Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

tommy2bad

Came across this today, dont know if it sheds any light on thw whole hell thing but it gives an idea of how imagery and ideas get assumed into things

From wiki pages:

Many heroes from Greek mythology have descended into the underworld, either to question the shades or trying to free them.
We see Jesus descending to the underworld in the Gospel of Matthew to free those bound.

Unprecedented in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Christian concept of hell is more akin to and communicated by the Greek concept of Tartarus, a deep, gloomy part of hades used as a dungeon of torment and suffering.

Tartarus is:

a deep, gloomy place, a pit, or an abyss used as a dungeon of torment and suffering that resides beneath the underworld. In the Gorgias, Plato (c. 400 BC) wrote that souls were judged after death and those who received punishment were sent to Tartarus.

See how things get confusing?

tommy2bad

Wh1stler wrote: »

You fool. Is that how you love your neighbour?

Just an example of speaking the truth in Christian love
And sound advise to people who google stuff and link to the first hit they find.

Wh1stler

ISAW wrote: »

You have produced NOTHING to show rape being ordered and you were shown apmle evidence forbidding sex with unmarried women.

I'm glad you brought this up.

When did adultery become a sin?

Didn't Abraham commit adultery with Hagar who bore Ishmael? Hagar was Sarah's 'slave' and was given to Abraham for sex. It sounds like statutory rape to me and God seems to have had no problem with that.

And when Sarah bore Isaac, Hagar was 'kicked to the kerb'.

When did Abraham's (and Sarah's) morality become immoral so as to give rise to the commandment not to commit adultery?

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

What do you mean by 'wrong'; do you mean 'evil'?

Against natural justice. It does not have to be Gods It could be secular.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

How can you describe a grown adult who has sex with a six-year old as being 'of sound mind'?

that is a cop out! if you are going to reclassify all bad people as "insane" then your emphasis is on excusing the offender and not with the victim.

Let me ask you something; what is it about having sex with children that is bad/wrong/evil?
I mean, if you are going to claim that there is an objective morality then what is the difference between 'good' and 'evil'?

i asked first. Is it always wrong? You are suggesting it isnt?

Is slavery an evil thing; were slaves good for the Egypt built by the Pharaohs? Is it a good thing that Egypt achieved the things it did? Could it have been done without slavery?

If slavery is voluntary servitude for life then one could say it is probably not always evil.

But back to the topic; your objective morality is basically - what God says is good is good and what God says is evil is evil. Is that fair?

No it isnt! It could be secumlar and it isnt so because god says it. God might not say it at all and we might work it out for oourselves but it is true god would not want it.
Just Mathematics might not say fermats last theorem is true until someone eventually works the proof out.

The problem is that God has changed His 'will' on so many occasions as to show that good and evil depend on how God feels, i.e., morality is subjective to God. It's okay to have slaves but it's not okay for Jews to be slaves; it's okay to kill babies even as they suckle but 'thou shalt not kill'.

Back to the old "god ordered rape and killing of babies" arguments now? WHERE did god order that?

Morality is entirely and absolutely subjective; good and evil aren't actually 'things'.

that would be your subjective belief would it? Can you prove it objectively and absolutely true?

Remember the story of Noah? God 'repented of creating man' and sent the flood. Later He regretted sending the flood and promised not to do it again. In other words, God thought He'd made a mistake by making mankind, lost His rag and calmed down after about forty days, realised that He'd made a mistake by thinking He'd made a mistake and apologised in a roundabout way by sending a rainbow or something.

So, if there is an objective morality then God doesn't seem to be all that connected to it.

Aha! but all of the examples wher you can say god seems to have changed his mind relate to himl acting because of human choice. If God is not going to manipulate us, if He is going to offer us the opportunity to express our freewill, then He is at the mercy of that freewill.
Obviously, how we behave – for good or for bad – determines how God treats us. God ‘adjusts’ His behaviour to us dependent on how we behave and what choices we make.

So our freewill allows us to go against God’s wishes and that makes God change His mind. Often He will keep on reminding us so that, if we do start to listen, we can finally obey God’s command. If we don’t then God allows us that right to disobey and we are ultimately the losers.
http://www.anointedlinks.com/freewill.html

Also, when He realised He'd acted disproportionately by sending the flood, why didn't God just press the 'Undo' button or do a 'System Restore' to a point before the flood? That way, there would be no record of the cock-up.

It is all a big game to you is it?
you play "god games" like sim city or whatver and can reboot the whole thing.
In the real world though if you mess up people die; they starve. Or the lose their houses.
Hard rains gonna fall.

