Notices
Results 1 to 81 of 81

Thread: God is...

  1. #1 God is... 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    God is either not powerful enough to stop sin and disease from effecting mankind or he is all powerful but unwilling to stop sin and disease from effecting mankind. Either way, he is not a God worth worshiping. A powerless God is not a God and an Evil God is not a God one should devote their life to.


    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: God is... 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    God is either not powerful enough to stop sin and disease from effecting mankind or he is all powerful but unwilling to stop sin and disease from effecting mankind. Either way, he is not a God worth worshiping. A powerless God is not a God and an Evil God is not a God one should devote their life to.
    ... or God is bound by limits of logical consistency and stopping sin and disease for us is inconsistent with what he seeks to accomplish. I think His primary concern is for our development and not for our immediate comfort. So just as a Farmer will prune a vine, as a shepherd will cull his herd and as a teacher will fail students, so also will God sacrifice our immediate comfort for our development. This is the way that one creates life -- by cultivation, teaching or evolution and not by design. Design is the way to create inanimate objects and tools, not living things and certainly not children. It may be uncomfortable and may even seem brutal to the childish mind, but it is necessary.

    All this proves is that a simple minded understanding of God only makes sense to the simple minded, not that one should jump to another simple minded explanation. This is NOT to say that a decision, that God does not exist, is necessarily a simple minded explanation or even that the reasons given above are not good reasons for the conclusion that God does not exist. My point is simply that this is no more of an objective argument for the belief of the atheist than the so called proofs for the existence of God.


    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
     

  5. #4 Re: God is... 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    ... or God is ... a shepherd will cull his herd ...God sacrifice our immediate comfort for our development. This is the way that one creates life -- by cultivation, teaching or evolution and not by design.
    So, tell me, Mitch, how does your explanation fit in with the tsunami of 2004? God was merely 'culling his herd" so he could 'cultivate, teach, evolve'???

    What was his grand plan that day, Mitch?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  6. #5 Re: God is... 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    ... or God is ... a shepherd will cull his herd ...God sacrifice our immediate comfort for our development. This is the way that one creates life -- by cultivation, teaching or evolution and not by design.
    So, tell me, Mitch, how does your explanation fit in with the tsunami of 2004? God was merely 'culling his herd" so he could 'cultivate, teach, evolve'???

    What was his grand plan that day, Mitch?
    Don't really know.... dont know if there even was a plan. But in general, I don't think that intervention is in our best interest.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  7. #6 Re: God is... 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Don't really know.... dont know if there even was a plan. But in general, I don't think that intervention is in our best interest.
    So, the real question is whether or not god intervenes? Did he not intervene with Job and Noah? Was that in our best interest? Perhaps, that tsunami was another one of gods 'great floods?' Maybe he was bragging to Satan again and wanted to prove another point?

    So many questions, Mitch, with theists logic. No answers appear to be forthcoming.

    God works in mysterious ways, eh Mitch?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    This is good. This means that instead of devoting time, money, and effort to humanitarian aid, we can just go back to our televisions because we shouldn't intervene. God's gonna kill who he wants anyways right? How convenient that they were all centrally located for him to smite n' stuff (rather than having to send individual tsunamis).
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
     

  9. #8  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    I suppose the counter arguement is that god wants us to show compassion and resourcefulness.

    I don't think your religion should affect how you live your life.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I don't think your religion should affect how you live your life.
    Then why have religion?
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
     

  11. #10  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I suppose the counter arguement is that god wants us to show compassion and resourcefulness.
    While showing none himself and in fact doing the very opposite?

    Do I beat my wife and children in order for them to show compassion and resourcefulness?

    The bible is somewhat about 'lessons learned,' is it not?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  12. #11 Re: God is... 
    Forum Freshman holysword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    God is either not powerful enough to stop sin and disease from effecting mankind or he is all powerful but unwilling to stop sin and disease from effecting mankind. Either way, he is not a God worth worshiping. A powerless God is not a God and an Evil God is not a God one should devote their life to.
    Actually if God do something to erradicate sin and suffering from Earth, people would accuse God of getting into their life without permission - or any other kind of bizarre and nonsense acusation, but they will always have an excuse.

    You all here seems to be claiming a world without God (which stands for people who don't believe in God as well), which was (not surpisingly) predicted by Bible (for example). According to my point of view, a world without the belief in God would be a living hell (which was also predicted by Bible, not surprisingly...).
    "Nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem mittere sed gladium"
    Yeshua Ha Mashiach
     

  13. #12 Re: God is... 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword

    You all here seems to be claiming a world without God (which stands for people who don't believe in God as well), which was (not surpisingly) predicted by Bible (for example). According to my point of view, a world without the belief in God would be a living hell (which was also predicted by Bible, not surprisingly...).
    Is there anything written or predicted in the bible you don't consider true?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  14. #13 Re: God is... 
    Forum Freshman holysword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Is there anything written or predicted in the bible you don't consider true?
    Well... right now I can't remember anything like that. But most of "problems" seen in Bible are related to problems with translation or problems with interpretation.

    An example of the later is that not all christians believe that Adam and Eve were actual people, but a figurative history instead.

    An example of the former is that, once I've seen a part in Proverbs that sounded like "there is no good woman in the world" and "all women ruin their men". Turns out that, for any reason, the guy who translated it put a coma - and the original text, of course, did not have that coma - which changed drastically the meaning.

    EDIT#1: When I say "not surprisingly" I mean that even if I were about to write my own holy book I would predict that. I'm not saying that its an impressive prophecy, even though Bible has some quite impressible ones.
    "Nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem mittere sed gladium"
    Yeshua Ha Mashiach
     

  15. #14 Re: God is... 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    Well... right now I can't remember anything like that. But most of "problems" seen in Bible are related to problems with translation or problems with interpretation.
    No, the problems are encapsulated with those who read the bibles words and decide for themselves whether they are true or not.

    An example of the later is that not all christians believe that Adam and Eve were actual people, but a figurative history instead.
    The bible states plainly enough they were people, so those Christians are obviously wrong.

    When I say "not surprisingly" I mean that even if I were about to write my own holy book I would predict that. I'm not saying that its an impressive prophecy, even though Bible has some quite impressible ones.
    So, you didn't really answer the question, what in the bible do you find not true, if anything?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  16. #15 Re: God is... 
    Forum Freshman holysword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    No, the problems are encapsulated with those who read the bibles words and decide for themselves whether they are true or not.
    Tottaly agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    The bible states plainly enough they were people, so those Christians are obviously wrong.
    If you believe so, then you believe in a talking serpent and in a mysterious flood that covered all the world (just wondering where all that water went to...).
    The main principle is that God's word (according to my belief, Bible) does not fail, and do not contradict itself, so if you find any contradiction it means that you did not understand it clearly or there's something wrong with your translation.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    So, you didn't really answer the question, what in the bible do you find not true, if anything?
    I believe that Bible, as it was originaly writen, is the truth. My point with the "not surprinsingly" is just to make it clear that such statement is obvious, and do not require any kind of faith in God or Bible, being mostly intent to atheists who are reading this.

    (sorry, my english is kinda experimental)
    "Nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem mittere sed gladium"
    Yeshua Ha Mashiach
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    (Q) likes to play with your sentiments. For those of you who haven't noticed he doesn't like to support his claims. Go ahead and ask him to. He is full of rhetoric, straw men and beating around the bush. I strongly urge people to demand that standards of discussion are upheld, one of which I feel is to support at least a majority of your claims. If they are not upheld please refrain from arguing with him and others who are like him, it only supports their lack of critical skills and gives him more fodder to dull his blade on.[/code]
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    This is good. This means that instead of devoting time, money, and effort to humanitarian aid, we can just go back to our televisions because we shouldn't intervene. God's gonna kill who he wants anyways right? How convenient that they were all centrally located for him to smite n' stuff (rather than having to send individual tsunamis).
    That is the whole point. I don't think it is in our best interest for God to intervene, because if He did we would just go back to our televisions and do nothing. Before long we would be the like the the mindless sheep in HG Well's vision of the future in "Time Traveler". Parents cannot and should not live their children's lives for them. If God wants us to learn to be responsible for each other then He cannot do such things Himself. He has to leave it up to us. So as I said before, God's priority is our development not our comfort and thus it is only for the former not the latter that He will intervene. If God intervenes for our comfort then our choices become meaningless.

    This can be a very delicate prospect especially as the issue of human survival becomes a more global one. Did you see that new version of "The day the earth stood still"? It puts forward the hypothesis that mankind will only change when faced with a crisis where our survival demands that we change.


    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I don't think your religion should affect how you live your life.
    On the contrary, it should affect how you live your life. But it should encourage more responsibility rather than less, more engagement with life not less, more creativity, more passion for life and what you can do with it, more love for others, a greater will to learn, a greater will to challenge oneself and a greater will to serve others. In this we have a measure to distinguish good religion from bad religion.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  19. #18 Re: God is... 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    If you believe so, then you believe in a talking serpent and in a mysterious flood that covered all the world (just wondering where all that water went to...).
    It really has nothing to do with what I believe or don't believe about the bible, but what words are written there. The bible makes claims to talking serpents and great floods. Do you believe these claims are true?

    The main principle is that God's word (according to my belief, Bible) does not fail, and do not contradict itself, so if you find any contradiction it means that you did not understand it clearly or there's something wrong with your translation.
    There's nothing wrong with understanding and translation, the words are there for anyone to read, clearly and concisely. It is obviously contradictory the bible claims talking snakes and global floods, as well as many other quotes from the bible.

    I believe that Bible, as it was originaly writen, is the truth.
    Then, do you also believe the following quotes are the truth?

    "Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

    If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

    All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

    If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

    A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

    Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

    They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)"
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  20. #19  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    God's priority is our development not our comfort and thus it is only for the former not the latter that He will intervene. If God intervenes for our comfort then our choices become meaningless.
    How did we develop from the loss of a quarter million people? What new choices do we make as a result? What choices can we now see were wrong?

    Did you see that new version of "The day the earth stood still"? It puts forward the hypothesis that mankind will only change when faced with a crisis where our survival demands that we change.
    We are faced with the crisis of global cult indoctrination. We need to change.

    But it should encourage more responsibility rather than less, more engagement with life not less, more creativity, more passion for life and what you can do with it, more love for others, a greater will to learn, a greater will to challenge oneself and a greater will to serve others. In this we have a measure to distinguish good religion from bad religion.
    All those things you say are as easily accomplished without religion. In fact, by achieving those goals, one would tend to move away from religion.

    If we were to measure religions by their dashboard metrics, we would find prisons bursting at the seams, full of theists, while evangelists pick your pockets with promises of salvation, racism, bigotry and oppression.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  21. #20 Re: God is... 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    An example of the later is that not all christians believe that Adam and Eve were actual people, but a figurative history instead.
    That is correct. John Polkinghorne is the example that immediately comes to my mind, but this is actually pretty common understanding of the Garden of Eden story.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    The bible states plainly enough they were people, so those Christians are obviously wrong.
    Q is a fundamentalist, even though he is an atheist. It seems like a contradiction, but when he talks like a fundamentalist saying that the Bible can only mean what he says it means, then what other conclusion can we come to?


    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    If you believe so, then you believe in a talking serpent and in a mysterious flood that covered all the world (just wondering where all that water went to...).
    The main principle is that God's word (according to my belief, Bible) does not fail, and do not contradict itself, so if you find any contradiction it means that you did not understand it clearly or there's something wrong with your translation.
    That is incorrect. I believe that Adam and Eve were real historical people but I to not believe in talking snakes and magical fruit. I certainly do not believe that Adam and Eve were golems made from dust or body parts. As for the flood, I think that it is highly likely that the flood was a more localized event.

    I think that Genesis has a historical intent, but I also think it is clear that the first couple of chapters like all prehistory accounts of mankind, have more of a mythical character and that the events it is describing is veiled in symbolism rather than being a literal description of events.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  22. #21  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman

    I strongly urge people to... dull his blade...

    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    (Q) likes to play with your sentiments. For those of you who haven't noticed he doesn't like to support his claims. Go ahead and ask him to. He is full of rhetoric, straw men and beating around the bush. I strongly urge people to demand that standards of discussion are upheld, one of which I feel is to support at least a majority of your claims. If they are not upheld please refrain from arguing with him and others who are like him, it only supports their lack of critical skills and gives him more fodder to dull his blade on.[/code]
    Interesting that you accuse other of fallacious thinking, yet anyone with the skill to do so will notice that your post contains nothing but ad hominems and attempts at poisoning the well.

    Hypocrisy much?
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    What is Marcus supposed to do Phoenix? Kindly answer Q's post with a shit eating grin while Q insults his beliefs and tells him he is a slave and destroying the human race while barely backing up his points, sometimes posting a link to www.goddoesnotexist.com or http://www.allbeliefsotherthanminear...liminated.com?
    Ive only been here a couple months and Q has been by far the most irritating bigoted person on this board.
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed
    What is Marcus supposed to do Phoenix? Kindly answer Q's post with a shit eating grin while Q insults his beliefs and tells him he is a slave and destroying the human race while barely backing up his points, sometimes posting a link to www.goddoesnotexist.com or http://www.allbeliefsotherthanminear...liminated.com?
    Is this some sort of "two wrongs make a right" argument or something? Even if (Q) was the Grinch, Satan, and Jeffery Dahlmer all wrapped in one, that doesn't mean that marcus isn't a hypocrite.

    If marcus isn't capable of having his beliefs criticized, then he shouldn't be sharing them on the interwebs (same goes for everyone).

    If (Q)'s sources are crap, then it should be pretty easy to pick them apart. Same goes for his (or anyone's) arguments. If you aren't able to pick them apart, then you're probably rejecting them for bad reasons which is your problem, not his.

    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed
    Ive only been here a couple months and Q has been by far the most irritating bigoted person on this board.
    I haven't been around that long, therefore I have no point of reference for your accusation. Personally, though, I don't see how it much matters. This is a discussion/debate forum, therefore the only thing that matters is the quality of the argument. I might not like someone, but if I reject what they're saying simply because I don't get along with them, then that reflects poorly on my ability to be objective, doesn't it?
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman holysword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Do you believe these claims are true?
    For the last time, I think its figurative. But its your choice whether you want to believe that its not figurative.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    It is obviously contradictory the bible claims (...)
    That's what you want to believe in.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Then, do you also believe the following quotes are the truth?
    I should not answer this question, since you are changing the topic subject and trying to discuss christian God - and as far as I can see, this topic is not about christian God, and I have only put an example about Him. Anyway, I hope you don't think that its the first time I read this, or that its something extremly clever that few people know.

    Now answering your question: NO, these quotes are not truth ANYMORE. If you have read the entire text insted of only one versicle (actually, a tatic very well-known to mislead people), you will notice that these are like "juridical laws". It should not come by surprise a death sentence to a guy who strikes his own father in their laws - some societies used apply death sentence for much more banal reasons, I don't need even to exemplify.

    You will probably say that, as I believe in Bible as the only truth, I must follow these juridical laws. Wrong again. After Messiah, the old pact (or old laws, as you wish) does not apply anymore. I am under the new pact.

    If you want to discuss christian God, you can send me PM. Please, don't try to mess up with the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    That is incorrect. I believe that Adam and Eve were real (...)
    Actually I meant that, if you believe that EVERYTHING in Bible is literal (as (Q) was stating) then you will have some strange things like the talking serpent. What is figurative or not depends on what the way you study it. Anyway, I don't believe they were real people.
    "Nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem mittere sed gladium"
    Yeshua Ha Mashiach
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Has it ever occured to you that the bible is fake simply because it talks about a "talking serpent" ?? It's as much as a historical document as the war of mount olympus is.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  28. #27  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed
    What is Marcus supposed to do Phoenix? Kindly answer Q's post with a shit eating grin while Q insults his beliefs and tells him he is a slave and destroying the human race while barely backing up his points, sometimes posting a link to www.goddoesnotexist.com or http://www.allbeliefsotherthanminear...liminated.com?
    Ive only been here a couple months and Q has been by far the most irritating bigoted person on this board.
    The fact that Marcus and you are acting childish and emotional is not my problem, neither is the fact that you're unable to back up your points. You're both Kettles.

    Btw, You're lying about it doesn't look good on you, either.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  29. #28  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    For the last time, I think its figurative. But its your choice whether you want to believe that its not figurative.
    If you believe it is figurative, then you have made that choice to decide it is figurative and not the truth. Therefore, you are cherry picking what you have decided is the truth in the bible.

    That's what you want to believe in.
    Again, you are incorrect in assuming that this is something I want to believe. It has nothing to do with what I believe, and everything to do with what is written in the bible. Please don't make the same mistake again.

    Now answering your question: NO, these quotes are not truth ANYMORE.
    Really? When did they stop being the truth and who decided that? God? Or you? You do realize that making that decision yourself will make god very angry at you.

    You will probably say that, as I believe in Bible as the only truth, I must follow these juridical laws. Wrong again. After Messiah, the old pact (or old laws, as you wish) does not apply anymore. I am under the new pact.
    Haven't you heard? There is even a newer pact now, it's called Islam. Why are you not a Muslim?

    Actually I meant that, if you believe that EVERYTHING in Bible is literal (as (Q) was stating) then you will have some strange things like the talking serpent. What is figurative or not depends on what the way you study it. Anyway, I don't believe they were real people.
    Then, you are cherry picking what you have decided to believe from the bible, hence anything you say about your religion is personal and has nothing to do with the bible or your religion, they are simply your own personal opinions, and they are against gods word.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    You will probably say that, as I believe in Bible as the only truth, I must follow these juridical laws. Wrong again. After Messiah, the old pact (or old laws, as you wish) does not apply anymore. I am under the new pact.
    Matthew 5:17-20

    Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

    I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

    Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
     

  31. #30 Re: God is... 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    God is either not powerful enough to stop sin and disease from effecting mankind or he is all powerful but unwilling to stop sin and disease from effecting mankind.
    or alternatively, its the nature of having individual will that we experience these things

    Either way, he is not a God worth worshiping. A powerless God is not a God and an Evil God is not a God one should devote their life to.
    or alternatively, if one accepts that this is the best of all possible worlds and/or god is duty bound to fulfill our desires we will be in for quite a few rude surprises
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman holysword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    you have made that choice to decide it is figurative and not the truth.
    It can be figurative AND be truth at same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    (...) what is written in the bible
    Please don't make the same mistake again. It can be figurative AND be truth at same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Really? When did they stop being the truth and who decided that? God? Or you?
    It is God who says:
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    After Messiah, the old pact (or old laws, as you wish) does not apply anymore. I am under the new pact.
    Try reading what I write, so I don't have to reanswer old questions

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Haven't you heard? There is even a newer pact now, it's called Islam. Why are you not a Muslim?
    Haven't you heard? Islam is based on Qu'ran, which is OUTSIDE Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Then, you are cherry picking what you have decided to believe from the bible, hence anything you say about your religion is personal and has nothing to do with the bible or your religion, they are simply your own personal opinions, and they are against gods word.
    I think that you are taking your personal choice, just to make it sounds lame. So, things you say are simply your own personal opinions, and they are against gods word.

    I used to have fun with people like you some years ago :-D
    But I'm too old for that. If you have serious questions, PM me pelase. I do not feel like answer you again here, unless you say something really interesting
    "Nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem mittere sed gladium"
    Yeshua Ha Mashiach
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    It is God who says:
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    After Messiah, the old pact (or old laws, as you wish) does not apply anymore. I am under the new pact.
    If that's true, the writers of the the NT certainly don't seem to be aware of that. You can reference either the verses from G.Matthew which I quoted before or Paul's letters (he seems rather emphatic in Romans especially).
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman holysword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Matthew 5:17-20
    Yes, I know that, I have read Matthew. But check you this:
    Code:
     33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel 
           after that time," declares the LORD. 
           "I will put my law in their minds 
           and write it on their hearts. 
           I will be their God, 
           and they will be my people. 
    
     34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, 
           or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' 
           because they will all know me, 
           from the least of them to the greatest," 
           declares the LORD. 
           "For I will forgive their wickedness 
           and will remember their sins no more."
    Jeremy 31

    Some people say that this refers to the heaven, some believe that it refers to the new covenant (as I do). As it states, there are no need of laws, because God will be "inside our heart" (we usually refer it as the Holy Spirit presence). But why do I prefer to believe in this interpretation? I suggest you reading Acts 15 1-35, which I will sumarize:

    Code:
    28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 
    29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
    "Nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem mittere sed gladium"
    Yeshua Ha Mashiach
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman holysword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    If that's true, the writers of the the NT certainly don't seem to be aware of that. You can reference either the verses from G.Matthew which I quoted before or Paul's letters (he seems rather emphatic in Romans especially).
    Seems that I was writing while you were doing the same. I have just posted it.
    "Nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem mittere sed gladium"
    Yeshua Ha Mashiach
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    Jeremiah quote
    I'm sorry, sir, but I don't see anything there that refutes my point: The authors of the NT still seem to insist that the Law of the "old covenant" still applies.

    Paul says so. Jesus in Matthew says so.

    At best you've found another example of how the bible contradicts itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    Some people say that this refers to the heaven, some believe that it refers to the new covenant (as I do).
    And I'm perfectly willing to acknowledged your opinion. Your opinion (on something which you appear to concede is very much open to interpretation) is not fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    As it states, there are no need of laws, because God will be "inside our heart" (we usually refer it as the Holy Spirit presence).
    All the more troubling that Paul and G.Matthew don't seem to be on board.

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    But why do I prefer to believe in this interpretation? I suggest you reading Acts 15 1-35, which I will sumarize:
    <snip>
    I'm not sure how Luke's "artistic license" refutes what Paul and Matthew said. Again, at best you've found another example of how the bible contradicts itself.
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
     

  37. #36  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    It can be figurative AND be truth at same time.
    But, the question remains, "Is it the truth?" Where does it state in the bible that it is anything but the truth? Your god said nothing about it being figurative, that is your own personal decision and choice made against gods word.

    Please don't make the same mistake again. It can be figurative AND be truth at same time.
    Again, show me in the bible where it states that?

    Haven't you heard? Islam is based on Qu'ran, which is OUTSIDE Bible.
    That makes no sense. Islam is the new pact with the Abrahamic god. You therefore must a follower of the new pact and you are not, hence you're a hypocrite for stating such. You yourself have personally made the decision to not be a follower of the new pact.

    But I'm too old for that. If you have serious questions, PM me pelase. I do not feel like answer you again here, unless you say something really interesting
    These are serious questions, they are questions that you yourself have brought up with your claims to your god. If you don't want to answer them, you either cannot answer them or you're just here to preach the gospel. Which is it?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    Haven't you heard? Islam is based on Qu'ran, which is OUTSIDE Bible.
    That makes no sense. Islam is the new pact with the Abrahamic god. You therefore must a follower of the new pact and you are not, hence you're a hypocrite for stating such. You yourself have personally made the decision to not be a follower of the new pact.
    Well in all fairness isn't Mormonism the newest pact?
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
     

  39. #38  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG

    Well in all fairness isn't Mormonism the newest pact?
    I was going to get that one.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    I was going to get that one.
    Sorry. Didn't mean to steal your thunder.
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
     

  41. #40  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG

    Sorry. Didn't mean to steal your thunder.
    No worries, it's looking like holysword won't be joining Islam or Mormonism anytime soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by holymackeral
    ...the old pact (or old laws, as you wish) does not apply anymore. I am under the new pact.
    You mean the "older-newer-pact-that-has-been-replaced-with-newer-pacts"

    What if I told you that I was gods messenger and offered a new and improved pact?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman holysword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Your opinion (on something which you appear to concede is very much open to interpretation) is not fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Again, at best you've found another example of how the bible contradicts itself.
    Whenever there are two or more options, when you chose one, it is an opinion. If there are two or more interpretation, and none of them contradicts the Bible, then I'm obligated to make a choice, so yes, I have an opinion.

    Even tought I like my opinion, I am giving you a fact: there are two (or more) interpretations and you can choose in what you believe. I have chosen what makes more sense to me, but seems that you have chosen the one who points to a contradiction, even though you don't seem to have a logical reason to that. The problem is within your choice, not mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    The authors of the NT still seem to insist that the Law of the "old covenant" still applies.
    I will tell you one fact. When they say that the law apply, they are talking to jewish people. In the Acts text that I suggested you, they are talking about non-jewish. So, some theologists believe that the law still apply for jewsih, but not to non-jewish. If it makes you happier, you can believe in this. If you want to understand it better, I suggest you to talk to a theologist, because unfortunatelly my knowledge is not enougth.

    Sorry for taking such long time to answer, I'll try to be quick next time.
    "Nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem mittere sed gladium"
    Yeshua Ha Mashiach
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    Whenever there are two or more options, when you chose one, it is an opinion. If there are two or more interpretation, and none of them contradicts the Bible, then I'm obligated to make a choice, so yes, I have an opinion.

    Even tought I like my opinion, I am giving you a fact: there are two (or more) interpretations and you can choose in what you believe. I have chosen what makes more sense to me, but seems that you have chosen the one who points to a contradiction, even though you don't seem to have a logical reason to that. The problem is within your choice, not mine.
    You just tied yourself in a nice little knot there didn't you?

    The bible says A.
    The bible also says B.
    This is a contradiction.
    You can choose A or B, but without objective criteria, your selection is arbitrary. It's your life so do whatever you want, just don't try to convince us that you're being intellectually honest while you're doing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    I will tell you one fact. When they say that the law apply, they are talking to jewish people.
    And I will tell you one fact: that's not what Paul says.

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    In the Acts text that I suggested you, they are talking about non-jewish.
    Acts was written by "Luke" therefore I don't see what bearing this has on the conversation other than to point out that Paul and Luke contradict each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    So, some theologists believe that the law still apply for jewsih, but not to non-jewish.
    Emphasis mine.

    That's great. Come back when someone knows something.

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    If it makes you happier, you can believe in this. If you want to understand it better, I suggest you to talk to a theologist, because unfortunatelly my knowledge is not enougth.
    Sounds good. May I suggest that you not try to defend arguments that you don't understand in the mean time? I certainly don't mind exchanging arguments in the spirit of expanding understanding, but to step in and tell me I'm wrong, but then admit that you aren't really sure yourself seems a little masochistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    Sorry for taking such long time to answer, I'll try to be quick next time.
    No worries. Thanks for your reply.
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
     

  44. #43  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    Sorry for taking such long time to answer, I'll try to be quick next time.
    You didn't answer my questions?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman holysword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    The bible says A.
    The bible also says B.
    This is a contradiction.
    Lol
    I'm telling that there was convenant, and according to it the law should be followed (Bible says A) but there was a promise that the covenant would change. So the new covenant comes and says that the law must not be followed anymore (Bible says B). There is a contradiction only if you take only the parentesis sentences.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    that's not what Paul says
    Can you please post where Pauls says that? I do not doubt what you say, I just want to be sure about the context. In any case, Paul WERE JEWISH, and he used to write letters to a lot of churches. I just want to check if the target church was composed mainly by jewish or non-jewish.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Acts was written by "Luke" therefore I don't see what bearing this has on the conversation other than to point out that Paul and Luke contradict each other.
    Read Acts 15 man. Paul was in the congregation when Peter said that the law does not apply to non-jewish.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    That's great. Come back when someone knows something.
    That's great. Come back when someone knows something you too.
    (as if everything was known for sure in science )

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    (...) you aren't really sure yourself seems a little masochistic.
    Are you really sure about Relativity? Can you explain it completly to someone? And about virology? Quantum physics? Cardiology? Evolution? Psycology? Astrophisycs? Do you know what is a quasar, where did it come from? Can you explain to me the gravitational slingshot effect? OR why did Steve Jackson took out the PD from GURPS 4ed (lol)??

    No one completly understand EVERYTHING that they believe in. You believe in science because you trust the scientific community judgement. The same for medicine, pscyology and etc.

    I believe in this because I trust the theological community work. I really hope to study theology in any time soon, but unfortunatelly, I don't know everything yet.
    "Nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem mittere sed gladium"
    Yeshua Ha Mashiach
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Physics says light is wave.
    Physics says light is a particle.
    Now this certainly seems like a contradiction.

    So what? Every elementary particle is also a wave. Thats the way it is. Just because it seems like a contradiction does not mean that it isn't true.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    Lol
    I'm telling that there was convenant, and according to it the law should be followed (Bible says A) but there was a promise that the covenant would change. So the new covenant comes and says that the law must not be followed anymore (Bible says B). There is a contradiction only if you take only the parentesis sentences.
    Except the bible also makes statements which contradict B. That's your problem.

    We have Paul saying it. We have jesus saying it in g.matthew.

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    Can you please post where Pauls says that? I do not doubt what you say, I just want to be sure about the context. In any case, Paul WERE JEWISH, and he used to write letters to a lot of churches. I just want to check if the target church was composed mainly by jewish or non-jewish.
    I guess I don't understand the relevance. First your saying that there was a new covenant which nullified the old covenant, and now you appear to be arguing that there is both a new covenant and an old covenant and both are in effect, according Paul, dependent upon whether one is jewish or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    Read Acts 15 man. Paul was in the congregation when Peter said that the law does not apply to non-jewish.
    Again, Acts was written by "Luke". Approximately 20 years after Paul was dead and at least 30 years after Paul is alleged to made his second trip to Jerusalem (interestingly Paul himself says that he didn't go to Jerusalem in his letter to the Galatians). So sorry if I don't consider "Luke" to be a reliable source.

    When it comes to what Paul thought, I go to what Paul wrote.

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    That's great. Come back when someone knows something you too.
    (as if everything was known for sure in science )
    I know this: telling me that some people think something might be true is very different from being able to prove it.

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    Are you really sure about Relativity? Can you explain it completly to someone? And about virology? Quantum physics? Cardiology? Evolution? Psycology? Astrophisycs? Do you know what is a quasar, where did it come from? Can you explain to me the gravitational slingshot effect? OR why did Steve Jackson took out the PD from GURPS 4ed (lol)??
    Sir, if you don't know enough about the topic to debate it intelligently, then don't come in here telling me that I'm wrong. I certainly wouldn't step into a finite mathematics debate and start telling people what's what and then use "well, I'm not really that good at math" as an excuse when people more knowledgeable than I start handing my ass to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    No one completly understand EVERYTHING that they believe in. You believe in science because you trust the scientific community judgement. The same for medicine, pscyology and etc.
    I "believe" in things to the extent that it's rational to do so. The thing about science is that it tells you up front not to accept everything you hear or read.

    So if some major publication comes out tomorrow which shows that everything that we thought we knew about quarks was dead wrong, it would not up-end my entire world. Why? Because I had already been told that we were still figuring stuff out and I already knew that stuff is subject to change based on the evidence.

    So please do not presume to preach to me about how or what I believe just because you are egocentric enough to assume that everyone swallows BS the same way that you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    I believe in this because I trust the theological community work.
    That's great. Good for you. I'm sure all those guys are top notch and would never lie, cheat, or steal from you. Or heck, even accidentally be wrong about something.

    The one thing I miss about being a theist is not having to think for myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    I really hope to study theology in any time soon, but unfortunatelly, I don't know everything yet.
    I wish you the best of luck with your studies. I sincerely hope that at some point you make the choice to allow the evidence to dictate your conclusions rather than vice versa.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Physics says light is wave.
    Physics says light is a particle.
    Now this certainly seems like a contradiction.

    So what? Every elementary particle is also a wave. Thats the way it is. Just because it seems like a contradiction does not mean that it isn't true.
    Wow. If physicists are willing to whore out science like this to prop up their religious convictions, what hope is there?

    If I believed in souls, MM, I might start to think that mine died a little more with each of your posts.
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Physics says light is wave.
    Physics says light is a particle.
    Now this certainly seems like a contradiction.

    So what? Every elementary particle is also a wave. Thats the way it is. Just because it seems like a contradiction does not mean that it isn't true.
    Wow. If physicists are willing to whore out science like this to prop up their religious convictions, what hope is there?
    All I stated was the scientific facts. That is what science is supposed to do. I can therefore only conclude that the reality is that you are lamenting the fact that you cannot make science into your whore. No, sorry, science does not support your religious opinions and rhetoric any more than it supports anyone elses religious opinions. Deal with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    If I believed in souls, MM, I might start to think that mine died a little more with each of your posts.
    Sound like you are facing the fact that such is the inevitable tragic fate of someone trying to turn science into a religion and put their faith in that as a substitute. Perhaps when this faith of yours is destroyed then you will be ready to look at reality in all of its complexity rather than confined to the conclusions of your ideology.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman holysword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    41
    PhoenixG, I don't feel obligated to say AGAIN that there is no contradiction in what Paul, Jesus and Mathew said; I have already explained how I do interpret that (because I speak by myself, not by all christians, and because there are a lot of lines of thought among christianism), and you have already told me that I cannot believe it (probably because you will be out of arguments if I do). When I asked you where Paul said that you gave me a very strange excuse: "there is no relevance". I don't feel obligated to answer you if you don't answer me.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    When it comes to what Paul thought, I go to what Paul wrote.
    Paul wrote ANSWERS, but we don't have the QUESTIONS. It is obvious that it can sound confusing, and its not a compendium of Paul thoughts.
    Moreover Bible is a complex and interconnected book because some things were obvious to the writers in some ages, and not obvious in others ages; it makes some things more explicit in some parts and less splicit in others.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    I know this: telling me that some people think something might be true is very different from being able to prove it.
    Most of things in psychology cannot be proved, only indicated, and it still a serious science. "It seems very reasonable that..." and etc. If I remeber it right, even evolution cannot be proven; don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution. Do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Sir, if you don't know enough about the topic to debate it intelligently, then don't come in here telling me that I'm wrong
    As you are here, I am obligated to think that you know everything about religion, christianism and Bible. Curisouly, you didn't know that Luke wrote about that reunion where they decided to not follow the law... maybe you are the one who should not be here

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    I "believe" in things to the extent that it's rational to do so. The thing about science is that it tells you up front not to accept everything you hear or read.
    Do you know where I live man? And if I live in a muslim country, am I "listening to to everything I hear" being christian? Do you know if I am protestant or catholic, or if my parents taught me to be a theist? Maybe I am chinese, why should I be christian then?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Because I had already been told that we were still figuring stuff out and I already knew that stuff is subject to change based on the evidence.
    Welcome to my world. We still figuring out stuffs from Bible, and archeological evidences still helping us in a lot of ways.

    All in all, I fell like you are being very offensive. You are full of prejudice, man. You don't know me and you are telling me that I am a blind theist who does not think by myself; I don't know you, but taking by the average, probably I personaly know more scientists than you, and let me tell you that you don't need to be atheist to be a scientist.

    Your last post has no useful information for anyone who is reading it and trying to get informed, and my objetive here is to provide the few information that I have to those that want to know it. It only contains accusations about my personal belief, based on repeated arguments that I have already answered. I don't feel obligated to answer you, unless you really say something that it worths to answer.
    "Nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem mittere sed gladium"
    Yeshua Ha Mashiach
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman holysword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Physics says light is wave.
    Physics says light is a particle.
    Now this certainly seems like a contradiction.
    Excelent example man. There are duality and things that we will never be sure. For those who knows it, quantum mechanic seems completly strange to our reality, and even nowdays some scientists still having strong disagreements about the interpretation of some quantum facts (read more about Copenhagen interpretation on quantum physics).

    Anyway, when I mention the duality Calvinism x Arminianism the guys point out and scream: CONTRADICTION!
    That's what I call hypocrisis.
    "Nolite arbitrari quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem mittere sed gladium"
    Yeshua Ha Mashiach
     

  51. #50  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by holysword
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Physics says light is wave.
    Physics says light is a particle.
    Now this certainly seems like a contradiction.
    Excelent example man. There are duality and things that we will never be sure. For those who knows it, quantum mechanic seems completly strange to our reality, and even nowdays some scientists still having strong disagreements about the interpretation of some quantum facts (read more about Copenhagen interpretation on quantum physics).

    Anyway, when I mention the duality Calvinism x Arminianism the guys point out and scream: CONTRADICTION!
    That's what I call hypocrisis.
    It is hypocrisy to compare bronze age myths and superstitions to scientific endeavors. Some things may appear counter-intuitive, such as Mitch's example, but that doesn't mean it's a contradiction, especially when there is an explanation.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    115
    my friend,

    The GOD, he creates the humanity to live on the earth for a short time, and to accomplish her missions in this life.

    This life is like an exam : you might succed and failed

    it's like a mathematic problem, with hypothesis and constraints ;

    that constraints are : evil. or satan

    There is 2 way after this limited life : HELL or PARADISE

    The GOD will judge your behavior against this constraints, your attitude, your honnesty, your heart, your actions and reactions.

    So GOD is POWERFUL, and he creates you to pass the level of life for the eternity in hell or in paradise.

    He can protect us and give us money and health and happiness ( there are many people like that) but HE want to test and to examine our love for each other, our duty to make people happy, to be positive, to hard work for the humanity, to be honnest and to apply some rules (prayer, ....)

    Because, the afterlife will be more longer than this short and very short life. So we have to prepare ourself for the judgement day.
     

  53. #52  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    All well and fine, but what reason do I have to believe you?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  54. #53 Re: God is... 
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,259
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    God is....
    Not available for viewing. In what may someday be considered as one of the great mysteries of all time, God is no longer making personal appearances, physical displays of His existence. Modern man is not privy to observing God in the ethereal flesh. Nor are we within earshot. According to just about every biblical manifest known to mankind, God was once very conspicuous. Why the change?

    Light has a duality but I think God, who for all intents and purposes disappeared, has a very peculiar duality. He is and He isn't. A scientific anomaly?
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    America
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I don't think your religion should affect how you live your life.
    Then why have religion?
    Unity.

    Hebrews for example, they went through alot of stuff in the BC's, they would have had no hope... But they united under Judiasm, and survived.

    Religion promotes unity, but of course, some morons bastardize it to a point beyond recognition. *cough* adolf hitler *cough*
     

  56. #55  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by David Schofield
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I don't think your religion should affect how you live your life.
    Then why have religion?
    Unity.

    Hebrews for example, they went through alot of stuff in the BC's, they would have had no hope... But they united under Judiasm, and survived.
    What did they go through that wasn't written down alongside the rest of their myths and superstitions?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    America
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by David Schofield
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I don't think your religion should affect how you live your life.
    Then why have religion?
    Unity.

    Hebrews for example, they went through alot of stuff in the BC's, they would have had no hope... But they united under Judiasm, and survived.
    What did they go through that wasn't written down alongside the rest of their myths and superstitions?
    If you look at the history of Mesopetamia, The Hebrews were conqured by babylonians, who destroyed their temple. The Hebrews stuck together and eventually, the Persians came along and defeated the Babylonians, then they allowed the Hebrews to return to their holyland (Jerusalem) and rebuild their temple.

    Judiasm also spread to other parts of the world. Later on in a time period; 1900's, the Natzi Germans began to capture and torture Jews, but they stood united under their religion, and had the strength and courage to never give up no matter how harsh the natzis made it. That's an example of good people uniting under a religion.
     

  58. #57  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,259
    God is....usually given credit for victory and never blamed for defeat by the loser. God also is the reason some athletes perform well(post game interviews prove it time and again).
     

  59. #58 Re: God is... 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    30
    [quote="holysword"]
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Actually if God do something to erradicate sin and suffering from Earth, people would accuse God of getting into their life without permission - or any other kind of bizarre and nonsense acusation, but they will always have an excuse.

    You all here seems to be claiming a world without God (which stands for people who don't believe in God as well), which was (not surpisingly) predicted by Bible (for example). According to my point of view, a world without the belief in God would be a living hell (which was also predicted by Bible, not surprisingly...).
    lol so if god abolished cancer all the cancer patients would be like "damn you for messing with my life!". I'm sure all the starving children in Africa would be just as pissed. The real question is what kind of prick would god have to be to make these things in the first place. If the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god is real he's at a lower level than Hitler in my book. He's clearly caused more death, pain and suffering. Well really when you look at it a world without belief in god would be great. Considering belief in god has caused more death, pain, and stagnant human progress than anything else.
     

  60. #59 Re: God is... 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    60
    [quote="Midgetmaid"][quote="holysword"]
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen

    lol so if god abolished cancer all the cancer patients would be like "damn you for messing with my life!". I'm sure all the starving children in Africa would be just as pissed. The real question is what kind of prick would god have to be to make these things in the first place. If the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god is real he's at a lower level than Hitler in my book. He's clearly caused more death, pain and suffering. Well really when you look at it a world without belief in god would be great. Considering belief in god has caused more death, pain, and stagnant human progress than anything else.
    Then there is the possibility that God didn't cause all the problems we humans face. The possibility that we are the culprits. Now God could stop the problems, but then we would be dependent upon Him to save our bacon all the time.

    Physical life is temporary, spiritual life eternal. If we don't get it right we can try again and again until we do. We don't really die. So God lets us fumble around until we understand it is us that causes the problems, and it is us that must solve them, personally and globally. That way we learn about who we are, etc.
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    If I may break in ...

    I think the problem with God is that most people tend to anthropomorphise him ... they tend to think of him like a person. And so many questions arise like 'why did he do this?', 'why did he let this happen ?', 'will he intervene?', 'what is the good of him?'.

    God, in many belief systems, is held to be the Almighty, the Absolute - containing everything that is, was, will be. A capacity way beyond you. A capacity so large that it contains all descriptions and so cannot be described.

    Way beyond some biped monkey who can only destroy his own planet.

    What makes you think he cares about you ? Or wants to fulfill your petty desires to have a Ferrari ?

    If you ran the Universe would you give two craps that marcusclayman or Q, two tiny fleeting and primitive crumbs, are 'unhappy'. Ha !

    WTF does he care.

    Even our primitive 'sciences' tell us that most of life passes by us unconsciously : so as a three quarters blind primitive ant in this Universe, you think you understand anything about God ? Forget it.

    At best he is there to be communicated with. Do some meditation if you are an adventurer in this life, otherwise put the TV back on.
     

  62. #61  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    If I may break in ...

    I think the problem with God is that most people tend to anthropomorphise him ...
    I'd suggest that an even bigger problem is a lack of existence beyond an ambiguous concept in human minds, but YMMV.
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    rideforever, while I agree, with your point, your way of expressing it is hipocritical.

    You say that it is a problem that people consider God in human terms, and then go on to share a few things that you don't think God cares about, which is arbitrary to say the least, since you would have to consider God in human terms to determine such things.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    It's hard to know what to say to a three-quarters blind, mostly unconscious, unaware, fleeting being living on a tiny planet in the universe's backwater who wants to talk about God.

    What do you say to him ?
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    If I may break in ...

    I think the problem with God is that most people tend to anthropomorphise him ...
    I'd suggest that an even bigger problem is a lack of existence beyond an ambiguous concept in human minds, but YMMV.
    well, to be fair, the concept may exist in chimp minds as well, it's hard to say :wink:
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    It's hard to know what to say to a three-quarters blind, mostly unconscious, unaware, fleeting being living on a tiny planet in the universe's backwater who wants to talk about God.

    What do you say to him ?
    I don't know what I say, I barely know what I'm saying now, but I can look back and tell you what I have said, but I don't think that's as important as what I will say here, or more precisely, ask.

    If someone is as flawed as you say they are, then how will their understanding of what you say be any less flawed?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    It's hard to know what to say to a three-quarters blind, mostly unconscious, unaware, fleeting being living on a tiny planet in the universe's backwater who wants to talk about God.

    What do you say to him ?
    I don't know what I say, I barely know what I'm saying now, but I can look back and tell you what I have said, but I don't think that's as important as what I will say here, or more precisely, ask.

    If someone is as flawed as you say they are, then how will their understanding of what you say be any less flawed?
    Don't look to me for answers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    It's hard to know what to say to a three-quarters blind, mostly unconscious, unaware, fleeting being living on a tiny planet in the universe's backwater who wants to talk about God.

