't encounter it through a translation which termed god's action as 'repenting from evil'.
Second...
I'm confused, and I'd like to offer you a way out. It seems you've found yourself waste-deep in quicksand. Do you need a rope or log to assist with pulling yourself out?
Your dilemma is clear -- you believe the bible to be the inerrant, inspired word of god to humans, and as such, you accept this particular verse unconditionally. Not only this, but you have claimed to believe in a perfectly good god, and so far as I can tell, you maintain that god (including each of the three aspects of the trinity) is incapable of sinning.
Indeed, you have made it clear that the reason Adam and Eve (and therefore the rest of us) were punished so severely was because they had sinned, and god doesn't tolerate sin.
Why then would god need to repent? Why would he contemplate evil? Have you just sunk your own battleship?
You really need to explain your position on god and his relationship with evil, in light of this latest revelation (pun intended).
Now, beyond that, you have again tried to avoid my post by picking one statement and posting a glib one-liner -- a very interesting one, in this case -- rather than address any of the points I've made, or answer any of the questions I've posed.
Your god is capable of evil, and finds it necessary to repent occasionally? That's useful to me, and sounds awfully damaging to you, but the way you consistently avoid my questions really is getting annoying.
Seriously -- try answering a question every now and again, rather than dodging. Try engaging an argument, rather than tossing up a one-liner.
You do both of us a disservice.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete"rather than dodging. Try engaging an argument, rather than tossing up a one-liner."
But I like Dodge ball.
"And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
"The context is important. Moses was upon on Mount Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments. The people had become impatient as they waited for him to return. So, they then made a golden calf to worship. God then says to Moses in Exodus 32:10, "Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them, and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation." Moses then intercedes for the Jews and asks God to not destroy them.
Exodus 32:12-14 "Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
First of all, it is apparent that Moses disobeyed God's instruction to leave God alone (v. 10). Instead of Moses listening to God, he pleads with God to spare Israel and God relents. Why? What is the significance of God allowing Himself to be swayed by the interceding work of Moses on behalf of Israel? Why did God not ignore Moses' request and go ahead and destroy the nation? The answer is simple: because of Jesus. Jesus said in John 5:39, "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me." Jesus says that the Bible is about Him. Certainly, such an important figure of Moses must reflect Jesus in some way, and he does. As Moses interceded for his people, Jesus also intercedes for His. God listened to Moses, because God would listen to Jesus..." (carm)
Nice canned response (I really wish you'd just argue your own case), but it fails to address the questions your own verse raises:
ReplyDeleteWhy then would god need to repent? Why would he contemplate evil?
Despite the theatrics employed at CARM to redefine "repented", and despite the many (more recent) translations which conveniently change the phrasing -- yet they are perfectly content to retain "repented" for human actions -- the notion that god needed to have this change of heart is not addressed at all.
The term translated as "repented" (Strong's 5162), in this context, shows that god is showing regret for his desire to destroy the Jews. Even if you argue that he is showing compassion in this context, the larger problem comes from the rest of the phrase:
and the Lord repented from the evil that he thought to do upon his people (emphasis mine)
When the term translated as "repented" is used in conjunction with the term translated as "evil" -- even when it is coupled with any act or motive which would be considered evil -- it suggests not "comfort", not "grief", and not "pity"; it suggests regret, as in guilt.
Is god guilty of something here?
The fact that he was contemplating an evil act should be cause for some concern as well -- if god is prone to malevolence, then he is not just. Indeed, if justice were the aim, then whichever way you spin this verse, the result is that god is capricious.
Does god do evil? He obviously considers it -- is that not indistinguishable from doing it?
Your god, by virtue of your own holy text, apparently commits acts of evil, especially in fits of rage. Also according to your holy text, he is remorseful in the wake of these tantrums, to the tune of expressing some guilt.
An evil tyrant? So you have painted him.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete"Nice canned response"
How did I just know you would receive it this way. I must be a prophet. An answer is still an answer none the less. College kids these days are experts at paraphrasing things to make it sound genuinely their own, but I won't play those games. Forgive my shortcuts to a solution, please.
"and despite the many (more recent) translations which conveniently change the phrasing -- yet they are perfectly content to retain "repented" for human actions"
Nice job, I noticed that also, as you can see I used a more literal translation even though CARM used something other then KJV. That is why many newer more liberal translations are trying to smooth things over, in spite of, God's Word. Now, I am sure these scholars have good intentions but just as you perfectly pointed out, it poses questions as to why. This is why I have for many years have tried to stay as literal and consistent as humanly possible as to what was truly written during those times. It sure has taken me down a path of interesting etymology over the years.
"Is god guilty of something here?"
Not guilty I don't think, but regretful.
Genesis 6:6 "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
God has feeling also and if he gave us anger, then you betcha' He is capable of it also.
'The fact that he was contemplating an evil act should be cause for some concern as well"
Contemplating wrath, I would say. Which I suppose would beg the question, is wrath evil?
I would say no for this discussion.
"An evil tyrant?"
A righteous and wrathful, just God to be feared.
(PS if you haven't noticed that was all mine, no outside help)
Did you look up that verse in a concordance? Did you not also notice the word for "evil" (Strong's 7451)?
ReplyDeleteLook it up and try again.
According to this verse, god was prepared to commit an evil act, and apparently, the only reason he relented was because Moses asked him to back down, at which point god "repented" -- he showed regret, which is an indication of guilt.
Again, according to this verse, god commits evil, or at least contemplates it. It really shouldn't come as a surprise, since god also condones evil, regulates some evil, and clearly tolerates it. Hell, he created it, as a concept and as something his creations have a capacity to commit, and, according to this verse (and some others, if you keep digging on the subject), even god has the capacity to commit evil.
I suppose we'll exchange more words on this topic in your most recent post regarding slavery, and, by proxy, god's position on certain evils.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete"Why then would god need to repent? Why would he contemplate evil? Have you just sunk your own battleship?"
I just read something that reminded me of our conversation about Exodus 32:14 and I might have failed to clarify.
For clarification and better understanding of God, "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people" refers to, like in Isaiah 45:7, bad things like earthquakes and floods, not "evil" as to sin. Plus, this is not the same as James 1:13-14 which is referring to tempted to do sin. The key words here, in context, is "tempted with evil," as in the evil of sin.