Would You Ever Submit And Worship God

[bornagainathiest]

As tempted as I am to tackle OC in this thread, I won't do it.

 

Why?  Because he still owes me answers from  this thread...

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55943-does-evil-exist/page-8

 

The four questions I put to Clay, in post #159 (April 9) are completely new and have never been asked by me before - so his claim that I'm repeating myself is nothing but a deflection.  Nor can he claim that he's already answered these questions, elsewhere in this forum.  But if he wants to cite just where he thinks he did, I'd be happy to see him fail to do so.

 

The covering up of this dodge by starting up another thread and his firing off a mass volley of replies to other threads won't deflect me from my purpose.  Imho, it speaks of someone getting desperate and resorting to diversionary tactics. 

 

To OrdinaryClay...

Sorry 'friend', but I'll see you in the relevant thread, any time you're ready.

 

BAA.

[raoul]

 

 

 

BrotherJosh, Seeker001, and others - how do you get the video to appear in the forums rather than having to click the link and going over to YouTube to watch it? I copy and past my link over here for my vids but I can't seem to get them to show up here.

I'm not sure, it just works for me automatically

 

I was tempted to respond with 'thanks for your very technical answer' but I don't know if you have a sense of humor. LOL  But seriously, thanks - I'll just try it again.

 

I have a sense of humor although it is hard to tell in this format. Maybe I could try posting one of your videos. Could I have a link to one? I don't think we need to worry about derailing this thread much

 

edit: Nvm found it. 

Testing: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZK7QBZjMnA

 

huh? I have no idea

 

Yeah, this was a new one I just did today and it worked. I think it has something to do with the sharing aspect of a video in YouTube. Even though I've edited the other one to combine 2 vids, the theist apologetical bs and my comments, the theist part controlled how it would be posted. HUH? I think I may have just confused both you and me. LOL

[raoul]

As tempted as I am to tackle OC in this thread, I won't do it.

 

Why?  Because he still owes me answers from  this thread...

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55943-does-evil-exist/page-8

 

The four questions I put to Clay, in post #159 (April 9) are completely new and have never been asked by me before - so his claim that I'm repeating myself is nothing but a deflection.  Nor can he claim that he's already answered these questions, elsewhere in this forum.  But if he wants to cite just where he thinks he did, I'd be happy to see him fail to do so.

 

The covering up of this dodge by starting up another thread and his firing off a mass volley of replies to other threads won't deflect me from my purpose.  Imho, it speaks of someone getting desperate and resorting to diversionary tactics. 

 

To OrdinaryClay...

Sorry 'friend', but I'll see you in the relevant thread, any time you're ready.

 

BAA.

Okay look - since he's quivering in his cave I'll graciously reply to those questions by assigning numbers and responding.

 

1. Yes

2. Yes and no

3. Maybe

4. Who gives a crap?

 

Okay, feel better now? Good! LOL

[Cousin Ricky]

What would bring you to completely submit and worship The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

 

As a prerequisite, he would first have to exist.

 

Then he would have to show me that he has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN COMMON with the jealous, insecure, capricious, bipolar, sadistic, homicidal, genocidal god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob described in the Buybull. Frankly, to worship such a monster is an immoral act. He would also have to explain why a being who is omnipotent and yet allows evil to exist is deserving of worship, and he would have to explain why demanding worship doesn't automatically disqualify him from being worthy of worship. (As for submission, I guess anyone has their breaking point when subjected to enough torture.)

[Cousin Ricky]

Given that no one would willingly submit and worship Him given evidence it is clear all the talk about evidence is just a psychological crutch. I think a reasonable interpretation is that anti Christian "evidence talk" is just a way of comforting themselves. There is a deep need to convince themselves that He does not exist.

 

 

How dare you! Do you know how long I sincerely did believe, and prided myself on being the one who would remain Christian forever? Do you know how hard I tried to convince myself that he does exist when the doubts set in? Please don't psychoanalyze people you do not understand. (Yes, I did that once myself. I got my clock cleaned by the unbelievers, and now that I'm one of them, I know exactly where they were coming from.)

[RipVanWinkle]

Babylonian Dream: Of course he wouldn't worship Zeus. He's completely satisfied worshiping bullshit. bill

[florduh]

There is a deep need to convince themselves that He does not exist.

 

 

 

This is one of the most obnoxious/ridiculous/unfounded/stupid/ironic things you've said.

 

You have no idea how hard many of us tried to convince ourselves of the opposite.