    What do you say to him ?
    I don't know what I say, I barely know what I'm saying now, but I can look back and tell you what I have said, but I don't think that's as important as what I will say here, or more precisely, ask.

    If someone is as flawed as you say they are, then how will their understanding of what you say be any less flawed?
    Don't look to me for answers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Besides they are only 'flaws' if you compare them against something that is obviously an illusion - a human being who understands what is going on.

    The only thing I can say is that looking inward seems to me to be a possibility. Everything outward is falsifiable. Inwards, maybe you have a hope.
     

  69. #68  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    The only thing I can say is that looking inward seems to me to be a possibility. Everything outward is falsifiable. Inwards, maybe you have a hope.
    Except, even that which is "outward" is only able to be perceived with the "inward" mechanisms, consequently all you can EVER do is look inward, by definition.
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by rideforever
    The only thing I can say is that looking inward seems to me to be a possibility. Everything outward is falsifiable. Inwards, maybe you have a hope.
    Except, even that which is "outward" is only able to be perceived with the "inward" mechanisms, consequently all you can EVER do is look inward, by definition.
    Wow. Never thought life would be this weird.
     

  71. #70 Re: God is... 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    God is either not powerful enough to stop sin and disease from effecting mankind or he is all powerful but unwilling to stop sin and disease from effecting mankind. Either way, he is not a God worth worshiping. A powerless God is not a God and an Evil God is not a God one should devote their life to.
    or alternatively, the very issue of possessing free will means that the living entity must have scope to the medium of suffering as a result of wielding inappropriate desires .... and , as a side point, a key catalyst in addressing this problem os to initiate the worship of god (through one's free will of course).

    Of course one is at liberty to disagree with this.
    It simply means that one's molars will rot.
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    verzen said in his orginal post:

    God is (either) not powerful enough to stop sin . . .
    I find this thought interesting from the standpoint that people want do to the things that God has outlined as counterproductive activities and then turn around and chastise him for not preventing them from doing what they want.

    On the one had, God is proclaimed wrong for interfering with our freedom to do what we want by telling us that some things are wrong to do and then is proclaimed wrong for not interfering with our resolve to doing them anyway.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  73. #72 Re: God is... 
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    God is either not powerful enough to stop sin and disease from effecting mankind or he is all powerful but unwilling to stop sin and disease from effecting mankind.
    You dont have the knowledge of what you are saying.
    God is all powerful.
    Talking about the diseases. It emerges by the work of mankind.
    And it also proves the existence of god.
    When man do things he should not do, he should get suffered. God is not a puppet with whom you can play with. You do bad things and immediately God erasing the effect of what you have done is injustice.
    this is a scientific forum, logical forum.
    You may be aware about the climate change, sea level rise, Global warming. Why??
    It happens only because of the act of mankind. Releasing of carbon to the atmosphere.
    God has given the man a brain with which he can think what is right and what is wrong. Doing what comfort him is not the right.
    God is not a slave of man, but man is a slave of God.
    God is one and only.

    God knows the best.
     

  74. #73 Re: God is... 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    God is either not powerful enough to stop sin and disease from effecting mankind or he is all powerful but unwilling to stop sin and disease from effecting mankind.
    You dont have the knowledge of what you are saying.
    God is all powerful.
    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?

    ~Epicurus
     

  75. #74 Re: God is... 
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?
    He is able to do anything. But he will never do an ungodly thing. A God should not do an ungodly thing. He is omnipotent. No evil can touch Him. Evil touched man because of doing things which man should not do.
    He is not "malevolent". What did you think,.? You are a creature of his creation. The heaven and the Earth functions under his command. If he wills he can rain fire onto you, he can give you different painful punishment. Dont think that he is not doing it because he is not able to do it.
    He is the doer of what ever He wills.
    As i said he is not a puppet of man.

    He is able to do anything, but will never do an ungodly thing.
    God is one and only.

    God knows the best.
     

  76. #75 Re: God is... 
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?
    He is able to do anything. But he will never do an ungodly thing.
    How do you know this?

    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    A God should not do an ungodly thing.
    Are you deciding what god should or should not do? That contradicts your other statements

    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    He is omnipotent. No evil can touch Him. Evil touched man because of doing things which man should not do.
    But man was created by him. Are you saying man is to him an untouchable? Otherwise he touches man who, as you yourself point out, is touched by evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    He is not "malevolent". What did you think,.? You are a creature of his creation.
    Again, he created a creature touched by evil. How does this make sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    The heaven and the Earth functions under his command. If he wills he can rain fire onto you, he can give you different painful punishment. Dont think that he is not doing it because he is not able to do it.
    He is the doer of what ever He wills.
    As i said he is not a puppet of man.

    He is able to do anything, but will never do an ungodly thing.
    Basim

    Please note that this forum is for the Scientific Study of Religion. You are simply making faith claims. If you believe this, that's your look-out, but at least acknowledge that nothing you've said is an argument - logical, empirical or otherwise.

    Inow, on the other hand, has quoted from a clear logical argument.

    What's your defence for preaching here?
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I continue to be amused at people like verzen and inow who foolishly presume that they have a better way than God to run the Universe with no consideration toward unintended consequences -- assuming, of course, that God does exist .

    First of all there is the fact that the world is as it would be whether or not God exists. If God does not exist, then our Earthly world is what it is because that is exactly what mankind has made it. If God does exist, then the world is what it is because that is exactly how God has permitted it to become by balancing the effects of good and evil to the best world that can exist given the free will of man. The Universe is what it would be whether or not God exists, so the condition of the world is neither proof nor disproof of God's existence. Nor does it provide a basis whereby one can either believe or disbelieve in God. Rather it provides an after-the-fact justification for whatever position one has taken.

    You cannot argue on the one hand that God does not exist and then turn around and argue that if God does exist, the world would be better off without Him. What kind of logic is that?

    Secondarily you list the similar Epicurus philosophy that God should eliminate evil without any understanding of what that would actually mean. By God's standards as depicted in the Bible, all men (women, too; sorry, gals) rate on the evil side of the ledger. Thus, all of mankind would be eradicated as evil.

    It is a rather humorous phenomenon that each of us, when we draw the line between good and evil, we always end up above that line in such a way that if God were to eliminate evil, we would be spared. I cannot help but wonder if either verzen or inow thinks he would be among the eliminated if God eliminated evil.

    It might also be noted that Epicurus lived in a polytheistic society and we have no idea which Greek God he thought was the main offender.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  78. #77  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Well, again daytonturner, you begin with a strawman, and then proceed to do little more than rationalize your faith. I never "presumed that I have a better way than god to run the universe." Please. Give me a break. I shared a quote from Epicurus.

    The rest is just dribble, and if you don't have enough integrity to openly stipulate that all you have is personal faith, then there really is no point in discussing this with you.



    "'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true." ~Nietzsche

    "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." ~St. Thomas Aquinas
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    As near as I can tell, inow, you have no personally processed thoughts, only the ability to criticize the thoughts of others and quote the thoughts of others as though you agree and then hide behind the idea that you don't agree with the implication. If you don't agree with Epicurus, why the hell would you even consider quoting him? What was your point is quoting Epicurus if you do not agree that God is doing it wrong which carries with it the implication that you would have a better plan? And if you don't think "your way" is better, why do you criticize the way God is doing it? What do you think the quote from Epicurus is intended to say? And if you don't believe God exists, how can you criticize the way He runs the Universe and our world?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  80. #79  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Where exactly do you see me disagreeing with Epicurus? The rabbit hole just gets deeper and deeper with each post you present...

    Let's see a quote on this. Where do you think I disagreed with Epicurus?


    Also, how can one criticize the way a nonexistent entity is "doing" something? Isn't that a bit like criticizing the dynamics of purple unicorn flight or the way a leprechaun tailors their outfits? Since one must accept a priori that god exists to discuss his "ways" your question is completely meaningless, as I do not accept a priori that existence. How this is not painfully obvious to you I find rather strange.

    I wasn't criticizing god. I was criticizing the inconsistent logic (or complete lack thereof) coming from those (like you) who argue in favor of its existence and traits/characteristics. Interestingly, that's precisely what was done in the Epicurus quote I shared. Fancy that.
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    OK, inow, let's take a trip down memory lane.

    You replied to basim with the quote from Epicurus which basicially says God (if he exists) is either unable or unwilling to stop evil. Now, then I assume you buy into that philosophical propostion, otherwise, you would not have quoted it.

    So let us parse out what it was that Epicurus was suggesting. First of all, he starts with the premise that if God exists, he should be willing to stomp out all evil. But we have no idea what Epicurus' concept of evil was. Very possible that both you and I would fit into Epicurus' definition of evil. In that case, I should think that we would be happy that, if God exists, he does not operate at the behest of Epicurus and an Epicurian idea of evil. What's more, even if we did not come under God's wrath if he operated on Epicurus' (unknown) definitions of good and evil, perhaps someone we love such as a parent, or a child, or a sibling, or a spouse or some other very good friend would fit into that definition and again we would be glad that God was not willing to stomp out that evil.

    The thing here is that there has to be a line to define what is good and what is evil. Now while you may struggle with where that line is, I do not. I have a Bible that tells me where God has drawn those lines. I also know that if God wiped out all evil on earth, I would not be here at my computer addressing this question and you would not out be there eventually reading what I have written.

    So maybe the reason God does not wipe out evil is not because he lacks the power to do so, but because he exercises the restraint not to use his power to do that which some people foolishly think he should do, not understanding the unintended consequences that would occur if he responded to their wishes.

    So the fact that God, if He exists, does not wipe out all evil proves neither that he lacks the power to eradicate evil, nor that, because evil exists, He cannot exist .

    The next aspect of Epicurus' ill-advised philosophy is that if God is able to wipe out evil and does not do so, it is a misuse of his power. In other words, one must assume that if Epicurus had the power to eradicate evil, he would do so. He is thus suggesting that he has a better way to run the world than God, if he exists, is running it.

    But again, we get back to the question of who gets to decide what is good and is allowed to exist or determine that which is evil and eliminated. And what of people, as with most of us, exhibit some good qualities while also exibiting some evil qualities. Who gets to decide how much good is required to offset how much evil? Are you willing to let me do that -- make those decisions? Probably not, because I know I am damn sure not willing to let you make those decisions.

    So the fact the fact that God, if he exists, does not wipe out evil is not necessarily proof of his malevolence. Rather, it could be considered His willingness to permit some evil to exist in order that good can also exist.

    Evil "cometh" from mankind of which, I think we are both members. Evil exists only to the extent that we can differentiate and contrast actions, their results and decide their relative value.

    So, the fact that evil (and who's to say what is evil?) exists does not prove God does not exist which is what Epicurus alluding to.

    My assumption is that you buy into the Epicurus idea that if God exists, he is abusing His power, intimating that you would do a better job of running the universe than God, if he exists, is doing. And, with the idea that the existence of evil justifies your faithful belief that God does not exist. So, I don't know how you can claim that is a strawman argument. YOU introduced the strawman, I merely exposed him.

    I certainly did not suggest you disagreed with Epicurus, only that your position seemed to not accept what Epicurus was saying.

    inow says:
    Also, how can one criticize the way a nonexistent entity is "doing" something? Isn't that a bit like criticizing the dynamics of purple unicorn flight or the way a leprechaun tailors their outfits? Since one must accept a priori that god exists to discuss his "ways" your question is completely meaningless, as I do not accept a priori that existence. How this is not painfully obvious to you I find rather strange.
    This criticism is silliness, since that is exactly what Epicurus is doing and you say you agree with Epicurus. So did Epicurus accept a priori that God exists? In which case he was definitely dissing the way God operates. Or was he discussing the "ways" of a God he did not actually believe in. And which God(s) did he not believe in? Zeus, YHWH, Allah, Vishnu, Isis? I dunno.

    My point was that the Epicurus statement, quippy though it is, is not a disproof of the existence of God. It was the result of an observation of the awful state of affairs of the human race in the world which -- surprise, surprise, Sergeant -- the Books of the Law pointed out some three or four thousand years before Epicurus was a gamete in his daddy's testacles.

    Epicurus was sort of asking the same question we all keep asking -- Why doesn't God put an end to all of this crap?

    I do not know what others actually believe will happen, but I know that Judo-Christian believers have the hope (through scriptural assurances) that God will some day obliterate evil and that the world will enjoy a time of complete peace and harmony. Meanwhile, it seems that some feel that first step to peace and harmony is to obliterate the God who allows them to exist in spite of their own evil.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  82. #81  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The thing here is that there has to be a line to define what is good and what is evil. Now while you may struggle with where that line is, I do not. I have a Bible that tells me where God has drawn those lines.
    Really? So you're okay with slavery since the bible tells you it's okay?

    Leviticus 25:44-46
    Exodus 21:2-6
    Exodus 21:7-11
    Ephesians 6:5
    1 Timothy 6:1-2
    Luke 12:47-48


    So, you're okay with human sacrifice?

    Judges 11:29-40
    Joshua 7:15
    1 Kings 13:1-2
    2 Kings 23:20-25


    So, you're okay with rape?

    Judges 21:10-24
    Numbers 31:7-18
    Deuteronomy 20:10-14
    2 Samuel 12:11-14
    Deuteronomy 21:10-14
    Judges 5:30
    Exodus 21:7-11


    So, you're okay with murder?

    Deuteronomy 17:12
    Leviticus 20:13
    Leviticus 20:27
    Exodus 21:15
    Proverbs 20:20


    Really... just read Deuteronomy or Leviticus on their own. That covers a good lot of evil.

    I'm sorry, but if that's where you draw you concept of good and evil, I don't want you anywhere near me or my family, got it?


    I have no struggle where the line is of good an evil, and for you to suggest that I would struggle in finding such a line causes me palpable disgust. You assume that because I reject your ridiculous fairy tales that I cannot possibly know good from evil. I say bullshit, and you need to remove your cranium from your colon.

    My lack of belief in the tooth fairy... erm... your god concept... has no bearing on my ability to know right from wrong, or good from evil, and I find your suggestion to the contrary further evidence of how religious belief is little more than a cancer of the mind of otherwise kind and intelligent human beings.


    For those of you who want to spend some time reviewing just how evil the bible really is, there's a nice site which has done a lot of the leg work which, interestingly enough, is called evilbible.com.

    http://www.evilbible.com/



    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    So maybe the reason God does not wipe out evil is not because he lacks the power to do so, but because he exercises the restraint not to use his power to do that which some people foolishly think he should do, not understanding the unintended consequences that would occur if he responded to their wishes.
    Or, maybe he doesn't exist.


    I'm going to ignore most of the rest of your post, since much of it is little more than rationalizations, special pleading, and conclusions based assumed/unproven premises.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •