Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

tommy2bad

Soul Winner wrote: »

No obviously not. If she is actually having an affair then being jealous is understandable but killing her over it is wrong.

How is it wrong "Deuteronomy 22:22" or is this wrong?

Soul Winner

tommy2bad wrote: »

So God recognizes the property rights of the man and not the innate rights of the woman.

What rights has anyone got in a world where survival is the most importing thing?

To hell with him!

Oh, temper temper...

tommy2bad

Soul Winner wrote: »

What rights has anyone got in a world where survival is the most importing thing?

The rights you can enforce and defend.

Oh, temper temper...

Hey I'm not the one doing the smiting

Soul Winner

tommy2bad wrote: »

How is it wrong "Deuteronomy 22:22" or is this wrong?

John 8:7

tommy2bad

Suspended sentence then!




Night folks tbc

Soul Winner

tommy2bad wrote: »

The rights you can enforce and defend

OK what would they be in a world where survival is the most important thing?

Soul Winner

tommy2bad wrote: »

Suspended sentence then!

No, the point is that only God can judge and execute judgment. But He chooses mercy and forgiveness and freely gives them to anyone who will accept them.

lmaopml

Cheers PDN for some really good insights - sent me off searching and clarifying my understanding, so thankyou! Will spend many hours looking at this...which I always meant to do...but you've provided an excellent insight..

I'm not 100% sure always how to interpret such things, but as someone who is not a biblical scholar, but a non-biased tryer, I would imagine that it's quite plainly ridiculous to try to assume anything from snippets of the OT here and there and try to assign an agenda to God - One 'must' look at the full story from beginning to end to see the fuller picture...All the covenants, all the growth and our constant companion who became one of us in the final convenant...

Yes, from a human perspective it looks like God is a 'big baddy' in some instances, and arguements happen, ( they did then too, and Moses dealt with the people through 'laws' accordingly ) but a deeper consideration of theology reveals that God's mercy and justice are infinitely higher in love and freedom to love and err than mans' reason can guess over the course of time, and we cannot really water it's ferocity down into some nicey nicey today approach to all things everywhere....since 'everywhere' is still less than perfect - and most Christians don't claim to have reached perfection either, but at least some of them have applied themselves to understanding Scripture, the way it's meant to be understood, and not in a naive way.

Eramen

Simtech wrote: »

Except by God I presume.



I don't know tbh. I've just listened to the first of the lectures recommended by Fanny Cradock here and I shall listen to the rest. I know my father has a bible so I'll get that. I'll give it a fair chance. I will also read Richard Dawkins for the alternative viewpoint and I'll see where I stand. Watching The God Delusion Debate now.

I think believing would be easier than not tbh, in a way I wish I did but so far I've not been able to. I have to decide though, what to teach my two daughters (6 & 1) and I'd like to get it right.

It's fantastic to hear stories like this. I admire those who are willing to delve further into this topic, looking at all sides as to the precise nature of reality, knowledge, and the personality of spirit - rather than simply looking at the surface for hollow answers.

I would advocate looking beyond the normal 'options' though, because while I sincerely respect most Christians/religious and most atheists who know how to conduct themselves and who believe they have a common interest, and so can unite on serious issues, I do have reservations about each outlook.

I believe that science (and I say 'science' because most atheists rest their world-view on this mighty instrument) is great for measuring the physical properties of substances, of understanding the mechanisms of the universe and world, yet I do believe it is quite limited when we come to look at everything beyond this, into anything of an intellectual, psychological and 'immaterial' nature. The former can be said to be perception, while the latter may be counted as the intelligible.

I do not equate the universe and its workings - even understanding the universe - with epistemology in the proper sense and with the ultimate reality. I believe these can be only defined with the intellect, as even science is defined by this and not with data and measurements alone. A thing only becomes knowledge, or understood, when processed by the human mind. Thus opinions and perceptions might become intelligible in the form of ideas and theories. Most scientists today, as well as some atheists, seem happy enough to make comments about the world we live in, in the vast majority of fields, without reference to ideas or higher understanding.

Mere collections of information suffices as evidence for a scientific opinion, though little more. Absolute ideas and therefore, that ultimate reality, seem to be out of reach for now in their case. Don't get me wrong, science is wonderful! It can tell me a great many things bout astronomy and physics which I love so much. But it just cannot explain the things I need to know of a higher order, things beyond perception.

