MerryG Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Merry, I did acknowledge that God is responsible for good and bad, yes? So when I said I choose good over bad, that is in the context of choosing good over bad within the same God. But hey thanks ma'am, I can always use a pick me up post. Well, choosing to look for the "good" within a god who you admit is also responsible for the most heinous evils ever conceived is like allying yourself with Hitler because he liked dogs and was a vegetarian. Still, it's your choice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipVanWinkle Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 "Why, if you are an intelligent man, do you now choose the alternative knowing they don't have the answer either. I say this because if I am looking at one piece of a puzzle and the puzzle is a 5000 piece puzzle, some folks here can't see this analogy or won't allow themselves to have faith that this is reasonable given what we DONT know about our own environment." End3 It's foolish to base your faith on what you don't know. The answers you are seeking simply don't exist. bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 You're a smart man Prof. You do realize that neither side of this argument has the immediate answers you are seeking. Apparently you have chosen Christianity for a time and now you don't. Why, if you are an intelligent man, do you now choose the alternative knowing they don't have the answer either. I say this because if I am looking at one piece of a puzzle and the puzzle is a 5000 piece puzzle, some folks here can't see this analogy or won't allow themselves to have faith that this is reasonable given what we DONT know about our own environment. This is how I would understand this type of argument. We can't be certain because we're not omniscient and have imperfect reasoning faculties. Therefore, we should choose something highly improbable (and likely impossible) so that we'll have a better chance of being right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 You're a smart man Prof. You do realize that neither side of this argument has the immediate answers you are seeking. Apparently you have chosen Christianity for a time and now you don't. Why, if you are an intelligent man, do you now choose the alternative knowing they don't have the answer either. I say this because if I am looking at one piece of a puzzle and the puzzle is a 5000 piece puzzle, some folks here can't see this analogy or won't allow themselves to have faith that this is reasonable given what we DONT know about our own environment. This is how I would understand this type of argument. We can't be certain because we're not omniscient and have imperfect reasoning faculties. Therefore, we should choose something highly improbable (and likely impossible) so that we'll have a better chance of being right... No, not choose something highly improbable but be diligently cognizant of lack of certainty. Big difference without the hateful bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted March 29, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted March 29, 2014 You're a smart man Prof. You do realize that neither side of this argument has the immediate answers you are seeking. Apparently you have chosen Christianity for a time and now you don't. Why, if you are an intelligent man, do you now choose the alternative knowing they don't have the answer either. I say this because if I am looking at one piece of a puzzle and the puzzle is a 5000 piece puzzle, some folks here can't see this analogy or won't allow themselves to have faith that this is reasonable given what we DONT know about our own environment. I wouldn't say I "chose" christianity; rather, I had it forced upon me from childhood. However, that is of little consequence now. To answer your question, I choose the other side because it is the side that will at least allow itself to be questioned. It is the side that will at least allow legitimate answers to be given to honest questions, even if the answer is "I don't know and maybe no one ever will." Granted, the piece of the puzzle you are looking at may, in fact, contain truth; that, however, does not negate nor invalidate the truth of the piece of the puzzle upon which I gaze. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereisnoperfect Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 You're a smart man Prof. You do realize that neither side of this argument has the immediate answers you are seeking. Apparently you have chosen Christianity for a time and now you don't. Why, if you are an intelligent man, do you now choose the alternative knowing they don't have the answer either. I say this because if I am looking at one piece of a puzzle and the puzzle is a 5000 piece puzzle, some folks here can't see this analogy or won't allow themselves to have faith that this is reasonable given what we DONT know about our own environment. This is how I would understand this type of argument. We can't be certain because we're not omniscient and have imperfect reasoning faculties. Therefore, we should choose something highly improbable (and likely impossible) so that we'll have a better chance of being right... No, not choose something highly improbable but be diligently cognizant of lack of certainty. Big difference without the hateful bias. That is actually an argument for an agnostic position, and for scientific atheism. Those positions (which overlap a great deal) both have acknowledgement of a lack of certainty as an inherent feature. Science knows it does not offer complete certainty. It has built-in mechanisms for detecting and correcting erroneous thinking. Christianity, like other dogmatic religions, is based on false claims of certainty, without or even in spite of evidence. These two positions are not equal. That isn't a "hateful bias." It's factual. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Merry, I did acknowledge that God is responsible for good and bad, yes? So when I said I choose good over bad, that is in the context of choosing good over bad within the same God. But hey thanks ma'am, I can always use a pick me up post. How do you square your good AND bad God with this passage, End? 1 John 1 : 5 - 7, NIV 5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. How can God be responsible for good and bad if there is no darkness in Him at all? . . . . . . . Oh wait... I remember now! You don't know and nobody knows... so you just gotta have faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Merry, I did acknowledge that God is responsible for good and bad, yes? So when I said I choose good over bad, that is in the context of choosing good over bad within the same God. But hey thanks ma'am, I can always use a pick me up post. How do you square your good AND bad God with this passage, End? 1 John 1 : 5 - 7, NIV 5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. How can God be responsible for good and bad if there is no darkness in Him at all? . . . . . . . Oh wait... I remember now! You don't know and nobody knows... so you just gotta have faith. 1Jo 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 1Jo 1:2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 1Jo 1:3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our Looks as though the context is describing Jesus, the light and life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Merry, I did acknowledge that God is responsible for good and bad, yes? So when I said I choose good over bad, that is in the context of choosing good over bad within the same God. But hey thanks ma'am, I can always use a pick me up post. How do you square your good AND bad God with this passage, End? 1 John 1 : 5 - 7, NIV 5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. How can God be responsible for good and bad if there is no darkness in Him at all? . . . . . . . Oh wait... I remember now! You don't know and nobody knows... so you just gotta have faith. 1Jo 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 1Jo 1:2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 1Jo 1:3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our Looks as though the context is describing Jesus, the light and life. This is as much of a non-answer as this: Mohammed: Allah is the cause of good and bad Skeptic: Here in your book, it says that Allah has no darkness in him at all. So how can he be the cause of good and bad? Mohammed: Look at these other texts. The context appears to be Allah as the light and life. Christians will find the Mohammed bit absured, but they're fine with saying the exact same thing when pertaining to their version of Allah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted March 31, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted March 31, 2014 1Jo 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 1Jo 1:2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 1Jo 1:3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our Looks as though the context is describing Jesus, the light and life. 5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. 8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the Lord have created it. 9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? 10 Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth? Isaiah 45 Looks as though the context is describing jesus, the creator of evil who is not afraid to use it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 1Jo 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 1Jo 1:2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 1Jo 1:3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our Looks as though the context is describing Jesus, the light and life. 5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. 8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the Lord have created it. 9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? 10 Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth? Isaiah 45 Looks as though the context is describing jesus, the creator of evil who is not afraid to use it. Not what I am seeing. Please translate the word God in the verse that BAA quoted....a pronoun. Makes me think Jesus is the light and life of the aspect/concept of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted April 1, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted April 1, 2014 "I and the Father are ONE" says jesus; NOT "I am an aspect of light within the Father." There's all the translation you need, End3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Sorry End, But that's heresy! Why would anyone need to be saved by Jesus (1) and be born again of the Holy Spirit (2) if God the Father/Yahweh (3) is evil? You seem to be suggesting that the triune God of the Bible is 2/3 good and 1/3 evil! That's not Christianity, End. . . . Btw, there is an answer to the Good and/or Evil God problem. An answer that doesn't require you to play word games, juggle with abstract concepts, stretch scripture till it breaks, claim that nobody knows and just rely on blind faith. There... is ...an answer, End. But you won't like it. The answer is this. . . . Yahweh, the Good-and-Evil, Wrathful, Jealous, Genocidal, Singular, Law-giving, Old Testament God of the only the Jews . . . ...is NOT the same God as... . . . The All-Good, Self-Sacrificing, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Love-Satisfies-The-Law, New Testament God of the Christians. . . . Once you accept this End, all the headaches, the heartaches, all the unknowns and all the fruitless attempts to seamlessly weld the Old to the New testaments into ONE BOOK, just... d i s s o l v e . . . It's that simple. Please think about this. Thanks, BAA. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted April 4, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted April 4, 2014 Moreover, god, knowing that the serpent, evil, the devil and his fallen angels were present in his creation (not to mention that hell itself was also part of god's creation), god still looked down on the sixth day and declared that his creation was "very good". Yet another baldfaced lie on the part of that maniacal despot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Moreover, god, knowing that the serpent, evil, the devil and his fallen angels were present in his creation (not to mention that hell itself was also part of god's creation), god still looked down on the sixth day and declared that his creation was "very good". Yet another baldfaced lie on the part of that maniacal despot. Yeah, you are choosing good over evil, right? Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 End3, I think you have your Yin all mixed up with your Yang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted April 6, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted April 6, 2014 Moreover, god, knowing that the serpent, evil, the devil and his fallen angels were present in his creation (not to mention that hell itself was also part of god's creation), god still looked down on the sixth day and declared that his creation was "very good". Yet another baldfaced lie on the part of that maniacal despot. Yeah, you are choosing good over evil, right? Case closed. I would think that the main difference would be that I choose good because it is good and not because some deity says it is good. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 You're a smart man Prof. You do realize that neither side of this argument has the immediate answers you are seeking. Apparently you have chosen Christianity for a time and now you don't. Why, if you are an intelligent man, do you now choose the alternative knowing they don't have the answer either. I say this because if I am looking at one piece of a puzzle and the puzzle is a 5000 piece puzzle, some folks here can't see this analogy or won't allow themselves to have faith that this is reasonable given what we DONT know about our own environment. This is how I would understand this type of argument. We can't be certain because we're not omniscient and have imperfect reasoning faculties. Therefore, we should choose something highly improbable (and likely impossible) so that we'll have a better chance of being right... No, not choose something highly improbable but be diligently cognizant of lack of certainty. Big difference without the hateful bias. Out of town for a while... I don't think I understand your comments. What hateful bias do you refer to? Lack of certainty is very important of course. Lack of certainty should be coupled with probability IMO. I am merely suggesting that floating axeheads, talking donkeys & snakes, men walking on water, bodily resurrections, parting of bodies of water, changing water into wine, a man having superhuman strength (except when his hair is cut), Noah's ark, the Tower of Babel, and Jonah and his fish, etc are stories which are reasonable to doubt. All religions have such fantastic stories. Usually they condemn people to hell (or some other form of divine judgment) for not believing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts