Hit And Run Xtians

[LNC]

Do you have evidence that would prove otherwise?

Yeah, that's a good argument.

 

I will assume that your answer is no.

 

Lets make it really, really simple for you: You made the false accusation that I hate God, which I explained I can't do since I don't believe in God, and you claim that I am an unbeliever because I am rebelling at this fictitious being you believe in and that's the reason why I'm an unbeliever, which is again wrong, because I don't believe in your God! So you come with false accusations, and I call that to be judgmental.

 

If you hit a ball to me, I hit it back to you the same, so here it is: you falsely accuse me of hating and rebelling against your fantasy friend, then I can just as well accuse you of hating me and humanity. Accusations can go both ways. So how does it feel to be on the receiving end? Not fun? Well, there you have it. You accuse me, and I will accuse you. You judge me, I will judge you. Simple. I just returned the favor.

 

You keep claiming that and I have yet to see you post one response where I made that accusation against you. I have never made a specific accusation against any particular individual on this site. Now, if you are taking the statements that the Bible says about unbelievers and applying it to yourself, then you are the one to blame, not me. I am simply explaining what the Bible says, so if you have a problem with that, you have one of two options: either prove that the Bible is wrong; or, blame God for the definition as he is the one that inspired the writers to write what they did. BTW, to my knowledge, I have never used the term "hate" in regard to unbelievers, that is your interpretation. If, as you believe, God is a "fictional being" then why get so offended? If someone told me that I am rebelling against Santa because I don't believe in him and that I would never get toys from him again, would it bother me? No, since I have never received toys from him in the past. So, if you believe God to be fictional, then why get so upset that someone accuses you of rebelling against him? The problem is that I don't think that deep down you are too confident that God is a "fictional being" and therefore, you may be feeling a twinge of guilt. I may be wrong on that, however,

 

Again, unless you can document where I said you hate God, I will consider that a false accusation. I say that those who reject God are rebelling against him and if you consider yourself in that camp, then it is not to me that you should be looking, but to the authors of the Bible and to God. I am merely telling you what they have written and said. I don't hate you, I actually pray for you and enjoy the conversation that we are having. If I didn't, I could find plenty of other things to do with my time. I have not judged you, it seems that you have judged yourself. I simply explained God's point of view as laid out in the Bible, it is you who has turned it upon yourself. But, if you feel that I hate you, I guess I can do nothing about that but to say I am sorry if I offend you.

 

You say I hate your imaginary buddy.

 

If he is imaginary, then why worry? If it makes you feel better, you can call me a Santa hater since I don't believe he exists. Funny thing is, I have never said you hate anybody. It is you and others who have called me names and yet I have not returned that treatment in kind.

 

I know that drill.

 

Just reminding you that I am in no better situation based upon my behavior as are you. I am a rebellious sinner. So, I am not saying anything about anyone else for which I don't consider myself equally culpable.

 

You believe your God created nature, so your God is vicious.

 

That doesn't necessarily follow. God created nature good and man, through his sin corrupted it. So, you cannot tie the corruption back to God.

 

Like you. Your God is pure speculation. And you know why? Because you can't prove your God, from the simple fact that you claim that God refuse to be proven. There's no proof.

 

That depends upon what your definition of proof is. I do have evidence which I have spelled out in this thread already.

 

Every second. Every breath. Every thought. When I talk to you. When I sleep. When I eat. Everything is communication with nature. Prove me wrong.

 

What does that mean communication with nature?

 

Through reason, event, experience, being alive,... then yes.

 

The problem is that reason that isn't grounded in objective reality is meaningless. For example, morality that isn't grounded in objective, transcendent reality is a meaningless concept. We ultimately become a law unto ourselves since there is nothing outside of ourselves against which to measure whether we are on track or not - unless God exists, of course.

 

Nature is what it is, and morality arises from us existing and socializing.

 

Then morality ultimately subjective and therefore, ultimately meaningless. A question was asked of Richard Dawkins recently and his answer was very telling. He was asked how he would feel if evolution had led us to treat rape as a normative action, in other words, it would be considered just the same as feeding a child, having a job, going for a walk. Just one more thing that we do. Dawkins reply was, "well, I am glad that we live in a world where rape is not OK." In other words, he was judging rape by an external, objective standard and saying that it is really wrong to rape and he is glad that evolution turned out the way that it did and we consider rape to be wrong! Now, if he really believed his evolutionary mantra, he should have said that that would be jolly well just fine for him as that was what evolution has led us to and who are we to say any different. But the truth was, that he couldn't live by his worldview at that point, that was a bridge too far for him to cross.

 

So, let me ask you if you would be OK with it if rape, genocide, or some other activity that we currently consider immoral were to be considered the norm for our socializing? Or, what if a movement started and took hold where these things were suddenly the in thing to do, would that be OK with you? Just curious.

[agnosticator]

LNC:

God created nature good and man, through his sin corrupted it. So, you cannot tie the corruption back to God.

 

That's one problem with your view. You don't realize nature is neither good nor bad. Man has the capacity for good or bad, and can choose either one. If the christian god created nature, then it's because of him that it is "evil", as he also created "sin".

 

LNC:

morality that isn't grounded in objective, transcendent reality is a meaningless concept.

 

Transcendence has nothing to do with reality. Transcendence is meaningless, as is its' cousin, the supernatural. Those are terms the human imagination created to fill what is unknowable. We don't know what is "beyond" the universe.

[LNC]

When you say rejecting and rebelling against God, it presupposes that somehow I would know about your God and intentionally act against better judgment, and that is accusation of me as person. And that's what you did. Don't try to slither your way out of it. You did it, and you know it.

 

It's very simple, I - Just - Don't - Believe - In - Your - God!

 

So any assumptions that I intentionally rejecting your God against better knowledge, is a false assumptions and I take it as an accusation.

 

No, it presupposes that God thinks that you know about him and are intentionally acting in rebellion. I didn't write the Bible so you can't really attrribute these things to me, I am simply telliing you what it says. So, you have a beef with the authors of the Bible and not with me directly. If you don't believe it is true, then you shouldn't feel so offended.

 

If it is a false assumption, then in essence, if God exists, you are calling him a liar. Now, I am not saying that you are calling God a liar, I am simply saying that if God exists and if what he said is true, then it logically follows that your statement would be equivalent to calling him a liar.

 

I haven't seen any evidence that you have provided that would point away from God. I also believe that the existence of the universe, the fine-tuning, and objective morality alone are enough evidence to point to God's existence.

Well, I don't.

 

That is fine, but your alternative explanations offered in our first exchange were simply faith based beleifs, not scientifcally based. So, if you believe that there is an alternative explanaton for the existence of the universe, you are in no better position than me in explaining it. You simply have faith in something other than God for your explanation, but you still base you belief in faith.

 

We've given you enough evidence for you to believe in what we say, but you are intentionally rejecting our claims because you are rebelling against reason and rationality.

 

We had that whole last thread to give each of you a chance to give an objective basis for morality apart from God and the best you could do was panentheism, which cannot get you there, and I believe one other person posited Buddhism, which also can't get you there. So no, you did not give any evidence of the kind. Just saying panentheism or Buddhism without explaining how that somehow gets you to objective mroality is not an explanation, it is an empty assertion. However, if you would like to fill in your answer and tell me how panentheism could get you to objective morality, I am willing to listen.

 

OK, in your first paragraph you accuse me of judging you by saying that you reject God and now you make the claim yourself. If you don't believe that he exists, and if he does and has said that he has given enough evidence for us to know that, then you have rejected him. You say that God is a fairy tale, yet you believe that nature is god, I don't see how you can say that this isn't a fairy tale since the nature-god has been the basis of many fairy tales. That doesn't make sense. Harry Potter is a good example of this, thanks for bringing it up. Harry Potter is based upon a pantheistic or panentheistic view of reality, but then you say that this is what you believe.

 

I don't have to judge you for rejecting God, you have done that yourself. I don't know your heart or mind, except what you reveal about yourself. It is also not my job to judge you, that is God's job. But again, it sounds like you have judged yourself.

To say that I don't believe in some supernatural being, is the same as judging that supernatural being? How old are you? You try to preach logic and yet you fail to see how dumb that argument is?

 

I left my post above so that you could reread it as it appears that you didn't do so before posting your response. Can you tell me where I said that you judged God? I said that you judge yourself, and unless you are assuming deity, then I have not said that you judged God. So, before you criticize my logic, you might want to make sure that you understand my argument, which in this case, you have not. That is why it is not a good idea to throw mud, you end up with most of it on your hands.

 

You can go back in the history of the posts, but I doubt it will help you, because you just don't get it.

 

And btw, if you feel that the attacks on you are unfair and uncalled for, remember this: no one is forcing you to stay here. Obviously this not the right place for you to be. You came her by your own free will, so use that free will for some better purpose and for an audience that admire and worship your wisdom, because we don't.

 

OK, so I will take that as your not having evidence to provide. I mean, for as much as you have accused me it seems like it should be easy to find. And it is you who has leveled the accusation and you should be the one to back it up. I won't do your homework for you, and why should I waste my time, I know what I have said and what my attitude has been in these conversations, and it has not been to personally attack.

 

So, would you rather that I leave so that you can all share your common beliefs and pat one another on the back for doing so? I have put it out in an earlier post that if you all want me to leave, I will do so and leave you to talk amongst yourselves. However, I will take it as all of you cutting and running rather than me doing so. I will consider myself pushed out rather than running away with tail between legs, as it were. And, we will both know the reason why.

[LNC]

I normally don't resort to such things (calling people names and the like), but I am just sick of LNC and how he treats people here.

 

In any case, I am glad to see I am not the only one feeling this way about him .

Now perhaps you understand some of the frustration that comes out as anger on this website (referring back to a discussion we had a few months back, do you remember? ).

 

Ignorance is bliss, and LNC is more blessed than others.

 

You know Han, I purposefully ignored LFA because of his abusive behavior. Although, I find it interesting that he feels that I am treating others in some sick way when it is he, you and others who have been exhibiting all of the abusive behavior. I have not called one person a name, nor have I used any hateful speech or attitudes here. And yet LFA considers me to be treating people wrong. I am not sure how his/her moral code is wired to come to such a conclusion.

[LNC]

How does this prove anything about R.S.'s zeal? Of course you have less posts here than she does at the other site but it has nothing to do with her zeal. It simply means you're a newbie here and have only been posting here for a few weeks now. You're trying to compare apples and oranges here.

 

Like I said, she is one of the most prolific posters on that Christian site. She averages over 7 posts per day, and that is probably the highest of anyone on the site. If that is not zeal, then I don't know what your beef with me is all about.

 

[i suppose claiming we have no morals and that we deserve to be tortured by God is supposed to be a compliment in your alternate universe?

 

I never said you have no morals. In fact, when I speak of morals, I merely refer to the existence of objective morals, not to their application. I specifically try to avoid that discussion as it is not meaningful until we have established that there is something objective to discuss. As for God's punishment, I deserve it every bit as much as anyone else. So, when I speak of God's punishment, I say nothing that I am not included in.

 

Even murder? x.X

 

Good question. Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment." So, by that standard, yes, unfortunately, I have been guilty of murder many times in my life.

 

Since when? I'm pretty sure JK Rowling is a Christian and a member of the Church Of England. Having read all the Harry Potter books myself, I can say with certainty that the books say nothing about religion. Have you even read the books to know what you're talking about?

 

But, even if she is, and I don't know that to be the case, her books are not based upon pantheistic or panentheistic pagan beliefs of witchcraft and magic. These are not Christian beliefs. I am sorry to tell you that paganism, witchcraft, and the like are religious in nature. If you don't believe me do a little research and you will see all sorts of rituals and beliefs associated with it.

[LNC]

You have got to be kidding me. Right? I mean ... are you really this ignorant? Yes, there was indeed a Bible. There had been for many HUNDREDS of years. It was only what we call the Old Testament ... but they had it. It was translated into Greek about 200 years before the time of Christ so it was available in both Greek and Hebrew. And rich people often would have copies of texts for themselves, so it could very well be possible that the rich man and his brothers had copies. Assuredly the local synagogue did and certainly the temple did. So you can stop blowing your smoke, buddy.

 

The Bible was not formally brought together until after the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. That would be over three hundred years after Jesus told this story. Now, if you are referring to the OT, that was not technically called a "Bible" it was called the Tenach and it consisted of the TORAH (law), the NEVI'IM (prophets), and K'TUVIM (Psalms and other wisdom literature). But they wouldn't have referred to this as a Bible. Also, the common people did not have copies of the Tenach, they would have been in the temple and synagogues, not handled by the unschooled people. They were read at the Jewish worship by the Rabbis. So, my point stands anyway tha they weren't judged because they "disagreed" with the Tenach, but because they didn't trust in God.

 

Maybe not, but entire communities would MEMORIZE entire scrolls, especially those too poor to own written ones.

 

Do you know history at all? Are you familiar with the Maccabees and that period of history? Do you recall a Greek king by the name of Antiocus? He became so angry at the Jews that one thing he did was to forbid the reading of the religious scrolls. Today, Jewish people play a gambling game with a top (a dreidel) to memorialize what happened back then. Why a gambling game? Because the Jews would gather to read the scrolls of the old testament. If a Greek soldier started to approach them they would quickly hide the scroll and pretend they were gathered to gamble. This seems to indicate that there were quite a few scrolls of the Old Testament books floating around. And this all took place back in about 165 BC.

 

Lastly, the shear number of scroll fragments of the Old Testament that still survive today is a testament to how many Old Testament scrolls there must have been back then.

 

You are sorely mistaken (again).

 

I will concede the point that they had Scripture to which to refer in the synagogue, although, not a Bible as you claimed (which was my point and that is true - they wouldn't have had a book or scrolls of their own) It was common for parents to encourage their children to memorize Scripture. Now, I see that you have been doing some research on the issue; however, that still doesn't make your point of saying that they were going to hell for disagreeing with the Scripture. You still haven't proved that point. And, apparently, these people were going to be held accountable for what they knew since Jesus said that they had the law and the prophets. So, I am curious, how will you prove your initial point now that you have taken us down this rabbit trail.

 

And where were they taught about Moses and the prophets? From the Bible! So, again, rejection of what the Bible teaches is enough to send someone to hell.

 

In the synagogue. Again, they didn't have a "Bible", they had Scripture in the synagogue taught by the Rabbis. Now you are changing your argument as well. You said that it was "disagreeing with the Bible" that sent them to hell. Now you are saying that it is rejection of what it teaches, which is a different argument (disagreement and rejection are different in degree), but you are still mistaken. It is rebellion against God that merits hell and nothing less. Now, is rejection of Scripture involved in rebelling against God, usually, but not always. A person could agree with everything in the Scriptures and still rebel against God and end up in hell. The Bible says that there will be those who say "Lord, Lord" and he will say "I never knew you, depart from me, you workers of lawlessness." Those would be people who probably accepted everything in the Bible and yet still rebelled.

 

Do you not read? I said that! Let's look at a simple math problem:

 

Jesus = the Word (Bible)

Bible (the Word) = Jesus

 

Reject Jesus = Reject Bible

Reject Bible = Reject Jesus

 

So either statement is true. Therefore, you can stop arguing that one of them is not. If you say that no one goes to hell for rejecting the Bible, then that would be the same as saying that no one goes to hell for rejecting Jesus. Why? Because the Bible is the only source we have that teaches about who this Jesus supposedly is and what he supposedly came to do.

 

Your equations don't work out. Jesus is considered the Word (Logos); however, the Bible is not considered equal to Jesus. That is a false analogy. Again, a person can reject Jesus without rejecting the Bible, they simply reinterpret it to their liking. However, if someone rejects the Bible, they will generally reject Jesus as well, so I will give you two out of four in your statements above. But, the key is that it is the rejection of Jesus that merits hell, not the rejection of the Bible. The Bible does not save a person, only Jesus can do that.

 

And you can reject the Bible without ever having heard of the god of the Bible. Just because one is true does not make the other false. Again, you are missing the point. The point is that, without the Bible, there would be no concept of the Christian god at all ... NONE! You would not know about the Christian version of hell, heaven, god, Christ, etc. These concepts are found in the Bible.

 

Secondly, the man in the jungle who has never heard about the Christian god nor has ever seen a Bible cannot reject that which he does not know about. If the thought does not even enter his mind, he cannot reject it.

 

How can a person reject the Bible, which is God's story, without having ever heard of the main subject of the book? Unless they are rejecting it out of ignorance due to some folk belief or prejudice, or uninformed bias. That might be possible, but it is not likely to be the case in most situations.

 

You are saying that God would not exist if the Bible didn't exist, or that he couldn't reveal himself in any other way but the written word? Well, that is patently false since there was no Bible written when many of the OT figures encountered God. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and many others encountered God long before a mark was put on a document. Maybe you are saying that we wouldn't have a concept of God today without the Bible, but then again, that is to say that what God did in OT times he couldn't repeat in our day, again that is false. The Apostles had a concept of the Christian God decades before they recorded one letter was written of the NT. I am not sure what exactly you are claiming and on what basis. You need to do better than to make these types of unjustified assertions.

 

God will judge each individual on a basis of what they knew and what they did with what they knew. Again, a person is not sent to hell because they had their theology messed up. Nor are they sent to hell because they didn't trust in Jesus, we deserve hell because God has made himself known to each and every one of us through nature, our consciences, and many other ways, and we do not respond to what we know. If someone can stand before God and simply say that they didn't violate their conscience, then they would have grounds on which to argue for their entrance into heaven, but the fact is, no one, I mean no one will be able to make that case. That alone is enough for God to pronounce us guilty. Each of us sets our own standard in our mind, even if we reject God's standard, and none of us lives up to the standard that we set for ourselves. So the bar is set very low and we still fail to clear it.

[Ouroboros]

This is what you said:

 

...

To know what will happen and to cause it to happen are two different things. Nobody going to hell is going there involuntarily. Nobody in hell would even want to be in heaven as that would mean that they would have to be in the constant presence of God, whom they hate. This is no game to God. He sent his son to die at the hands of his own creation in order to pay for the rebellion of his own creation against him. Rebellion that is completely unjustified and deserving of the most severe punishment. The fact that God saves any of us is due to his patience, long suffering, mercy, kindness, and grace.

...

People in Hell hate God. You believe I will go to Hell. Hence, I will end up in Hell, and hate God.

 

Two interpretations:

 

1. I don't hate God, but I will hate God when I'm in Hell.

 

2. I hate God now, and will continue to hate God when in Hell.

 

Which one is it according to your belief?

 

So yes, you didn't directly say that I hate God, but I'm good at reading between the lines, and this is what you really mean to say. Btw, you didn't say the Bible say this things here, but you say it as your own opinion, so don't hide behind the Bible.

[Ouroboros]

You keep claiming that and I have yet to see you post one response where I made that accusation against you. I have never made a specific accusation against any particular individual on this site.

Okay, true, not directly, but you are making references that people will go to Hell because they hate God and are rebellious against God. So either you intend to say we are those people, or you are talking about some other people. So I guess, what you are saying here now is that we are the other kind of people, who do NOT hate God, and are NOT rebellious! Good. That means we're good again. You are not making false statements about us, but you are talking about some other people. But why? Why talk about the hateful, rebellious sinners, when it's not us?

 

Now, if you are taking the statements that the Bible says about unbelievers and applying it to yourself, then you are the one to blame, not me.

My book say that you are an idiot.

 

If you take that personal, it only means my book is true, since it touched a nerve. And that means you are an idiot. (NO, I don't say that. My book say that you're an idiot.)

 

I am simply explaining what the Bible says, so if you have a problem with that, you have one of two options: either prove that the Bible is wrong; or, blame God for the definition as he is the one that inspired the writers to write what they did. BTW, to my knowledge, I have never used the term "hate" in regard to unbelievers, that is your interpretation. If, as you believe, God is a "fictional being" then why get so offended? If someone told me that I am rebelling against Santa because I don't believe in him and that I would never get toys from him again, would it bother me? No, since I have never received toys from him in the past. So, if you believe God to be fictional, then why get so upset that someone accuses you of rebelling against him? The problem is that I don't think that deep down you are too confident that God is a "fictional being" and therefore, you may be feeling a twinge of guilt. I may be wrong on that, however,

I'm not offended by the Bible. I'm offended by you believing in the Bible and use the Bible as a tool against other people. The text in the Bible is offensive, but it's just a book. People make a book look good or bad. I wouldn't be upset with Santa if a Santaist comes and pushes the claim that I hate Satan. If someone comes and say that, I get offended and angry at the person who makes the claim. I think he's stupid! And I think he should shut up! I'm not upset with the Bible or God, simply because they make no difference. It's you who changes the status, not those other things. You are the one who throw accusation, and don't hide behind the Bible, because you claim to believe what the Bible says! Or don't you?

 

You use the Bible as a hammer. Your opinions and personal/subjective belief of God is the nail. You try to hammer the nail into other people using the hammer. Then you can point back at the hammer and say: "Look the Bible say so, not me, so don't blame me!" But in reality, it's your view of Christianity, your kind of belief, that you want people to believe in. It's your interpretation of the Bible you want people to fall for, not some objective kind, but you pick and choose your religion and you use the book to drive it in. That is what I get offended by. People who think they are better than others. People who think they know it all and know the "perfect" truth and want to push their ideas like some used-car salesman.

 

And you did use the term "hate" in regards to unbelievers... Those in Hell hate God. That's your claim. And you said it in such a way to point out that rebellion and hate against God is what brought them there. And in the context of what we have discussed, that is you pointing the finger to us and saying we are the same as those in Hell. Unless, you don't, which means, we are not rebellious and hate God, and you can drop your preaching right now, because we are good with God then! Make up your frigging mind!

 

Here's the thing. You say one thing, then you claim it's not you but the Bible. Make up your mind. Do you believe what the Bible says in those verses or not? If you don't, why use them? If you do, then you agree with what it says, and you are the one who claim it! For instance if you cite the Bible that "unbelievers are fools," and you believe it, then you are making the accusation just as much as the Bible.

 

Again, unless you can document where I said you hate God, I will consider that a false accusation. I say that those who reject God are rebelling against him and if you consider yourself in that camp, then it is not to me that you should be looking, but to the authors of the Bible and to God. I am merely telling you what they have written and said. I don't hate you, I actually pray for you and enjoy the conversation that we are having. If I didn't, I could find plenty of other things to do with my time. I have not judged you, it seems that you have judged yourself. I simply explained God's point of view as laid out in the Bible, it is you who has turned it upon yourself. But, if you feel that I hate you, I guess I can do nothing about that but to say I am sorry if I offend you.

See above. We talked about that rebellion against God lead to Hell. You said people in Hell are there because they rebelled against God, and they HATE God. And you said it without Bible reference (which I don't care for anyway). So YOU SAID IT. Not directly, but from the context, that is what you mean to say. And you're back paddling like crazy now.

 

If he is imaginary, then why worry? If it makes you feel better, you can call me a Santa hater since I don't believe he exists. Funny thing is, I have never said you hate anybody. It is you and others who have called me names and yet I have not returned that treatment in kind.

I'm not worried. I'm irritated with people like you. I think people like you are dangerous to society. I think your kind of people cause injustice in society. I think people like you creates separation between people. I don't care for the Bible either way, but I care for people who use it to propagate social disharmony. I don't mind Unitarian churches, or the more liberal kinds. But I don't like those who think they are better than others. It's YOU I have a problem with, not your book or your God.

 

And why are you surprised that people call you names? You should expect that from us. After all, you believe we are rebellious beings! So why look so surprised? You should be happy, since we're confirming your belief. Actually, we are treating you extremely nice! We're not as rebellious as you think we are, but when we give you a little you act like you're offended by it. Make up your mind! Do you believe in the Bible or not?

 

That doesn't necessarily follow. God created nature good and man, through his sin corrupted it. So, you cannot tie the corruption back to God.

God created the opportunity for man to sin.

 

God created Satan.

 

God intentionally planned it, and he knew it was going to happen, but set it up that way on purpose, and didn't do anything to stop it. So the corruption go all the way back to God.

 

God is the First Cause, isn't he? First Cause of good things only? That's very selective.

 

If God is not First Cause of bad things, then God is not First Cause of ALL things. God is only First Cause of SOME things.

 

Make up your mind!

 

That depends upon what your definition of proof is. I do have evidence which I have spelled out in this thread already.

Your proof is based on informal logic and induction. Induction by definition can be fallacious, and inductive proof is only worth as much as the agreement of the premises, warrants, and method.

 

Since your proofs are based on your opinions, I can't accept them as proof. Nature points to Nature being the creative force. It's evident. Look at nature, and you can see nature is what causes nature. Nothing else. You make leaps of personal opinions when you use your proofs, and that's not good enough.

 

The problem is that reason that isn't grounded in objective reality is meaningless. For example, morality that isn't grounded in objective, transcendent reality is a meaningless concept. We ultimately become a law unto ourselves since there is nothing outside of ourselves against which to measure whether we are on track or not - unless God exists, of course.

My book says you are dumb.

 

Then morality ultimately subjective and therefore, ultimately meaningless. A question was asked of Richard Dawkins recently and his answer was very telling. He was asked how he would feel if evolution had led us to treat rape as a normative action, in other words, it would be considered just the same as feeding a child, having a job, going for a walk. Just one more thing that we do. Dawkins reply was, "well, I am glad that we live in a world where rape is not OK." In other words, he was judging rape by an external, objective standard and saying that it is really wrong to rape and he is glad that evolution turned out the way that it did and we consider rape to be wrong! Now, if he really believed his evolutionary mantra, he should have said that that would be jolly well just fine for him as that was what evolution has led us to and who are we to say any different. But the truth was, that he couldn't live by his worldview at that point, that was a bridge too far for him to cross.

Interesting that you bring up rape, since the Bible doesn't see it as any huge injustice. Search for what the Old Testament demands as punishment for rape. To give you a hint: it requires the rapist to pay a fee to the parents, and then marry the victim.

 

That's God's view on rape. Society knows better, because it is better. Your Bible is wrong about morality.

 

The issue of rape and why it is wrong is a lot more complex to explain. Rape is in essence a breach of personal integrity. Individuality as a moral foundation has not been uniform in history. We have come to cherish and value persons integrity and personal rights. Those did not exist in Old Testament time, or New Testament. So there is not absolute morality based on the Bible. You can claim it comes from God, but how? Through dreams? How? Or maybe through reason and thought? Well, then there you have it. The absolute moral foundation is rationality! I don't deny reason and logic to not exist, or even be eternal, but I deny that logic equals God. Logic exists on its own, and is to some parts a human construct to make sense of a chaotic world. This doesn't mean logic was created, nor does it mean it must be the nature of a supernatural being. Just because 1+1=2 is a truth statement, it doesn't mean that rule of math must exist in God's nature. It is a truth on its own, with its own context, and its own explanatory powers, no need to invent some imaginary being to explain it. There is not "perfect circle" with the perfect circumference in Heaven. Pi is a truth of nature and doesn't require some magical essence of Platonic forms to be explained or to exist as a concept.

 

So, let me ask you if you would be OK with it if rape, genocide, or some other activity that we currently consider immoral were to be considered the norm for our socializing? Or, what if a movement started and took hold where these things were suddenly the in thing to do, would that be OK with you? Just curious.

Rape is wrong because it infringes on a persons right of her (or his) own body.

 

For a society which I live in to be stable, I have to consider to give equal rights to not only me, but to people around me.

 

If I don't want to be raped, and I think it's a violation of my rights, then reason say that I should treat and defend the same rights for others.

 

Hence, rape is wrong, because I would hate to be raped myself.

 

It all comes down to protection of myself, and the reasonable actions to get to such a society where I can be safe. And you and others feel the same way.

[Ouroboros]

No, it presupposes that God thinks that you know about him and are intentionally acting in rebellion. I didn't write the Bible so you can't really attrribute these things to me, I am simply telliing you what it says. So, you have a beef with the authors of the Bible and not with me directly. If you don't believe it is true, then you shouldn't feel so offended.

So you're hiding behind the book?

 

Two options:

 

1. Either you believe in the book, and agree with what it says, and hence you say it too. You agree, you believe, you say, therefore you are the one saying it. Not the Bible. The Bible is just your tool to say it.

 

2. Or you do not believe what the book says. But then, why the hell even bring it up against someone? Why say, "the Bible say you are this or that," if you don't believe it?

 

My book says you're dumb. (No, I don't say it, my book says it.)

 

If it is a false assumption, then in essence, if God exists, you are calling him a liar. Now, I am not saying that you are calling God a liar, I am simply saying that if God exists and if what he said is true, then it logically follows that your statement would be equivalent to calling him a liar.

Eh? No, I call you a liar. No, correction, actually I don't call you a liar. I think you truly believe these things. I call you a sad and delusional human being. You are trapped in a fantasy world, and cant' get out. You believe these things, but they aren't true.

 

You remind me so much about when I argue with Muslims. They say the exact same things as you. I could replace "God" with "Allah" and there wouldn't be any difference between your "proofs" and your arguments. They are trapped in a fantasy world too.

 

It's sad, but your kind will bring down the world, and there's no way to get you to understand that. Very sad. This world will come to and end, but not because God will make it so, but because people like you will make it so.

 

That is fine, but your alternative explanations offered in our first exchange were simply faith based beleifs, not scientifcally based. So, if you believe that there is an alternative explanaton for the existence of the universe, you are in no better position than me in explaining it. You simply have faith in something other than God for your explanation, but you still base you belief in faith.

Oh, I don't deny that. I don't claim to know how the Universe started, but I claim that I don't know. Meaning, I can't say God did it, or some other thing did it, because they I would claim that I did know. But I don't! That's why I don't find arguments for God making the world any better or worse than any other. You're absolutely right, I believe the cause of the Universe was a natural cause, and not God, but I can't prove it. At least I can admit this, while you claim you can prove God did it, and that's a delusion of yours.

 

We had that whole last thread to give each of you a chance to give an objective basis for morality apart from God and the best you could do was panentheism, which cannot get you there, and I believe one other person posited Buddhism, which also can't get you there. So no, you did not give any evidence of the kind. Just saying panentheism or Buddhism without explaining how that somehow gets you to objective mroality is not an explanation, it is an empty assertion. However, if you would like to fill in your answer and tell me how panentheism could get you to objective morality, I am willing to listen.

No, you're not listening at all. From all the conversations we've had I know there's no chance at all that we can come to an understanding. To come to any kind of mutual insight we have to find at least some common platform to stand on, otherwise we can't know where the true stasis points are for debate, and that's why I'm so frustrated with you, because there's nothing we can agree on. So to debate anything is completely futile.

 

I left my post above so that you could reread it as it appears that you didn't do so before posting your response. Can you tell me where I said that you judged God?

No, I judge you, not God.

 

I said that you judge yourself, and unless you are assuming deity, then I have not said that you judged God. So, before you criticize my logic, you might want to make sure that you understand my argument, which in this case, you have not. That is why it is not a good idea to throw mud, you end up with most of it on your hands.

I'd say the problem is mutual. You fail consistently to understand what I'm saying, and many times completely misconstrue it, so there we have an agreement finally, that we have such completely disparate views that there's no chance we ever will understand each other. So I suggest, we'll just drop it completely, because we will not get anywhere.

 

So, would you rather that I leave so that you can all share your common beliefs and pat one another on the back for doing so? I have put it out in an earlier post that if you all want me to leave, I will do so and leave you to talk amongst yourselves. However, I will take it as all of you cutting and running rather than me doing so. I will consider myself pushed out rather than running away with tail between legs, as it were. And, we will both know the reason why.

Well, you don't even understand the purpose of this site, so the reason to why you leave is of no importance.

 

There are several members who want you to leave. I have thought about banning you, but I got a request from another member not to, because he wanted to get into more discussion with you. So therefore I held off banning you. But if you leave, I could care less, because you're not ready to debate these things with us here. Jesus has not made you humble enough to go to the sinners and preach the Gospel.

 

I'd say: Epic Fail.

[Legion]

I think you may be right Hans. Maybe LNC is just looking for an opportunity to judge and condemn other people and the Bible gives him a convenient way to do that.

[Skeptic]

That doesn't necessarily follow. God created nature good and man, through his sin corrupted it. So, you cannot tie the corruption back to God.

 

Are you saying that all animals would have been herbivores if Adam and Eve had not sinned? Even though the carnivorous animals have teeth that were specifically designed to cut through flesh? Are you saying that tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, landslides, and other natural disasters would have never existed if it wasn't for Adam and Eve? What do you define as vicious or corruption?

[Ouroboros]

You know Han, I purposefully ignored LFA because of his abusive behavior.

So why haven't you ignored me? I'm not rude enough?

 

Also, to give you a little information, L4A has gone through a really rough time. I wish I could tell you the things I know about him, but he got reasons enough to be really pissed at Christians and Christianity at the moment. He's seen the true face of Christians and their hypocrisy and how it hurts him and his family. He didn't become an Ex-Christian because of it, but as soon as he was, Christianity showed it's true colors. So he got every reason to feel quite a bit miffed at the moment.

 

Although, I find it interesting that he feels that I am treating others in some sick way when it is he, you and others who have been exhibiting all of the abusive behavior. I have not called one person a name, nor have I used any hateful speech or attitudes here.

Well, you do claim to use the verses from the Bible, and the Bible got some weird and false statements against non-Christians. You support those verses, and you make references to them. It doesn't resolve you from culpability to say, "the Bible says it, not me." Either you quote it because you agree, or you don't believe in it and have no reasons to quote it.

 

And yet LFA considers me to be treating people wrong. I am not sure how his/her moral code is wired to come to such a conclusion.

Hmm... "Wrong" have more meanings than just moral. But that's something I guess you have to figure out on your own.

[Neon Genesis]

You keep claiming that and I have yet to see you post one response where I made that accusation against you. I have never made a specific accusation against any particular individual on this site.

You sure as hell did. You did way back in the original thread you posted in at this site where you accused one of our members of secretly believing in Jesus because they were having problems deconverting. You also made false accusations of all the atheists here by claiming we're all secret agnostics. So don't you dare try to play the innocent martyr card.

 

Then morality ultimately subjective and therefore, ultimately meaningless.

Says who, you? Here's a response from Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian essay regarding your stupid claim.

Now we reach one stage further in what I shall call the intellectual descent that the Theists have made in their argumentations, and we come to what are called the moral arguments for the existence of God. You all know, of course, that there used to be in the old days three intellectual arguments for the existence of God, all of which were disposed of by Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason; but no sooner had he disposed of those arguments than he invented a new one, a moral argument, and that quite convinced him. He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother's knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts so much emphasize -- the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early associations have than those of later times.

 

Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it.

 

A question was asked of Richard Dawkins recently and his answer was very telling. He was asked how he would feel if evolution had led us to treat rape as a normative action, in other words, it would be considered just the same as feeding a child, having a job, going for a walk. Just one more thing that we do. Dawkins reply was, "well, I am glad that we live in a world where rape is not OK." In other words, he was judging rape by an external, objective standard and saying that it is really wrong to rape and he is glad that evolution turned out the way that it did and we consider rape to be wrong! Now, if he really believed his evolutionary mantra, he should have said that that would be jolly well just fine for him as that was what evolution has led us to and who are we to say any different. But the truth was, that he couldn't live by his worldview at that point, that was a bridge too far for him to cross.

Going by such "logic", if God commanded an action you knew to be immoral and you claim to believe in objective morality, then you should be glad that we don't live in a world where we have a god that would command you to do an immoral action. But let's hypothesize here, if God commanded you to murder all of us here, would you or would you not do it? If you would do it, why does it suddenly make it moral? Doesn't that then mean that morals are not absolute but are arbitrary to God's whim and God is a nihilist? If you wouldn't obey God if he commanded you to murder us, then why worship God at all? And if you wouldn't obey an immoral action if God commanded us to do it, then isn't that proof enough that we don't get our morality from an invisible man in the sky?

 

We had that whole last thread to give each of you a chance to give an objective basis for morality apart from God and the best you could do was panentheism, which cannot get you there, and I believe one other person posited Buddhism, which also can't get you there. So no, you did not give any evidence of the kind. Just saying panentheism or Buddhism without explaining how that somehow gets you to objective mroality is not an explanation, it is an empty assertion. However, if you would like to fill in your answer and tell me how panentheism could get you to objective morality, I am willing to listen.

Then going by such logic, you simply saying our answers aren't good enough isn't a good enough response either, and you have no proof of your claims for an objective morality either. I'm still waiting for you to explain where God gets his morals from?

 

. I have not called one person a name, nor have I used any hateful speech or attitudes here. And yet LFA considers me to be treating people wrong. I am not sure how his/her moral code is wired to come to such a conclusion.

How is telling us that we all deserve to be tortured by God and that we should shut up and stop complaining when he does if we don't base our morals on an objective moral standard not hateful speech?

 

Like I said, she is one of the most prolific posters on that Christian site. She averages over 7 posts per day, and that is probably the highest of anyone on the site. If that is not zeal, then I don't know what your beef with me is all about.

Again, you are a newbie here, she is not, so of course she's going to have more posts there than you do here.

[Neon Genesis]

I never said you have no morals. In fact, when I speak of morals, I merely refer to the existence of objective morals, not to their application. I specifically try to avoid that discussion as it is not meaningful until we have established that there is something objective to discuss.

See, you're doing it again. In one breath you deny we have no morals but then you turn around and say we can't complain unless we agree to your stupid standards of morality. You're such a hypocrite and a liar.

 

Good question. Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment." So, by that standard, yes, unfortunately, I have been guilty of murder many times in my life.

Since Jesus was tempted with sin by Satan and merely thinking a sin is the same thing as committing it, then does that mean Jesus is a sinner?

 

But, even if she is, and I don't know that to be the case, her books are not based upon pantheistic or panentheistic pagan beliefs of witchcraft and magic. These are not Christian beliefs. I am sorry to tell you that paganism, witchcraft, and the like are religious in nature. If you don't believe me do a little research and you will see all sorts of rituals and beliefs associated with it.

Bullshit. Where in the books does it say anything about pantheism? There is nothing about religion anywhere in the books. And there's this little thing called FICTION. Say it with me again slowly for you to understand, FICTION. Saying Harry Potter supports paganism because it has magic in it is stupid. That's like saying The Wizard Of Oz supports paganism because it has magic in it. Haven't you ever heard of the word make believe? The magic in Harry Potter is nothing at all like magick in paganism unless you seriously believe kids are going around flying on broomsticks in the middle of the night sky. But since you believe in a talking snake, I suppose it should be expected that you don't understand the difference between reality and FICTION. Say it again, FICTION!

 

So, would you rather that I leave so that you can all share your common beliefs and pat one another on the back for doing so? I have put it out in an earlier post that if you all want me to leave, I will do so and leave you to talk amongst yourselves. However, I will take it as all of you cutting and running rather than me doing so. I will consider myself pushed out rather than running away with tail between legs, as it were. And, we will both know the reason why.

"Oh, teacher, teacher! Those mean kids won't let me play ball with them! They're being mean! I'm being treated just like St Paul was even though I'm not being thrown in jail for it! Wah wah, they're being mean to me! Make them play nice! Boo hoo hoo!" This is what you sound like. Grow up already, we're past the third grade here, you know.

 

God will judge each individual on a basis of what they knew and what they did with what they knew.

If God judges us on an individual case by case basis, then doesn't that mean God is holding us to different standards? Does God judge by an objective standard or doesn't he? You can't on the one hand say God's moral standards are objective but then on the other make exceptions for people who never heard the gospel. And if it's all up to God to judge, what's the point in being a Christian?

 

I didn't write the Bible so you can't really attrribute these things to me, I am simply telliing you what it says.

Whether or not you believe you're the one saying it, you are endorsing what the bible says, so at the very most, you're certainly thinking it about us. Saying it's just what the bible says would be like if a Nazi told a Jew they deserve to be sent to the concentration camps but then told the Jew that's not what they said, it's just what the Fuhrer told them and they're just following orders. Actually, if you're just repeating what the bible says, this makes you even more dangerous than if you admitted you're the one saying it because you're admitting that you aren't thinking for yourself and are just taking orders from your Fuhrer in the sky.

[agnosticator]

Both Neon and Hans have made a point (among others), that LNC claims to just relay to us what the bible says. But he's really agreeing with the bible and hoping to convert us. Otherwise he wouldn't be here. Unless, it's an ego thing...

 

And yes, he is conspiring with the vengeance of the christian god by doing so.

 

I also find it strange that LNC says he possesses knowledge of god rather than belief. Since he knows god exists before the big bang (transcendence), and somehow exists in emminence, he goes well beyond believing, into supernatural knowing. Therefore, his "knowledge" of god is fantasy, since god is unknown by all, and he's just a human. His basis for morality is fantasy because of this. I'll echo everyone again and say religious morality is subjective since we are all in the same boat regardless of all christian protesting. They can't "kick against the pricks", but they can act like pricks!

[Neon Genesis]

Therefore, his "knowledge" of god is fantasy, since god is unknown by all, and he's just a human. His basis for morality is fantasy because of this.

I'm trying not to expect much from someone who can't tell Harry Potter apart from reality.

[agnosticator]

Therefore, his "knowledge" of god is fantasy, since god is unknown by all, and he's just a human. His basis for morality is fantasy because of this.

I'm trying not to expect much from someone who can't tell Harry Potter apart from reality.

 

Maybe he should have stuck with "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" (or whatever the hell the title is).

[Justin]

So, would you rather that I leave so that you can all share your common beliefs and pat one another on the back for doing so? I have put it out in an earlier post that if you all want me to leave, I will do so and leave you to talk amongst yourselves. However, I will take it as all of you cutting and running rather than me doing so. I will consider myself pushed out rather than running away with tail between legs, as it were. And, we will both know the reason why.

 

That first sentence is why folks on here lable you as arrogant. You claim to know more about us and this site than we do. Only a fool thinks everyone gets along everytime all the time. It that is you, and since you flat out said it, then you are a fool. Add tally insult to the tally.

 

As for the rest of what you said, yes, please leave. Having you around is no different than having a mentally retarded person posting on here. It doesn't matter what we say, it will go right in one ear and out the other while they still go on with their idiotic, do do ga ga babble. You don't listen to a damn thing that is said to you and you ignore this and that and just vomit up the same old long since shot down arguments. Leave. And yes, we will both know the REAL reason why.

[LNC]

What you are talking about is what theologians call General Revelation and Specific Revelation. What is generally agreed upon by theologians is that General Revelation (god revealing himself in general via things like nature) is NOT enough information to get someone into heaven. For example, via looking at nature, a man cannot possibly come to the conclusion that a man named Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem some 2000 years ago and died upon a cross for this man's sins. Therefore, General Revelation cannot give the man the needed information to "get saved." Specific Revelation is then needed and this is supposedly what the Bible is. Therefore, once again, to reject the Bible (supposedly specific revelation) is to reject god and thus, the individual would end up in hell.

 

Again, you show that you can talk a whirlwind, but it only ends up being smoke and mirrors. You simply either don't know what you are talking about or are either too dumb to admit your mistakes or to proud.

 

You are correct, general revelation is not enough to save someone; however, it is enough to show a person that God exists, from there they need to seek revelation. You are conflating terms. One is not sent to hell for the rejecting the Bible part of your equation, but for rejecting God. I think you want to equate the two and it is not appropriate to do so.

 

Disagreeing is not the same as rejecting. Why did you suddenly go to that term? And having a problem with one book of the Bible (such as Martin Luther with James ... and he also had problems with Revelation, if I remember correctly) does not equal rejection of the entire Bible. So, again, you are grasping at air.

 

Although you said in an earlier post (#81) that people go to hell for disagreeing with the Bible, so I am glad to see that you have changed you mind on that point. Maybe you can tell me how you distinguish, if you do, the difference between disagreeing and rejecting. Maybe that is where we are crossing paths. However, I believe we are splitting hairs here. It is rejection of God that ultimately makes us deserving of hell.

 

No. To say that god has not given enough evidence for his existence is to call YOU a liar. I don't believe that god exists and therefore this non-existent being cannot lie at all. Only the people who believe in him can lie for him.

 

Romans 1:19-20, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Maybe you have a beef with the Apostle Paul and not with me.

 

The same word that calls a bat a bird? The same word that talks about four-legged winged "fowls" such as the ever famous four-legged beetle, the four-legged locust and the four-legged grasshopper? Is this the word you are talking about? How about the word that talks about an incompetent god that murders an entire world full of people because it "repented" him that he made man? Is that the word you are referring to that supposedly reveals god to men? Do you mean the word that shows a god that becomes impotent before iron chariots? That word? Is that the one you are referring to? Are you referring to the same word that talks about a woman turning into salt for looking backward? Or perhaps you are talking about the word that tells us about the talking snake? Maybe you are talking about the word that tells us that god keeps a storehouse to store snow and rain in. Or perhaps you are talking about the word that tells us the proper way to own a slave, that a girl child makes the woman who bore her twice as unclean and that a rapist needs to marry the woman he raped? Is this the word you are referring to?

 

Yeah. The god of that book did a great job of revealing himself. We can see clearly what an asshole he is, how impotent he is and how abso-friggin-lutely ignorant of science he is. You can go off into a corner and bow down to him all you want. Seriously.

 

I've already responded to the bat/bird issue, as well as the rest of your issues above. By the way, the part that says that God has revealed himself is in another testament, by another author.

 

You sound angry at God whom you claim doesn't exist, is there a reason for that?

 

If the Bible actually didn't contradict itself that would be a start for most of us. If the Bible wasn't so flat out wrong on so many issues then that would also help. If the Bible actually had a decent moral god depicted in it instead of a despot that is desperate to be worshiped ... that might help.

 

You see, it really wouldn't necessarily take that much. But the book that is claimed to be the very word of god is so greatly screwed up that it simply takes a total mind-fuck to believe it. I know. I once was there.

 

Whether the Bible is contradictory or not, and I don't believe that it is when understood in context, is irrelevant as to whether God exists. We could have completely botched the recording of Biblical accounts, but that doesn't in any way mean that God doesn't exist. God's existence is not dependent on man's fallibility or lack thereof. Now, you make these moral judgments about the God depicted in the Bible and I wonder on what you base them. We haven't established that you have any basis other than your feelings and sensibilities on which to judge. So why should your judgment mean anything to anyone besides yourself? Also, are you without sin that you can make these pronouncements of judgment on God?

 

Man, go back through this thread and read. You made all sorts of statements that people showed you were wrong. For example, you said things like the Bible only labels bats as winged creatures and not as birds. I quoted the verses that showed you that you were wrong even giving you the Hebrew. You said that the Bible never commands an unruly child to be stoned to death. Again, I gave you the verses to show you were wrong. You ignored them. There are literally PAGES of stuff people have countered you with in this very thread and you ignored most of it. So, you do the leg work. We already have.

 

I said that in one of the passages the original Hebrew word for bird is literally translated as "winged creature." Obviously you have not checked that out or you wouldn't be bringing this up again. I said that in the other passage the contextual reading applies the word bird to the creatures after the usage and not before. I think if you read it you will find that that is the better reading as none of the other birds in the list would fit the usage of that word either. Surely, you don't think that these people were so ignorant as to not know the birds that they were around regularly. Third, the people of that time who wrote those books didn't have the classifications that we do today, so you are being a little chronologically snobbish in your judgment. You didn't quote the actual verse to me as that is in Hebrew and you quoted English, what you quoted more technically is the English translation of the Hebrew text. Unless you speak Hebrew and know how to exegete Scripture I would be so confident that your interpretation is correct.

 

Regarding the other passage, yes I did say that and I stand by it. These weren't children in the sense of young minors being stoned and it wasn't for being "unruly" that they were stoned, it was for rebelling against God. Now, could you please tell me on what you base your morals that you deem this to be wrong. You have yet to do that and therefore, you are only expressing your opinion on these matters and not telling me that this is actually wrong in an objective sense. Unless you can do that let's drop this discussion as I told you that I don't care to get into a battle over your opinions and feelings.

 

I will not do your legwork. If you make an accusation you must be willing to back it up, otherwise it will be considered an empty assertion.

 

My proof has been presented throughout this thread. The only way for a person to have come to the conclusion is that the Bible says so. However, the Bible has been proven to be a totally unreliable book. As such, the statement that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and that no man can come to the father by by him cannot be proven true. The very book that it is in is so full of errors that it makes it unlikely that it is a true statement.

 

However, I will soften this a bit and say, while I recognize that I cannot "prove" that this is not the case, you cannot "prove" that it is. This is no different than me asking you to "prove" that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. You simply cannot absolutely prove this one way or the other. However, just because something cannot be proven to be absolutely false does not make it absolutely true.

 

The natural position of the average, rational person is the position of skepticism. If you were to tell me that a man just flew across the street on his own power, then I would instantly be skeptical. If I cared to, I could investigate the evidence (if any) to see if there is any validity in the statement. I might find that the statement is not supported. I might find that a movie was being filmed and what you saw was misinterpreted. The point is, it takes FACTS to move something out of the position of being implausible and move it into the realm of the plausible or possible.

 

You make a statement that Jesus is the only true way to the father. I start in the position of a skeptic and then examine the evidence. Since the primary evidence is the Bible, which is claimed to be the very word of god, then I start with my examination there. Is there any way that the Bible can move me from being skeptical and, thus, bring the concept of Jesus as the savior into the position of possible or plausible? When the Bible is examined and the errors become abundant and the contradictions mount and obviously bad things are called good, etc, then it becomes increasingly difficult to move the concept of Jesus being the only way out of the position of implausible. In fact, the more one digs, the less likely the concept becomes and being even skeptical is difficult as the subject becomes, frankly, laughable.

 

First, your argument is a composition fallacy. Part A supposedly has an error, therefore the whole thing is untrustworthy. That does not necessarily follow. You have not proved all of the Bible to be untrustworthy by pointing out a couple of supposed contradictions. Therefore, your conclusion about Jesus does not follow. The Bible is made up of 66 individual documents that have been put together (Bible means library). Even if you proved one document to be untrustworthy, it does not necessarily reflect on the rest. You must deal with the statement of Jesus individually, not just as a part of the whole.

 

You have assumed a position of naturalism to prove disprove supernaturalism, that is called begging the question. You cannot assume your position as a part of your argument to prove your position. Even if everyone on earth assumed naturalism, it still would not necessarily make it true. You still have to prove naturalism. Also, skepticism is not the same as naturalism. Sure, if someone made a claim that they had been hijacked by a UFO last night I would be skeptical, but that doesn't automatically mean that it didn't happen. The weight of Jesus statement rests on his death, burial and resurrection, for which there is solid evidence. We have eyewitness evidence of the death and him being seen alive post-resurrection. We have the disciples who were transformed from cowards to bold witnesses who gave their lives for their beliefs. We have Paul who was a persecutor and became a bold witness and martyr for the faith. Those are just a few pieces of evidence. You don't have to assume that the Gospels are the word of God to come to these conclusions, just treat them like any other historic document and put them to the test as such. Many have done so and conclude that the evidence contained in the Gospels is reliable (even skeptics).

 

Again, you missed the point. Your original statement had to do with it not being your job. I simply pointed out that it was. Period.

 

You said it was my job to save people and I maintain that it is not. Is it my job to be a witness, yes absolutely, but that is where my job stops and the Holy Spirit's begins. It is his job to do the saving. That is the answer to your original point.

[Guest QuidEstCaritas?]

Therefore, his "knowledge" of god is fantasy, since god is unknown by all, and he's just a human. His basis for morality is fantasy because of this.

I'm trying not to expect much from someone who can't tell Harry Potter apart from reality.

 

A world with no religion and only fiction and non-fiction sections-with the Bible, the Qur'an, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Torah, the Mormon writings, sitting in the Fiction section always-would be so much better methinks .

 

One can hope. One can hope.

[agnosticator]

LNC:

 

We have the disciples who were transformed from cowards to bold witnesses who gave their lives for their beliefs.

 

We have the muslims who were transformed from cowards to bold witnesses who gave their lives for their beliefs. It then follows that suicide bombers prove allah exists, islam is the true religion, and the koran is allah's book.

[Looking4Answers]

I dropped out of this thread because LNC argues in circles and refuses to listen to what is being said. Here is a case in point:

 

Unless you speak Hebrew and know how to exegete Scripture I would be so confident that your interpretation is correct.

 

What? Do you not read what I wrote? Here, I will repeat it again:

 

Again, you prove your absolute ignorance and you prove that you don't read what people have written in this thread. I will try to make it clear (though I mentioned this in an earlier post):

 

I READ HEBREW!

 

That is from page 10, post #199. I lived in Israel for 4.5 years and served as a Christian missionary there. The passages about bats being birds ... that's what it says in both passages in their contexts in biblical Hebrew. You have it wrong. It is a glaring mistake, but Christians, based on the presupposition that the Bible cannot be wrong, will jump through all sorts of hoops to try to interpret the text to be correct.

[Neon Genesis]

I dropped out of this thread because LNC argues in circles and refuses to listen to what is being said.

I'm still waiting for LNC to prove he's a true xtian by drinking poison and surviving. I posted this several pages back and he still refuses to prove it even though it's in the bible. I think he must have some reading comprehension problem.

[Justin]

The weight of Jesus statement rests on his death, burial and resurrection, for which there is solid evidence. We have eyewitness evidence of the death and him being seen alive post-resurrection. We have the disciples who were transformed from cowards to bold witnesses who gave their lives for their beliefs. We have Paul who was a persecutor and became a bold witness and martyr for the faith. Those are just a few pieces of evidence.

 

 

It is very telling of a person who will believe something and construct their whole life around it based soley on what was written in a book 2,000 years ago, with no outside evidence to go along with what the Bible says other than a small handful of accounts of a man called Jesus but nothing of the supernatural crap surrounding him. People will believe anything i guess.

[LNC]

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.

(Deut. 21:18-21)

 

A synonym to the first whole sentence is: unruly (look it up if you must), which is the word I believe I used. The word rebellious (marah) is also translated "provocation" in one other verse in the NAS.

 

Give me the Bible verse that tells you that this verse does not apply to you. When did God undo this command to you? And "Someone" is everyone, just like word "world" in "so much loved God the world" means everyone. So tell me where it says that "someone" only applies to Jews when it suits you. (I think the right phrasing is: "If any man", so are you a man or are you some alien from another planet, and that's why it doesn't apply to you? Or maybe only Jewish men are real men?)

 

And exegesis is a human making human arguments for a verse. So if a hard-core fundamentalist like you do exegesis on this verse, you will of course claim it shouldn't apply to you, while a true historian understand that this was what the Jews at that time thought God commanded, and that it's a matter of anthropology, religious history, and religious evolution rather than God's word.

 

Btw, look up "exegesis" in the thesaurus, and you'll find "interpretation" there. Isn't that what I basically said?

 

That is not how you do Biblical exegesis. You cannot look up synonyms for the English word be assured that you are talking about the same thing. The Hebrew word is sarar and it is defined as "a primitive root; to turn away, i.e. (morally) be refractory -- away, backsliding, rebellious, revolter(-ing), slide back, stubborn, withdrew." It is never translated as unruly, that would be the Hebrew word rud which only has one instance in the OT (Hosea 11:12). You picked up the wrong Hebrew word, which may be part of your confusion. Marah is synonymous with bitter, but you are right that it can also mean disobey or provocation. It is from the same root that was used by Naomi in the book of Ruth when she said upon her return from Moab to call her Mara (bitter) and not Naomi (pleasant). If you want check a concordance on this to check me out there are plenty of them online to access.

 

The verse never did apply to me as I am not of Jewish heritage and the Law and commandments were given as part of the Mosaic Covenant which was for the Jews. It would be like asking me when the British law stopped applying to me. It never did. Now, you make an interesting, albeit silly attempt at parsing words. When you take a verse out of its context it can mean just about anything.

 

OK, so you say that exegesis is a human making human arguments, but what are you making here? I believe you are a human making a human argument, which says what exactly? When you read the definition of the word did you interpret the meaning? The answer is yes in case you are wondering. Was you interpretation valid? The answer is again yes. Why? Because you applied rules of language and interpretation to it and derived its meaning. Is that subjective? Somewhat, as it always is. Does that mean that it is not accurate? No, if you thought so you wouldn't have posted your answer. What you are doing is appealing to a post-modern mindset that says that interpretation equals complete subjectivity and lack of truth and meaning. If that were the case we should stop exchanging messages as we have to interpret each other's messages and that would mean that we wouldn't be communicating in meaningful propositional terms. But, I don't think that you, being most likely a modernist (as most atheists are), would accept that we couldn't communicate meaningfully with one another.