At the same time I cannot believe in the personal God of modern Christianity. I do not believe in an anthropomorphic god, or one which wills things into being, good or bad, or one that has certain intents, plans or failures. This would not befit it's (God's) absolute nature and could never be the origin of the universal forms (truth, justice, beauty, even friendship in a way, as examples) as they could not exist without arriving from anything other but an infinite source. The Christian God of today is a personal God, not impersonal; it was not always this way.

Lastly I must point out that science and religion deal with different spheres of understanding, one with practical working and knowledge, the other with community, self-ordering and higher devotions. They never were at odds. There has barely been ever a greater fallacy. The religious, the atheist, they have more in common in truth than differences. Even on the level of their metaphysical ideas! Onward!


"The only representative of God on earth is the soul." - Meister Eckhart

"The ancient theologists knew that we could form no positive idea of infinity, whether of power, space, or time; it being fleeting and fugitive, and eluding the understanding by a continued and boundless progression. The only notion we have of it is from the addition or division of finite things, which suggest the idea of infinite, only from a power we feel in ourselves of still multiplying and dividing without end." - Sir Richard Payne Knight


Anyhow, some videos that might interest you in your explorations, one of which is closer to what I would interpret absolute reality to be:

Wishing you the very best!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyRj3elXpC4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odK4hnGIRMM

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

I'm saying that we disagree as to how we weigh up the evidence. You say you don't give a toss that I see things differently to you - and I certainly won't lose any sleep because some atheist on the internet prefers his exegesis of Scripture to mine. So we're both happy - yes?

doesnt seem that way to me.
Seems he is claiming that ther is a burden of proof on you to prove a negative - a double fallacy. At the same time he asserts Moses or God condoned rape or at least slavery and/or mistreatment of women. Of course if that is just an unsupported opinion all he has to do is say so.

Soul Winner

Eramen wrote: »

Anyhow, some videos that might interest you in your explorations, one of which is closer to what I would interpret absolute reality to be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyRj3elXpC4

Very interesting vid. If I wasn't a believer I probably take that view too. But I am a believer and the reasons why I believe do not fall into the general characterizations that this guy seems to think. Maybe to be open to belief one probably uses more of the right side of the brain than someone who is not open to it, but in order to check to see if one is correct about what one happens to be open to then one must use the left side i.e. reason and logic and scrutinizing of the available evidence and so forth to make a case for said belief that one happens to be open to. So as interesting as I found this clip to be I think he kind of falls at the first hurdle in his synopsis. He should get more acquainted with the religions of the world and find out why people believe what they believe and incorporate all views before drawing conclusions which as far as I can tell are just stereotypical generalizations at the moment. I recommend Huston Smith's (A Buddhist) book: 'The world's Religions'. Interesting vid though.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

No obviously not. If she is actually having an affair then being jealous is understandable but killing her over it is wrong.

Obviously to whom? Adultery was punishable by death in the Old Testament.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, not at all. What I've said is that there are two possible interpretations, and in my opinion the evidence favours one rather than the other. Since I am not attempting to contradict your interpretation, but am content to allow it as a possible alternative, there is no onus on me to proof anything to you.

That's fine if you don't give a hoot. I don't give a hoot that you choose to pick a different interpretation. So long as neither of us is trying to build some kind of an argument or a point that assumes that your interpretation is correct and that the other interpretation is somehow invalid.


That's not not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we disagree as to how we weigh up the evidence. You say you don't give a toss that I see things differently to you - and I certainly won't lose any sleep because some atheist on the internet prefers his exegesis of Scripture to mine. So we're both happy - yes?

If that is the case then yes we are both happy, though I was trying to build some kind of an argument or a point that assumes that my interpretation is correct. You are of course free to reject that argument as you see fit.

Soul Winner

Zombrex wrote: »

Obviously to whom? Adultery was punishable by death in the Old Testament.

Yes but who decreed the punishment? God or man? If God, then His warning to His people was not to commit adultery. Wouldn't you agree that a world where there is no adultery would be better than a world filled with it? Any man in the Old Testament who carried out this command from God but wasn't perfect in carrying out all the other commands from God was a hypocrite because as much as his wife was to be put to death for her sin he knew that he also was as worthy of death as her because God's word also says that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Only a perfectly moral being has the right to execute judgment. So for God to kill someone for sinning would be for Him to act in accordance with what He has already spoken, making Him faithful to His Word. That He hasn't wiped us all out already reveals His grace, that He died to pay the price for our short fallen (sinful) condition reveals both His love and His justice in the same act.

tommy2bad

I'm not 100% sure always how to interpret such things,

What you're not sure if rape or genocide is wrong?