[Thurisaz]

 

Given that no one would willingly submit and worship Him given evidence it is clear all the talk about evidence is just a psychological crutch. I think a reasonable interpretation is that anti Christian "evidence talk" is just a way of comforting themselves. There is a deep need to convince themselves that He does not exist.

 

How dare you! Do you know how long I sincerely did believe, and prided myself on being the one who would remain Christian forever? Do you know how hard I tried to convince myself that he does exist when the doubts set in? Please don't psychoanalyze people you do not understand. (Yes, I did that once myself. I got my clock cleaned by the unbelievers, and now that I'm one of them, I know exactly where they were coming from.)

 

You know, reading that reminds me of one of the most sickening things I ever saw on christianforums.com back when I was posting there.

 

Someone had told (in one of the forums open to non-christians) why she was pissed about the cult... can't remember the details today but it amounted that she blamed the cult for the death of her son. Guess what happened within just a few replies in that thread? My, of course you know.

 

Someone babbled "Why are you worried? Your son is with gaaaaaawd now! He's at peace and you can be too if you pray the *WHACK* (Sound of a foot kicking the morontheist's face in)"

 

Well no, sadly nothing about that last bit. It was one of these days where I managed to stop my fist millimeters away from my monitor.

[Thought2Much]

 

There is a deep need to convince themselves that He does not exist.

 

 

 

This is one of the most obnoxious/ridiculous/unfounded/stupid/ironic things you've said.

 

You have no idea how hard many of us tried to convince ourselves of the opposite.

 

 

Since I can't vote up your posts, I will just quote this to show my approval, instead.

[raoul]

 

Given that no one would willingly submit and worship Him given evidence it is clear all the talk about evidence is just a psychological crutch. I think a reasonable interpretation is that anti Christian "evidence talk" is just a way of comforting themselves. There is a deep need to convince themselves that He does not exist.

 

 

How dare you! Do you know how long I sincerely did believe, and prided myself on being the one who would remain Christian forever? Do you know how hard I tried to convince myself that he does exist when the doubts set in? Please don't psychoanalyze people you do not understand. (Yes, I did that once myself. I got my clock cleaned by the unbelievers, and now that I'm one of them, I know exactly where they were coming from.)

 

CR - Try not to get upset because they have to spew out that tripe. It is beyond their non reality based fantasy to ever question anything about their blind faith no matter how much, deep down, they really want to but won't admit it out of fear. When they come across people like you and the rest of us, it's like being hit over a head with a bat. They simply cannot or refuse to see that there are thousands, maybe millions of us who have walked their walk but found it to be a path with no foundation. So they lash out with anything they can in order to make themselves feel safe and snug.

[Astreja]

They simply cannot or refuse to see that there are thousands, maybe millions of us who have walked their walk but found it to be a path with no foundation. So they lash out with anything they can in order to make themselves feel safe and snug.

 

Yes, they're definitely lashing out.  The thing that they depend upon to feel good is being exposed as something extremely undesirable, and they haven't reached the point where they're ready to cut their losses and accept that they've hitched their precious personal star to a shitwagon.

[Bhim]

What would bring you to completely submit and worship The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

 

Actually I have no problem with this God.  The Old Testament has various objectionable descriptions of God involving genocides and such, but Judaism has some clever ways of making this sound more acceptable (usually while still taking the text seriously, in my opinion).  My problem isn't with the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.  It's with Jesus, who claims to be the son of God and says that you'll go to hell for failing to believe in him.  Of all the grievances people may lodge against the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, no one can accuse him of burning people in a lake of fire for all eternity.

[RipVanWinkle]

CR: I think maybe OC stole a Karl Rove strategy used in Republican politics. He used his own

candidate's most vulnerable issue against the Democratic candidate. For example, Romney was trying to

reduce social security for seniors (but cleverly, not to affect current recipients), so Rove came up with

the strategy that claimed that Obama would, if elected, eliminate SS "as we know it". Attacking the

opposition, claiming they are guilty of the very weakness for which Rove's candidate is the most

vulnerable works in politics. OC is doing the same thing with this "psychological crutch" idea. But OC

probably doesn't realize what he's doing. bill

[sdelsolray]

 

What would bring you to completely submit and worship The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

 

Actually I have no problem with this God.  The Old Testament has various objectionable descriptions of God involving genocides and such, but Judaism has some clever ways of making this sound more acceptable (usually while still taking the text seriously, in my opinion).  My problem isn't with the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.  It's with Jesus, who claims to be the son of God and says that you'll go to hell for failing to believe in him.  Of all the grievances people may lodge against the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, no one can accuse him of burning people in a lake of fire for all eternity.

 

Yeah, genocide (among other things) is so much more acceptable than eternal torture.

[centauri]

CR: I think maybe OC stole a Karl Rove strategy used in Republican politics. He used his own

candidate's most vulnerable issue against the Democratic candidate. For example, Romney was trying to

reduce social security for seniors (but cleverly, not to affect current recipients), so Rove came up with

the strategy that claimed that Obama would, if elected, eliminate SS "as we know it". Attacking the

opposition, claiming they are guilty of the very weakness for which Rove's candidate is the most

vulnerable works in politics. OC is doing the same thing with this "psychological crutch" idea. But OC

probably doesn't realize what he's doing. bill

Ironically, Karl Rove's middle name is "Christian".

[OrdinaryClay]

On your other post, no I haven't heard of natural theology. I'll check it out later, do you have a good link to information about it.

Natural Theology deals with evidence other than special revelation. The Bible is a form of Special revelation.

 

This book is very good. http://books.google.com/books?id=ZL4JL19ge5QC&printsec=frontcover&cad=0#v=onepage

 

It can be bought for a Kindle reader very cheaply. That book is very thorough. There are easy texts o the subject also.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

Actually, that is reasonable with the caveat that proof outside mathematics and logic is really a collection of evidence which upon reaching a certain threshold will convince us of something.

There is no proof outside math and logic.

 

Then there is no proof for your statement. So you must simply believe this based on faith. Good luck.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

It seems anti Christians engage in a deep form of selection bias where they focus in on, dwell on, obsess over that which they are able to interpret in their own minds as justification for their pre-existing vitriol. They ignore the deep and everlasting Love God freely offers. I don't believe for a minute any anti Christian cares one whit about what happened to the Canaanites. They do care about how to cast the God they hate in a bad light through careful and obsessive selection.

Christians practice selection bias on a much more aggressive scale.

They select the version  of "God" that appeals most to them and then assert to all others that their version is the official God, and that it exists because they say so.

They obsess on this to the point of sermonizing at any opportunity.

 

Also, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was not a "Trinity", which is the most popular Christian version of God.

This "God" you speak of is a hypothetical construct loosely based on the writings of ancient tribal people.

 

The Christian God does not give everlasting love freely.

That's a popular Christian lie and should be ignored because it's dishonest false advertising.

If a person fails to react properly and worship this God, the so-called "free" love is taken away and replaced with damnation and wrath.

The love is merely conditional, not unlike a dog that receives a treat if it responds correctly.

 

The issue of Canaanites is not if non-Christians care about them but that Christians proclaim God is "love" and then steadfastly ignore the obvious Biblical refutation of that claim.

 

Anti-Christians practice selection bias because that's all they got to prop up their anti-Christian feelings.

They select the version  of "God" that allows them to create the caricature that justifies their irrational vitriol.

They obsess on this to the point of being blinded to the vast majority of Scripture that demonstrates the true nature of the Lord of Hosts.

 

The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is a trinitarian God.

The "God" caricatured by anti-Christians is a mob sourced construct based on personal and volatile emotions en-mass.

 

The Christian God gives everlasting love freely.

That's a known Christian truth which is demonstrated by the Bible.

If a person rejects the offer of salvation from God, they will not experience this love because they willingly reject it.

The love is an unconditional love offered to any human being no matter their race, ethnicity or social status.

 

The issue of the Canaanites is not that Christians ignore Scripture. On the contrary, Christians are demonstrably the only ones who read all of scripture and take the entire volume of scripture into account. Anti-Christians trot out their one trick ponies by focusing on a select set of verses and ignoring the rest of the Bible.

[OrdinaryClay]

OC: You must first show that your god exists in order to legitimately ask if we would worship him?

You don't honestly believe that do you. Really. It's called abstract thought! We all got it.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

Only if I were on the precipice of hell and God was getting ready to shove me in.Then it would be forced, wouldn't it?

 

Otherwise, some form of brain damage.

 

Anyway, I follow the Dharma. 

Where is dharma leading you?

 

Why does anything have to 'lead' anywhere?

 

 

Indeed, bdp.  I was actually thinking about asking that.  In most Christian's minds, there has to be some kind of ultimate plan - something that leads somewhere -or they can't wrap their minds around it.

 

So you follow dharma because it goes nowhere? Why not follow some homeless person you find downtown. I believe you follow dharma because you think it is going somewhere.

[OrdinaryClay]

Well I see fuckface has stopped replying to my postings. I'll consider that as clear a confession of defeat as a morontheist will ever give.

 

Fuckface's entirety of postings in here proves (to me) the opinion I formed quite some time ago once more - namely that while "we non- or ex-fanatics" operate on a desire for logic, truth and reason, a morontheist only cares for authority. As long as (insert claim here) is said by the right führer, a morontheist will mindlessly regurgibabble it any chance it gets. It is the concept we call "Kadavergehorsam" over here, literally "cadaver obedience".

 

Reason vs cadaver obedience. One of the two leads to scientific advance, a greater understanding of the world and the universe, and probably a few other things I can't remember right now. The other leads to wars, persecution, genocide and such, as history repeatedly tought us.

 

I guess reality makes the point better than I ever could.

This is coming from a guy who follows and has faith in the nordic mythical gods.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

On your other post, no I haven't heard of natural theology. I'll check it out later, do you have a good link to information about it.

 

I'll answer for him since he ran away - typical with them. You can find it right in the bible starting with Genesis.. lol

 

I like to see where people are getting their sources from, I usually post where I'm getting my information from. Seeing where people get their information from

1. Allows me to get a quick lookup. True I can google this but

2. I tend to judge people's credibility by their sources.

 

If they are getting their information from a respectable source or if they are supporting their argument from one, I give more weight to their argument. If they are getting it from a fringe site, than I give it less weight. 

 

See my post earlier for a good source. Google will provide others. What I find is that many atheists reject material simply based on the source and never take the time to actually read the subject. I hope you go beyond that.

[OrdinaryClay]

Agnostics and atheists lack of belief does not gain us any advantage in life, except the honest

conviction that we are searching for as much truth as possible, without arrogantly thinking we already know the complete TRUTH.

This is not true. It can easily be argued that an atheist gains psychological comfort believing they will be eternally unconscious after death. Atheists are forever proclaiming death is just like before birth. If death is just like before birth than who in their right mind would be scared of death.

 

No, indeed, atheism is a psychological crutch and is used to quell the fears of life after death.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Why would polytheism seem more rational to you?

 

Let's just say that polytheism is less irrational  than Christianity.  It accurately reflects the primitive nature of religion in general, setting up powerful role models to be the standard-bearers of a tribe.  In that respect it is part of our history and culture, and its appearance in culture makes pretty good sense.  It is also a useful vehicle for conveying community moral standards to the masses through storytelling.

 

Christianity, on the other hand, has no stories of its own.  It is a syncretic mess with bits and pieces nicked from Jewish, Greek and Egyptian culture.  At its heart, it actually has no heart.  It is a mere cardboard cutout, propped up by layer upon layer of apologetics and philosophical hypotheses that have no relevance to reality.  It is music with no rhythm, melody or harmony; a story with no poetry; a painting with pale and clashing smears of colour.

 

paganism which is a super set of polytheism is the syncretic mess. even the pagans admit that.

 

Anyway, nothing you said makes the belief set called polytheism or paganism less irrational or more rational. Having more significance on a culture by culture basis does not in itself make something more rational.

[OrdinaryClay]

Back to the OP:  a "brain event" that someone thinks is a message from God doesn't cut it as a basis for submission and worship of said god.

 

1. one cannot tell whether the brain event is caused by another entity, existing outside oneself, or by something in one's own brain (it doesn't matter that the brain is/may be the locus of the "experience").  E.g. my father was convinced that he had a mystical experience in 1952, through which God was revealed to him.  He was taken to a psychiatrist who thought it was a psychotic episode.  Similar things happened to him in subsequent decades.  There wasn't any feature of the experience, as far as I can tell, that served as a testing element separate from the experience, by which he or others could test whether the experience was an instance of revelation or not.  The results in his life, in my view, make it clear that it was psychosis.  Lots of people have had experiences.  Antlerman has not weighed in on this thread, but could do so.  If I had an experience that seemed to be a revelation, how would I know that it was one?  

 

2.  related to 1:  lots of people in history have experienced revelations, as they thought, and the content of what they say they received results in contradictory claims.  If revelation is self-authenticating to the one who receives it, how can disputes among the "revealed" propositions be adjudicated in a non-question-begging way?

 

3.  As far as my understanding of the Buddha story goes, Siddartha did not receive revelation as is claimed of, say, Mohammed.  He sat down under a tree and gained and developed insights about human experience, suffering, and transcendence of or release from suffering.

People worship buddha even though all he had were "brain events". (ya, I know, the western buddhists will all claim they don't worship, buddha. they do in the east, and they're the experts)

 

In any event ...

1) "brain events", whatever that is, can be based on an outside reality. You cannot simply extrapolate your personal experience with your father to all of reality.

2) belief, in God is based on far more than "brain events". I don't for a minute care if you deny external evidence for God. It does exist, and millions of intelligent, logical, sane people know this to be true.