How do you reconcile a 'perfect God' with a God that got it wrong twice in the same story?

i dont. http://clergyresources.net/Trotter/Trotter%20God%20changed%20mind.htm
The God who is far removed from us, immortal, invisible, unchanging, unfeeling, is not the God of the Bible. God may appear that way to those who know him not. That God is the God of the philosophers. The God of the abstract idea, the prime mover, the first principle, the ground of being, some idea, some abstraction. That is not the God of the Bible.

The God of the Bible is a God of compassion and love, of caring and of grace, caring for us so much he gets upset with us, and is tempted to chuck it all. But because he is also a God of mercy and of grace, manifested in the covenant he has made with us, the promise always to be with us, God changes his mind and forgives.

Or is it your view that bad-tempered and irrational are elements of perfection?

The christian god is not unreasonable!

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

Came across this today, dont know if it sheds any light on thw whole hell thing but it gives an idea of how imagery and ideas get assumed into things

From wiki pages:

Unprecedented in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Tartarus is:

See how things get confusing?

What's confusing about it?

I never believed that the Hebrew God created hell in the first place.

And it is not surprising to me that the Bible has embezzled ideas from other cultures.

Andrewf20

ISAW wrote: »

no it couldnt. Yes Christianity think the bible is inspired. But Islam believes the Koran was dictated word for word from God. that is an entirely different kettle of fish and if you cant see that i think you have a problem.

Eitherway, Muslims dont believe the same as Christians. The point I am trying to make is that is alot of people are not convinced that Christianity is the one true religon for the same reasons a Christian doesnt believe in Buddhism say. As Dawkins said:"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

ISAW wrote: »

since you like wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiology
Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J. contributed greatly to the use of models in understanding ecclesiology. In his work Models of the Church, he defines four basic models of Church that have been prevalent throughout the history of the Catholic Church. These include models of the Church as institution, as mystical communion, as herald, and as servant.

In line 1 it says, "Ecclesiology usually refers to the theological study of the Christian Church." When you click on Christian church it says: "The Christian church is the assembly or association of followers of Jesus Christ. The Greek term ἐκκλησία, which in its appearances in the New Testament..." Once again, it seems to refer closely to the Bible.

ISAW wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipione_Rebiba
more than 90% of all living Catholic bishops can trace their episcopal lineage back to him.
Today, more than 91% of the New World's and more than 5,000 Catholic bishops alive today, including Pope Benedict XVI,[3] trace their episcopal lineage back to Rebiba.[4]

I dont see the significance of this man after reading thru the link. What am I missing here?

ISAW wrote: »

what post?

Its in post number 3262.

ISAW wrote: »

Pride isnt confined to boasting; and ther is nothing wrong in being "proud" of ones achievements. Pride in the way i am discussing it is basically the first commandment -thinking you can replace God.

But if you dont believe in God, you wouldnt feel you are replacing anything. I dont feel proud I am replacing the God Zeus as I dont believe in him in the first place.

ISAW wrote: »

You have to pay attention . i gave you one . the act of believing; To which you replied "yes"
so you have accepted one and the idea that you "have yet to hear an answer to my question, name a moral or ethical act done by a believer that could not be done by a non believer" is a contradiction since a non believer cant believe!

It seems like there is a play on words here. What I am trying to say - the concept of believing is one thing, acting out that belief is another. Sitting on your hands believing something is of no value to anybody unless you execute those beliefs. Thats my point. Believing that Christ was the son of God, and that he was raised from the dead and so on is a separate issue to living a moral life I think. I still dont see your reply as a satisfactory answer tbh.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes we know you think that. so what?

So its one reason for the existence of atheism/agnosticism. Even Mother Theresa had doubts about her faith. Its an entirely plausible position to hold imo. It could take 1 act of God to nullify all discussion. Ultimately, can you can choose to reverse your belief in something with the information you have. Im not so sure.

ISAW wrote: »

i refer you to the Aslan and Tash story in C S Lewis last book.
some of them didnt even see the world around them because they didnt believe it was there.

I dont see how this answers my question. Can you clarify as a quick look thru the internet doesnt reveal your point clearly?

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

Just an example of speaking the truth in Christian love
And sound advise to people who google stuff and link to the first hit they find.

Your Jesus would be so proud.

Christianity is like an advert for a really great offer. Eternal joy, treasures of heaven, glory of God. Why should such a great product need to add that failure to accept this offer will result in eternal suffering in the next life?

It sounds much more like a protection racket to me.

(Terms and conditions apply.)

Wh1stler

ISAW wrote: »

Back to the old "god ordered rape and killing of babies" arguments now? WHERE did god order that?

1 Samuel 15:

Samuel also said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

Samuel says that God ordered the killing of children. Don't you believe him?

ISAW

Wh1stler wrote: »

1 Samuel 15:

Samuel also said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

i asked about raping as well. where is that§? Im not aware of any.

Samuel says that God ordered the killing of children. Don't you believe him?

http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html

The situation is thus:

The Amalekites are a predatory, raiding, and nomadic group; and are descendants of Esau (and hence, distant cousins to Israel).
They would have been aware of the promise of the Land TO Israel, from the early promises to Esau's twin Jacob.
They did NOT live in Canaan (but in the lower, desert part of the Negev--a region south of where Judah will eventually settle), and would NOT have been threatened by Israel--had they believed the promises of God.
As soon as Israel escapes Egypt--before they can even 'catch their breath'--the Amalekites make a long journey south(!) and attack Israel.
Their first targets were the helpless:

Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. 19 When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget! (Deut 25.17-19).

Before the attack on Amalek is initiated by Israel, the innocent are told to 'move away' from them: Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites. (I Sam 15.5f). This action would have also served to give the people of Amalek plenty of notice (i.e., time to 'move away' themselves), and the impending attack by Saul--especially with the troop counts reported!--would hardly have been a surprise. Some of them would likely have fled--we KNOW all of them were not killed, since they 'lived to fight/raid again' in David's time (I Sam 27,30) and even in Hezekiah's time (200-300 years later!, 1 Chr 4.43).

...
There is an obvious pattern here:

The annihilations are judgments.
These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).
Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)
These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.
...
These words group into two categories: dispossession vs destruction. "Dispossession" would include the words like drive out, dispossess, take over possession of, thrust out, send away (33 occurrences). "Destruction" words would include annihilate, destroy, perish, and eliminate (11 occurrences). The Dispossession words would indicate that the population 'ran away'--migrated out of the Land prior to any encounter with the Israelites; Destruction words would indicate the consequences for those who stayed behind.

...
Israel was told to 'drive' the Canaanites out of the Land.
Those Canaanites who refused to leave were to be executed.
The Israelites were NEVER told to hunt the Canaanites down 'throughout the uttermost reaches of the earth' and kill them.
If the Canaanites had migrated to a city in a foreign land, the Israelites could have made a treaty with them.
The main point was to keep the Canaanites from influencing Israel's religious culture, by removing them from the Land (e.g. Deut 20.18).

What this would strongly suggest is that the punishment on the Amorites/Canaanites is NOT extermination but rather total expulsion from the Land!

This is an altogether DIFFERENT issue now--from 'genocide' to 'expulsion from the Land'. And THIS UNDERSTANDING makes perfect sense of a couple of other verses now:

"`Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 "`Everyone who does any of these detestable things -- such persons must be cut off from their people. (Lev 18.24-29; also Lev 20.22)

Notice in verses 28-29, God holds Israel to the same standard--both as a nation (vs.28) and as individuals (vs.29)! He didn't intend to annihilate them (when they later 'went pagan'), but he warned them of 'expulsion from the Land' in the SAME WAY He did the Canaanites! For this comparison to work in the verse, the punishment ("vomit") MUST mean expulsion.

tommy2bad

Wh1stler wrote: »

Your Jesus would be so proud.

Christianity is like an advert for a really great offer. Eternal joy, treasures of heaven, glory of God. Why should such a great product need to add that failure to accept this offer will result in eternal suffering in the next life?

It sounds much more like a protection racket to me.

(Terms and conditions apply.)

Wh1stler you seem to have the wrong end of the stick. Sarcasm is lost on you.
Protection from what other than ourselves.?
It is a great offer and no strings attached. What you miss is that the offer is seldom taken up.
Oh and don't tell me that you but the 'jesus is fake' bull because that doesn't make any sense at all. No one has to believe in God but trying to justify your disbelief by saying it's all made up is nonsense and stupid.
I believe it, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of its truth. all I'm doing is explaining as best I can why I believe, what I believe and how I don't know everything and must accept that I may never know.

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

Wh1stler you seem to have the wrong end of the stick. Sarcasm is lost on you.
Protection from what other than ourselves.?
It is a great offer and no strings attached. What you miss is that the offer is seldom taken up.
Oh and don't tell me that you but the 'jesus is fake' bull because that doesn't make any sense at all. No one has to believe in God but trying to justify your disbelief by saying it's all made up is nonsense and stupid.
I believe it, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of its truth. all I'm doing is explaining as best I can why I believe, what I believe and how I don't know everything and must accept that I may never know.

Do you think that there would be less Christians today were it not for the threat of hell?

Wh1stler

ISAW wrote: »

i asked about raping as well. where is that§? Im not aware of any.

I haven't claimed that God ordered rape.

But God did order the people He wanted to live morally to kill babies. Why couldn't God do His own dirty work? And why didn't God protect those emerging out of Egypt?

I know, it's because if God doesn't exist then how can He do any work at all?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

the Pope goes so far as to point out how this IS NOT mainstream christian Thelogy in relation to Duns Scotus (he of the old Irish five pound note fame) in the Late Middle Ages

And as I have already pointed out there is a difference between simply claiming something and demonstrating it.

ISAW wrote: »

If you cant see the difference between "we would even have to practice idolatry." and " a reasonable god would not ask people to practice idolatry" i cant really help you on that im afraid.

If you believed your God was actually telling you to practice idolatry I imagine the person who first proclaimed that a reasonable god would not ask people to practice idolatry would simply be dismissed as someone who doesn't understand properly, as so many people in the past who have pointed out all the unreasonable things God does according to Christianity, have been.

ISAW wrote: »

they are not logically the same thing. whether or not you believe in one or the other is NOT the issue.
the issue is they are NOT saying the same thing.

That isn't the issue. The issue is that simply proclaiming your religious doctrine to be more reasonable than others does not make it so.

ISAW wrote: »

And you are back to your tired old trick of suggesting people post lists of all the things they do not know.

You claimed that no Christian theology believes what I stated. What I stated was a finite number of concepts. It should be easy then for you to point out precisely which of them no Christian theology believes.

ISAW wrote: »

If you think God designed humanity because he wanted them to suffer go get it published in a journal.

I'm content simply being an atheist and discussing it on Boards.ie.

Can I take it from that rather dismissive statement that you accept you do not have a response to the logic so far used to show there is a incompatibility between the statements that God does not want us to suffer, God made humans and God's absence causes a feeling of torture?

Given that you seem to believe God must be reasonable, is this not a reason to reject at least one of the statements?

ISAW wrote: »

You have already been shown that there has to be at least one thing we can chose which will cause suffering . It dos not matter how many things wont cause it or how many you add to the list of things that wont cause it. You have the logic backwards! the set of things that will cause it is what matters.

Yes, and the set is much larger than the single choice of being absent from God. So long as other choices that can lead to suffering exist we retain free will (according to you, that statement is actually nonsense but that is a different matter).

ISAW wrote: »

Only if the case is predestination and no free will.

No, for reasons I've already explained. For no particular reason other than I assume you ran out of actual arguments, you reduced the set of things we can choose that cause us to suffer to 1 (choosing hell) despite there being absolutely no justification to do this.

ISAW wrote: »

I know about logic set theory and arithmetic.
Her you go again! the "axioms" you claim about god, free will, and the necessity of suffering are???

Are already explained in detail.

ISAW wrote: »

You are contradicting yourself! If they are axioms they are assumed to be true in the beginning.

That is common but inaccurate notion of what axiom means.

ISAW wrote: »

Assume P = "God does not want us to suffer"
and Q = "God made humans"

Who claimed P and Q support the existence of hell?

No one. I've no idea what point you think that refers to.

ISAW wrote: »

but it is demonstrably reasonable and you have been shown YEARS ago!
the links from 2010 wher you wre shown about "faith and reason" and the links with the History and philosophy of science are shown above.

To repeat the point ad nausea, merely claiming that your religion is reasonable is not the same as demonstrating it is.

Can I take it that you have conceded the point about hell and suffering, given that you seem to have no interest in discussing it any more?

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Yes you did claim it!
the fact that others before or since also did is beside the point.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76607512&postcount=1966
where you stated



To be accurate yes yu DID restate it
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77449040&postcount=2824
where you stated



You have a habit of thinking what you have stated can be ignored or forgotten and later denied but you leave a clear record. You cant deny you claimed god in the Bible ordered rape. You claimed it and it isnt supported.



Not alone is that a cop out it is a cointradiction since the rape issue is there in the first place because people like me were arguing about things which were always wrong and your side chimed in with the "bible ordered rape" issue!
Nobody on my side claimed "that isnt rape it was a different time" i tis only people on your side that argue moral relativism when it suits them !
Ironically when they do I ask "is rape always wrong"
And NOTE in the above messasage to which you were responding that is what i was doing because i usually ask "is child sexual abuse always wrong" as well

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77449040&postcount=2824


but muy poi,nt was on moral relativity so you cant now claim that raping women was a different then when you were responding to a point about raping women and children as always wrong by claiming we were discussing women only as being always wrong and hadnt mentioned children.



Wrong ! If something says 1+1=2 it isnt equql to something else.

You have produced NOTHING to show rape being ordered and you were shown apmle evidence forbidding sex with unmarried women.



Off the topic! The bible mentions nothing of Muslims going to Hell but it does mention rape and nowhere does god tell anyone to commit rape.
No christian theologists fundamentalist or not says the bible anywhere orders rape.



No it doesnt! Nobody who has any qualification in the bible says it orders rape!

No ISAW I don't any have a habit of thinking what I said can be ignored or forgotten. I will stand over anything I say except in those cases where I become convined I am wrong and I have no problem accepting that. But you you most certainly have a habit ( as Zombrex has pointed out) that if you assert something loud enough and long enough it must be true.

Now you don't believe the Bible/God ordered ,condoned ,whatever word you like - rape. I believe it did.

I have read your arguments and those of others and I am not convinced by them. Accept it and move on .

lmaopml

You seem to think, perhaps honestly, perhaps a little dishonestly sometimes Zobrex because you are far from silly - in terms of 'hell' as some artistic impression of it, some physical reality, some physical 'place'?

You seem to lack the ability, or deliberately do so, to understand free will, good, evil, right and wrong, choice and lack of choice - and apart from all of those things, perfect justice and mercy.

Or at the very least you reject that good and evil exist in the world - I just wish you would be honest about that, and perhaps we could move on to it's implications and disect Zombrex in the lab too - but you are happy enough to evade it, and evade yourself too, your choice.

You are railing against yourself, certainly not Christianity - At least with Christianity you have something to argue against, with Zombrex, nobody exactly knows what they are getting...

Wh1stler

ISAW wrote: »

Israel was told to 'drive' the Canaanites out of the Land.
Those Canaanites who refused to leave were to be executed.
The Israelites were NEVER told to hunt the Canaanites down 'throughout the uttermost reaches of the earth' and kill them.
If the Canaanites had migrated to a city in a foreign land, the Israelites could have made a treaty with them.
The main point was to keep the Canaanites from influencing Israel's religious culture, by removing them from the Land (e.g. Deut 20.18).

You are speaking of Canaan, land of the Canaanites, a peaceful people whose ancestors had dwelt in that land long before Abraham was sent on his imperialistic journey.

This is a truly amazing double standard. How best should we prevent the Jews from influencing Christian culture?

So, will you admit that Hitler was no worse than Abraham's descendants? That revenge hundreds of years after the fact is acceptable?

Should all English people be destroyed because of what Cromwell did?

Anyway, this part of the discussion puts paid to any misconceptions about the Bible teaching peace. Remeber, the Hebrew God is a God of war.

Also, to connect with another point about choosing eternal torment, a gift from the Creator - do you think that the fact that God is jealous by nature, by His own admission, has anything to do with eternal punishment.

As Zombrex said, if you tell the girl that she is free to choose to be with you or without you and you say that if she chooses to be without you then you'll burn her house down with her in it, can that really be classified as a choice? If she chooses to be without you is she really choosing to be burned alive?

marienbad

Wh1stler wrote: »

You are speaking of Canaan, land of the Canaanites, a peaceful people whose ancestors had dwelt in that land long before Abraham was sent on his imperialistic journey.

This is a truly amazing double standard. How best should we prevent the Jews from influencing Christian culture?

So, will you admit that Hitler was no worse than Abraham's descendants? That revenge hundreds of years after the fact is acceptable?

Should all English people be destroyed because of what Cromwell did?

Anyway, this part of the discussion puts paid to any misconceptions about the Bible teaching peace. Remeber, the Hebrew God is a God of war.

Also, to connect with another point about choosing eternal torment, a gift from the Creator - do you think that the fact that God is jealous by nature, by His own admission, has anything to do with eternal punishment.

As Zombrex said, if you tell the girl that she is free to choose to be with you or without you and you say that if she chooses to be without you then you'll burn her house down with her in it, can that really be classified as a choice? If she chooses to be without you is she really choosing to be burned alive?

And furthermore the house burning down analogy is somewhat similar to the choice given to the captive virgins - marriage and sex versus slavery/ indentured servitude - take your pick . Are those really choices ?

lmaopml

evilbible.com is getting a few hits these days.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

evilbible.com is getting a few hits these days.

Never heard of it before Imaopml,thanks for pointing it out not that we really need it.

Wh1stler

ISAW wrote: »

http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html

Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. 19 When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget! (Deut 25.17-19).

The bolded part cannot be interpreted as anything other than a call for the utter destruction of the Amalekites.

ISAW wrote: »

Before the attack on Amalek is initiated by Israel, the innocent are told to 'move away' from them: Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites. (I Sam 15.5f). This action would have also served to give the people of Amalek plenty of notice (i.e., time to 'move away' themselves), and the impending attack by Saul--especially with the troop counts reported!--would hardly have been a surprise. Some of them would likely have fled--we KNOW all of them were not killed, since they 'lived to fight/raid again' in David's time (I Sam 27,30) and even in Hezekiah's time (200-300 years later!, 1 Chr 4.43).

God called for the utter destruction of the Amalekites and Saul claimed he had carried out that order except for sparing Agag and a few choice animals that were to be sacrificed. Nowhere does Samuel, or God, indicate that other Amalekites fled and were not destroyed.

Didn't God notice all the Amalekites that were sneaking away? Also, it didn't take the Amalekites long to build up their numbers so that they were able to attack David's people did it?

Also, I wonder why Moses didn't report in Exodus what Samuel claims to have happened to the Jews that came out of Egypt. Bearing in mind that the Jews were there to dispossess the inhabitants of the land (an invasion) it doesn't seem unreasonable that Amalek should attack them.

Perhaps you think that the Amalekites and the Canaanites should have simply vacated their homes, their cities, their way of life just because Moses says 'Get out'? Perhaps you think they should have gone to Egypt where labourers had become scarce?

Perhaps you believe that modern day Palestinians deserve a similar fate to the Amalekites and the Canaanites?

ISAW wrote: »

There is an obvious pattern here:

The annihilations are judgments.
These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).
Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)
These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.
...
These words group into two categories: dispossession vs destruction. "Dispossession" would include the words like drive out, dispossess, take over possession of, thrust out, send away (33 occurrences). "Destruction" words would include annihilate, destroy, perish, and eliminate (11 occurrences). The Dispossession words would indicate that the population 'ran away'--migrated out of the Land prior to any encounter with the Israelites; Destruction words would indicate the consequences for those who stayed behind.

...
Israel was told to 'drive' the Canaanites out of the Land.
Those Canaanites who refused to leave were to be executed.
The Israelites were NEVER told to hunt the Canaanites down 'throughout the uttermost reaches of the earth' and kill them.
If the Canaanites had migrated to a city in a foreign land, the Israelites could have made a treaty with them.
The main point was to keep the Canaanites from influencing Israel's religious culture, by removing them from the Land (e.g. Deut 20.18).

What this would strongly suggest is that the punishment on the Amorites/Canaanites is NOT extermination but rather total expulsion from the Land!

This is an altogether DIFFERENT issue now--from 'genocide' to 'expulsion from the Land'. And THIS UNDERSTANDING makes perfect sense of a couple of other verses now:

"`Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 "`Everyone who does any of these detestable things -- such persons must be cut off from their people. (Lev 18.24-29; also Lev 20.22)

Notice in verses 28-29, God holds Israel to the same standard--both as a nation (vs.28) and as individuals (vs.29)! He didn't intend to annihilate them (when they later 'went pagan'), but he warned them of 'expulsion from the Land' in the SAME WAY He did the Canaanites! For this comparison to work in the verse, the punishment ("vomit") MUST mean expulsion.

Actually, the obvious pattern is you attaching your own skewed definitions to well defined words.

God regretted making Saul king. Why? Because Saul allowed Agag to live! So Samuel hacked Agag to death.

What were you saying about your merciful God? He couldn't even manage to show Saul, who in his heart was a faithful servant of God, mercy.

ISAW wrote: »

that would be your subjective belief would it? Can you prove it objectively and absolutely true?

Yes.

Sometimes 'good' is 'evil' (sparing Agag was an act of mercy) and sometimes 'evil' is 'good' (hacking children to death was God's will).

Now, is it wrong to hack children to death? Yes or no!

Wh1stler

marienbad wrote: »

And furthermore the house burning down analogy is somewhat similar to the choice given to the captive virgins - marriage and sex versus slavery/ indentured servitude - take your pick . Are those really choices ?

No, they're not. 'Love me or die' does not bring love, it brings fear which is much more effective than either faith or respect. Some may choose to die but none choose to love, they choose to pretend to love and experience sorrow in their heart.

But Hobson's choice is God's M.O. And it seems that most Christians here think that it is good that God desired and ordered that children were to be hacked to pieces. These are the same people that claim that 'good' and 'evil' are objectively set standards. Rape is wrong but murdering children is right.

It's quite sickening really.

Wh1stler

lmaopml wrote: »

evilbible.com is getting a few hits these days.

Perhaps more people are waking up to the fact that Christianity's main selling point is hell and damnation.

Why should Christianity put emphasis on hell at all? It makes a mockery of 'free will'.

Perhaps it is becoming clear that the apocalypse is something to be avoided and not to be strived after.

It is prophecised that the church will be infiltrated by evil. This should cause the church to tighten security but then the prophecy might not be fulfilled so they don't.

To me, that seems a bit like predicting that some prisoners will escape from jail then leaving the gate unlocked in order to be proved correct.

The church is supposed to actively fight evil, not embrace it!

Wh1stler

Oh, and ISAW, God sacrificed His first-born son. Does that mean that human sacrifice is objectively good?

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

You might try and claim that it was not God who sacrificed Jesus but if I give my best lamb over to another for the purpose of sacrifice, then I have sacrificed that lamb. The fact that I didn't wield the knife does not absolve me of my part in the lamb's death.

Remember, God prepared Mary's mother and Mary in order that Jesus would be sacrificed.

When did human-sacrifice become morally reprehesible to God?

philologos

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I was referring to the core of religon, i.e. the Bible in the case of Christianity.

OK, what am I meant to take away from this? - By the by, I don't believe for a second that most people are Biblically literate in a meaningful manner in Ireland and in most other Western countries. Therefore claiming that people are disillusioned by and large by the Bible is absurd. I can show you statistics taken a few years ago both in Northern Ireland & the Republic that show a clear ignorance of Christianity in the general public.

You can't really be disillusioned with what you don't know about. That's why I put it down to institutional disillusionment. Something I by and large agree with.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Or that a Muslim considers the Koran as the word of God for the exact reasons you consider the bible to be the one true religon.

Not at all. Most of my reason for believing in Christianity comes largely down to how reasonable the Biblical text presents human nature, fallen and condemned through sin, and rescued through Jesus on the cross. The Biblical text, clearly presents a different perspective on the matter than the Qur'an does. However, this is a discussion for the Islam forum. I'll speak to Muslims about Islam, and I'll speak to atheists about the unreasonable position that they themselves hold.

Defending Christianity isn't awfully difficult. Like the great preacher Spurgeon said:

Scripture is like a lion. Who ever heard of defending a lion? Just turn it loose; it will defend itself.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Ive read your reply but I still dont feel satisfied that my question has been answered, why is belief so important. I ask again, name a moral or ethical act done by a believer that could not be done by a non believer?

Acknowledging God's existence is important. Moral or ethical acts have nothing to do with it. The point is that we've already done what is clearly wrong. We're already guilty. That's the reason why we need a Saviour. It doesn't particularly matter how many good works you happen to do. We're still in the same problem.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Thats a fair point, however the bible (Mark 16) says:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved", implying that if you are not baptized you wont be saved. Elsewhere it implies you dont need baptism to be saved but this creates confusion as sentences conflict with others elsewhere.

Indeed, what do you think that baptism is? - It's being born again of the Spirit (John 3). Water is an external sign, in and of itself it isn't anything special. What it is signifying is that people have made a decision to die to sin and to live a new life (being born again) by faith in Jesus. This is why one of the criminals at Jesus' side was told that they would be in paradise that very day.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Your comment ("rejection of God") suggests that these people who dont believe in God are completely immoral with no ethics, charity or compassion which may not be the case. These can be people who help the poor, are good parents, ethical, law abiding citizens. They dont steal, or kill etc etc. I would also argue that a person who does a moral or charitable act without a hope of eternal reward (a non believer) is perhaps a more noble person than someone who does a charitable act mainly because they believe they will be rewarded in the next life. Surely some credit would be due here?

Rejection of God is a fundamental denial of how all things came to be as far as Christians are concerned. You clearly don't understand what I've been saying, and indeed you clearly don't understand the Gospel as much as you claim to be disillusioned by it.

Christianity does not say that good works get you to heaven. Pretty much every other world religion does, Christianity unequivocally says that isn't the case:

Ephesians 2:8-10 wrote:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

This is why I would encourage you to look into what God actually has revealed to us before bad mouthing it. It's kind of like doing a book review without knowing the substance of the text.

marienbad wrote: »

I don't think most Christans would agree with you- as far as I know they believe the Christian way is the only way and I venture to say if you don't accept that you are not really a Christian.

Again, as always , I am open to correction, what say you Fanny Craddock Philologos ?

I think that he may be mistaken, but I'm not going to condemn anyone. I would encourage them simply to look more into the Bible.

There's been some other posts I've found strange such as ISAW saying that fundamentalists are the only people who take the Bible seriously. Or rather if you do take the Bible seriously you're a fundamentalist. Most Reformed churches put the Biblical text above the church, and to say that it has authority over it. Does that mean that everyone is a fundamentalist for doing this?

At this point, I'd even accept that title if it means that I take God's word seriously, but this is for the Protestant / Catholic megathread methinks.

tommy2bad

Wh1stler wrote: »

Oh, and ISAW, God sacrificed His first-born son. Does that mean that human sacrifice is objectively good?

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

You might try and claim that it was not God who sacrificed Jesus but if I give my best lamb over to another for the purpose of sacrifice, then I have sacrificed that lamb. The fact that I didn't wield the knife does not absolve me of my part in the lamb's death.

Remember, God prepared Mary's mother and Mary in order that Jesus would be sacrificed.

When did human-sacrifice become morally reprehesible to God?

Who said it did?
I suppose you mean the execution of a living person to appease the gods. It was never acceptable to God. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the bible was written like the Koran, dictated by an angel and written down verbatim. It wasn't, the bible is a collection of books that tell of the Israelites relationship with God over time, a lot of time. It has alot of stuff that they got wrong and stuff that they did right. All of which is recorded so we could learn from it. Not everything that they thought God wanted was what He wanted. But if you read it as it was written, God is apparent in the subtext and the text and all the way through its God who's consistent and man who changes.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

You seem to think, perhaps honestly, perhaps a little dishonestly sometimes Zobrex because you are far from silly - in terms of 'hell' as some artistic impression of it, some physical reality, some physical 'place'?

You seem to not understand that from God's point of view everything is physical.

Perhaps you mean Earthly. I don't consider hell to be an Earthly place (eg under the ground)

lmaopml wrote: »

You seem to lack the ability, or deliberately do so, to understand free will, good, evil, right and wrong, choice and lack of choice - and apart from all of those things, perfect justice and mercy.

I understand all those concepts probably better than most. What you call my lack of ability to understand is in fact simply a lack of willingness to simply accept nonsensical answers because they contain the standard Christian apologetics buzz words. For example ISAW seems to think that merely throwing out the excuse that it is for free will (which seems to be the go to excuse) will be sufficient. It isn't.

Sometimes it seems that there is simply a big wheel that is spun anytime a difficult theological question is put forward on this forum and which every standard Christian apologetics excuse comes up (in this case free will) is trotted out as if it is reasonable and consistent.

lmaopml wrote: »

Or at the very least you reject that good and evil exist in the world - I just wish you would be honest about that, and perhaps we could move on to it's implications and disect Zombrex in the lab too - but you are happy enough to evade it, and evade yourself too, your choice.

I have always been crystal clear about my personal feelings on the idea of objective morality Imaopml, so I'm struggling to see why there would be genuine confusion on your part.

Perhaps if you focused more on trying to think and answer the questions put forward and less time trying to find build up a character assassination of me, this thread would move quicker.

lmaopml wrote: »

You are railing against yourself, certainly not Christianity

No, I'm pretty sure I'm railing against Christianity. Specific points about Christianity Imaopml, points I'm more than happy to detail and points some of you are more than happy to ignore.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Who said it did?

Christianity.

Jesus was a human sacrifice. He was a human personification of the Jewish tradition of sacrificing animals on the altar to appease God.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Christianity.

Jesus was a human sacrifice. He was a human personification of the Jewish tradition of sacrificing animals on the altar to appease God.

sorry, you misunderstand, I meant that sacrifice is not repugnant to God.
It's the understanding of sacrifice thats important and seeing it as merely the destruction of something is not correct.

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

sorry, you misunderstand, I meant that sacrifice is not repugnant to God.
It's the understanding of sacrifice thats important and seeing it as merely the destruction of something is not correct.

"Dear God, if you do exist then please inform tommy2bad that human sacrifice has done absolutely nothing to appease you and is an act of barbarism that has done nothing to advance the human species in your eyes. Amen"

Tommy, religion-sanctioned murder has never affected the weather; it has never stopped a tsunami, an earthquake or a volcano. And sacrificing a hundred Messiahs will do nothing to alter the trajectory of an asteroid that is bound for earth.

All that human-sacrifice ever achieved was to put fear into the hearts of men and power into the hands of priests.

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

Who said it did?
I suppose you mean the execution of a living person to appease the gods. It was never acceptable to God.

Tell that to the Canaanites, the Amalekites, the Amorites....

Not executing people in the name of God has apparenty brought the wrath of God upon Israel much more than the hacking to death of innocent children ever did.