So for God to kill someone for sinning would be for Him to act in accordance with what He has already spoken, making Him faithful to His Word.

Asuming that something is right because God dose it, rather than God doing doing it because it's right.

You have all been very patient, I know we contrairians can try the patience of a saint but I'll give one more shot at explaining my POV and offering another option.
PDN you admit that the seeming approval of genocide is troubling, because the bible says this is what happened and so God must have had some reason for it that you can't figure. What if it wasn't God? what if it was someone claiming God said this?
Gods nature is at stake here, not the existence of God as Zombrex would claim.
I don't believe in a God who commits genocide or condones murder or rape. If He dose any of those things or ever did then I oppose him. Don't bother telling me it pointless God will win, thats not the point. We either stand for 'right' or we don't. Being on the winning side is not an excuse for atrocities. Oh and I wouldn't bet the house on that god winning, as I see it if he needs to do those things he's a creature that operates from fear and someone who fears has vulnerabilities TBH I fancy my chances.

I follow a God that knows no fear, that operates from love and that dose not require revenge. I follow a God that challenges my fear and calls me to be like Him.
I don't need to justify God condoning rape or murder or state execution or genocide or any other nasty stuff because HE NEVER DID ANY OF THAT. That was us, mankind! a nasty, petty, greedy, selfish creature. One who will claim God on our side when we need to excuse our dirty deeds.
Can you understand where I'm coming from here? or is it a step too far from orthodoxy to consider?

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

I follow a God that knows no fear, that operates from love and that dose not require revenge. I follow a God that challenges my fear and calls me to be like Him.
I don't need to justify God condoning rape or murder or state execution or genocide or any other nasty stuff because HE NEVER DID ANY OF THAT. That was us, mankind! a nasty, petty, greedy, selfish creature. One who will claim God on our side when we need to excuse our dirty deeds.
Can you understand where I'm coming from here? or is it a step too far from orthodoxy to consider?

I understand exactly where you are coming from. Like me, you struggle to understand or accept some things about God as revealed in His objective revelation of Himself (the Bible).

Therefore you substitute a different God whose characteristics are determined by what you would like Him to be.

This would be akin to a little child, who hates getting injections, who chooses to believe that their parents didn't really take them to the doctor to get their inoculations. Therefore they choose to believe that it was really a pair of evil dopplegangers who replaced their parents for a day, or maybe that the whole injection incident was actually a bad dream.

The problem, of course, is that the child has a limited understanding of what is good or bad, and cannot accept that people who they know love them (ie their parents) have a greater understanding and will not always conform to a childish notion that says injections=bad.

tommy2bad

No I am rejecting the presumption that the bible is the inspired word of God.
If medicinal genocide is part of Gods plan again to hell with him.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes but who decreed the punishment?

God. Which makes it objectively correct, does it not?

You said it is understandable to be jealous but obviously wrong to kill her over it. Which is in itself wrong. It is correct to kill her, she has committed adultery. It is also correct to drag her in front of of test if you are jealous to find out if she committed adultery in the first place.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I understand exactly where you are coming from. Like me, you struggle to understand or accept some things about God as revealed in His objective revelation of Himself (the Bible).

Therefore you substitute a different God whose characteristics are determined by what you would like Him to be.

This would be akin to a little child, who hates getting injections, who chooses to believe that their parents didn't really take them to the doctor to get their inoculations. Therefore they choose to believe that it was really a pair of evil dopplegangers who replaced their parents for a day, or maybe that the whole injection incident was actually a bad dream.

The problem, of course, is that the child has a limited understanding of what is good or bad, and cannot accept that people who they know love them (ie their parents) have a greater understanding and will not always conform to a childish notion that says injections=bad.

That analogy is a little off because there is an intermediary (mankind) that isn't in your story of the parents taking him to the doctor.

What tommy2bad is saying is that he doesn't believe the Israelites were actually commanded by God to do any of these things. This does require a rejection of the Old Testament as a book of God, but doesn't require a substation of God based on any of the other ways tommy2bad thinks he knows God (after all why do you think the God you experience day to day in the God of the Old Testament in the first place).

Using your childhood analogy, a closer one would be a child being picked up by a stranger who says that he is a friend of his parents and his parents have come and told him to pick him up.

The stranger picks him up and then takes him back and abuses him. The child instinctively knows that what the stranger is doing is wrong, and concludes too late as it turns out, that the stranger was not in fact sent by his parents, that this was just an excuse to get the child to come with him.

This doesn't require a substitution of his parents, just a rejection of what the stranger said about his parents.

Soul Winner

Zombrex wrote: »

God. Which makes it objectively correct, does it not?

If He exists then yes, of course.

You said it is understandable to be jealous but obviously wrong to kill her over it. Which is in itself wrong.

Adultery is sin and God commanded that adulterers be killed, but He also said that for sin comes death which means that everyone should be killed. God is speaking in accordance with His word, but the man who carries out the killing even though He got the command from God and is only carrying out His moral obligations under the moral lawgiver would be better off abstaining from the executing this judgment because he knows that he is as much an sinner as his wife. In the Old Testament it was the deed that was considered sinful. But Jesus in the New Testament said that even if we think the thought then we are as guilty of the the one who commits the deed. That would mean that anyone carrying out God's judgement commands on another while ignoring their own short falling is a hypocrite and that what is wrong. God's judgment of death to anyone who falls short of the perfect standard is how He decided it was going to be. He is not going to seek advice from you or I asking us to approve of this.

It is correct to kill her, she has committed adultery. It is also correct to drag her in front of of test if you are jealous to find out if she committed adultery in the first place.

Here's the verse lest we start getting carried away with ourselves:

"If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel." Deut 22:22

The verse in question refers to the wife being actually caught in the act of adultery. The punishment is not based upon whether the husband is suspicious or not. She would have to be actually caught in the very act.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

If that is the case then yes we are both happy, though I was trying to build some kind of an argument or a point that assumes that my interpretation is correct. You are of course free to reject that argument as you see fit.

ISAW wrote: »

if that is just an unsupported opinion all he has to do is say so.

oops! So it isn't a case of just an unsupported opinion. It assumes the interpretation is corret but the assumption is not admitted to be unsupported

Mistress 69

Soul Winner wrote: »

Here's the verse lest we start getting carried away with ourselves:

"If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel." Deut 22:22

The verse in question refers to the wife being actually caught in the act of adultery. The punishment is not based upon whether the husband is suspicious or not. She would have to be actually caught in the very act.

I have obviously not read all the posts on this thread as it is very long, but there is a sort of Dead On sameness with a recent thread in the A&A forum attempting to justify violence against women. Again similar powers to do so are granted in a different book.

Soul Winner

Mistress 69 wrote: »

I have obviously not read all the posts on this thread as it is very long, but there is a sort of Dead On sameness with a recent thread in the A&A forum attempting to justify violence against women. Again similar powers to do so are granted in a different book.

Nobody is attempting to justify violence against women here, if you had read a bit more than my last post you would have seen that. I would recommend that you read back through the last 5 or 6 pages at least of this thread to get the gist of what we are talking about here before jumping in too hastily and comparing this thread to the one in the A&A forum.

Eramen

Soul Winner wrote: »

Very interesting vid. If I wasn't a believer I probably take that view too. But I am a believer and the reasons why I believe do not fall into the general characterizations that this guy seems to think. Maybe to be open to belief one probably uses more of the right side of the brain than someone who is not open to it, but in order to check to see if one is correct about what one happens to be open to then one must use the left side i.e. reason and logic and scrutinizing of the available evidence and so forth to make a case for said belief that one happens to be open to. So as interesting as I found this clip to be I think he kind of falls at the first hurdle in his synopsis. He should get more acquainted with the religions of the world and find out why people believe what they believe and incorporate all views before drawing conclusions which as far as I can tell are just stereotypical generalizations at the moment. I recommend Huston Smith's (A Buddhist) book: 'The world's Religions'. Interesting vid though.

I agree with your analysis of the video in some ways, he was a little superficial and stereotypical in his review of theism, while his critique of atheism was far more solid and applicable to our situation nowadays.

I guess the religious organisations he is talking about are the usual 'Christian' sects in N. America and other places, Wahhabist Islam in Saudi Arabia, and some others which are the antithesis in many areas of their supposed religious outlook. I don't think he was critical of religion in itself, but implied a concern at select religious-bodies of their practical structure in the fulfilment of their tenets.

Also, thank you for the book recommendation, I'm very much interested in traditional (authentic) religion and world religion in general, and I have an affinity with Christians as a whole, especially with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. I find they are level minded in the majority and I can certainly agree with their views on Jesus Christ of being the instructor and activist in a beneficial moral revaluation and a supreme selflessness. He is worthy of being 'the Son of God' purely by the strength of his will and conviction alone. May his selflessness, intellectual sovereignty and active devotions inspire both Christians, atheists and others for a long time yet to come.

tommy2bad

Soul Winner wrote: »

John 8:7

OK this is a famous seen from the NT.
the joke version lets us know that it may be the most quoted text ever.
Its a cop out.
Come on an equality of sins, all sins are the same ?
If I ever thought ill of anyone then I no longer get to judge if murder is evil?
Nonsense.
God decides we all must die but He forgives us? Only one penalty, Death.?
Give me a break. What are we guilty of?
Later we have PDN struggle because he would rather believe God commits genocide than that people, who by the way have form here, could do it all on their own and blame someone else.
TBH the more I see of Christians the more I like my atheist to paraphrase someone or other.

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

TBH the more I see of Christians the more I like my atheist to paraphrase someone or other.

It's a misquote from a famous historical figure who organised a huge protest in South Africa, demanding that Indians should have separate entrances to public buildings from those used by blacks.

who by the way have form here

Could you help the mods by explaining how that has a meaning that isn't anti-semitic? Thanks.

Soul Winner

tommy2bad wrote: »

OK this is a famous seen from the NT.
the joke version lets us know that it may be the most quoted text ever.
Its a cop out.

One man's cop out is another man's answer to a question. Just because you don't like the answer does not make the answer a cop out answer. It was a valid and scriptural answer.

Come on an equality of sins, all sins are the same ?

You're thinking of sinful deeds where as I was talking about the condition of sin. The sinful deeds are merely the fruits of the condition, think of sin as a desease. Some bare more fruit than others but all are contaminated with the same disease, and as such everyone is in need of the same cure.

If I ever thought ill of anyone then I no longer get to judge if murder is evil?
Nonsense.

Not sure how you read that into what I said. Of course you can judge murder as evil you just don't have the right to judge it as though you are not guilty of it and on Jesus' words if you hate in your heart then you are as guilty as the murderer. Now tell us you never hated anyone in your heart.

God decides we all must die but He forgives us? Only one penalty, Death.?
Give me a break. What are we guilty of?

You don't necessarily need to be guilty of anything, even though I'm sure everyone is, but even if you're not you still need the cure because you still have the disease. If you don't accept that you have this disease then the blood of Jesus will obviously mean nothing to you. Fair enough.

TBH the more I see of Christians the more I like my atheist to paraphrase someone or other.

I haven't a clue what that means, can you elaborate please?

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

It's a misquote from a famous historical figure who organised a huge protest in South Africa, demanding that Indians should have separate entrances to public buildings from those used by blacks.

Mark Twain? or Seneca? What are you on?
Could you help the mods by explaining how that has a meaning that isn't anti-semitic? Thanks.

Could you help me understand how in the name of God you get antisemitism from that?

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

Could you help me understand how in the name of God you get antisemitism from that?

I would prefer it if you would explain what it means rather than us having to play guessing games.

tommy2bad

Soul Winner wrote: »

One man's cop out is another man's answer to a question. Just because you don't like the answer does not make the answer a cop out answer. It was a valid and scriptural answer.

It is but it asumes that we are all guilty

You're thinking of sinful deeds where as I was talking about the condition of sin. The sinful deeds are merely the fruits of the condition, think of sin as a desease. Some bare more fruit than others but all are contaminated with the same disease, and as such everyone is in need of the same cure.

OK I'll buy that

Not sure how you read that into what I said. Of course you can judge murder as evil you just don't have the right to judge it as though you are not guilty of it and on Jesus' words if you hate in your heart then you are as guilty as the murderer. Now tell us you never hated anyone in your heart.

back to all sin is equal

You don't necessarily need to be guilty of anything, even though I'm sure everyone is, but even if you're not you still need the cure because you still have the disease. If you don't accept that you have this disease then the blood of Jesus will obviously mean nothing to you. Fair enough.

Except that a disease kills whereas your original assertion which provoked my response was that God kills

I haven't a clue what that means, can you elaborate please?

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070218115250AA6lsBM