Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

Gods nature is at stake here, not the existence of God as Zombrex would claim.

Then possibly that's a discussion that could be carried on between theists in a less confrontational arena than an Atheist/Christian debate thread?

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

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

What it means is that in the game of genocide God -nil People -loads.
If we are talking about god or people and btw Israelites are people too, not some special case, then I put my money on people doing it.

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

Then possibly that's a discussion that could be carried on between theists in a less confrontational arena than an Atheist/Christian debate thread?

But it's pertinent here because a lot of what puts people off God is the portrait we paint of Him.

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

But it's pertinent here because a lot of what puts people off God is the portrait we paint of Him.

But it does prevent a reasonable discussion, since it's liable to turn into a troll fest.

Anyway, another day and another thread and I for one would be happy to discuss this with you further.

ISAW

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.

You remind me of this discussion where the moral relativists dived for cover.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68214921&postcount=114

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

What it means is that in the game of genocide God -nil People -loads.
If we are talking about god or people and btw Israelites are people too, not some special case, then I put my money on people doing it.

I think it's very difficult to learn a whole lot in an internet discussion with so much noise around, but not impossible I'm sure...

Tommy, I've often had the same queries, questions, so yours aren't unusual - and I am a curious sort, so I like to learn too...or to understand a little more.

I am coming at it from a believers perspective though, that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same and always have been throughout..with each Covenant came a gift, a challenge and a way and a law for to seek justice among the unjust.

If you read Matthew in the NT, he expands on old Testament Law....He expands on our understanding of God too, and the Law - He doesn't make it easier, he doesn't give God a new personality, he continues the narrative of our relationship that grows throughout the covenants. It's beautifully consistent.

That's the most important thing. God is both mercy and justice, and understand our wily ways better than we know them ourselves, he knew them first, the beginning and end of everything, you, me, them everybody - but his patience obviously knows no bounds with us, because we keep on turning away from what is good and what is revealed, what he gave in each Covenant.

I think that's why in the ultimate Covenant in Christianity that a sin against the Holy Spirit is the one thing that God will not forgive - he came, he lived, he died and was buried, he rose again, he gave a testimony...he clarified very many things...

'You have heard it said; but I say to you......'

How fabulous!

Hope you learn lots Tommy, there are veritable hives of information, and things to sink your teeth into - I think it goes well to pray too for to increase the gifts of the Holy Spirit within for understanding. There are seven of them....we should always pray first.

Simtech

lmaopml wrote: »

I think it goes well to pray too for to increase the gifts of the Holy Spirit within for understanding. There are seven of them....we should always pray first.

I'm not sure I believe but I don't see that prayer of itself could be a bad thing to attempt to do, if only to see if there might be something forthcoming that could be classed as an answer of any kind.

What are the seven things?

lmaopml

Simtech wrote: »

I'm not sure I believe but I don't see that prayer of itself could be a bad thing to attempt to do, if only to see if there might be something forthcoming that could be classed as an answer of any kind.

What are the seven things?

1/ Wisdom.

2/ Understanding.

3/ Counsel.

4/ Fortitude.

5/ Knowledge.

6/ Piety.

and, inline with the topic....that is the seed of motivation, understanding, seeking and trust...

7/ Fear of the Lord.

Simtech

lmaopml wrote: »

1/ Wisdom.

2/ Understanding.

3/ Counsel.

4/ Fortitude.

5/ Knowledge.

6/ Piety.

and, inline with the topic....that is the seed of motivation, understanding, seeking and trust...

7/ Fear of the Lord.

I'm absolutely fine with the first five. I can get on my knees to pray, which is my understanding of the sixth, please correct me if I am wrong.
It's number seven that worries me. In a way I can conceptualise it thus; if I am afraid in a given situation where I am in danger, then the fear which allows me to act to save myself (fight or flight instinct) can be a good thing. I baulk at the idea that I should in any other way, fear Him who is said to love me, such as in the way that a child, I believe, should ideally never fear their parent.
If this infers that I should fear His wrath, then it's there that I run into problems. I think many find this problematic.
If this is the case, then is it wrong to pray for only the first six? Would such a prayer be counterproductive?

lmaopml

Simtech wrote: »

I'm absolutely fine with the first five. I can get on my knees to pray, which is my understanding of the sixth, please correct me if I am wrong.
It's number seven that worries me. In a way I can conceptualise it thus; if I am afraid in a given situation where I am in danger, then the fear which allows me to act to save myself (fight or flight instinct) can be a good thing. I baulk at the idea that I should in any other way, fear Him who is said to love me, such as in the way that a child, I believe, should ideally never fear their parent.
If this infers that I should fear His wrath, then it's there that I run into problems. I think many find this problematic.
If this is the case, then is it wrong to pray for only the first six? Would such a prayer be counterproductive?

No! Fear of the Lord, is the beginning of understanding; how he knows you better than you know yourself. It's the beginning of the 'Word'...and all it contains...the I AM - statement. I think the only problematic thing, for an unbeliever or seeker, is overcoming the message of mercy, and that of balancing 'fear' and justice extended to everybody...even one person...

The seventh gift is not meant to incite 'fear' always, but what grows from it...like a parent and a ruly child..The Scriptures are very consistent in this regard.

There is nobody else who will ever judge you more perfectly than God - I personally think, this is rather a sound thing; since our justice is only a shadow, and everybody will kneel one day before the person who created our freedom in the first place to choose anything...

I would rather one who knows every hair on my head and counted me among the many...than one who never knew my motives at all. - He knows all things - both good and bad, every natural instinct, everything.

Personally, I think the Spirit will strengthen the gift you need at any given time, and the one you ask for too. Prayer is our communion. It's our 'Conversation' with God.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

If He exists then yes, of course.



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.

I've no idea what you think any of that has to do with anything?

You said he wouldn't rape his wife because God commanded him to love her. Well wouldn't that also involve no killing her for adultery, or dragging her up in front of a test every time he gets jealous and thinks she is sleeping around, two things God commands the Israelite men to do with their women folk.

Rape when put in this context seems no worse than anything else God commanded the men to do to their wives.

Soul Winner wrote: »

"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.

No, the test with the poison water is based on whether he is suspicious or not.

Fanny Cradock

Simtech wrote: »

I'm absolutely fine with the first five. I can get on my knees to pray, which is my understanding of the sixth, please correct me if I am wrong.
It's number seven that worries me. In a way I can conceptualise it thus; if I am afraid in a given situation where I am in danger, then the fear which allows me to act to save myself (fight or flight instinct) can be a good thing. I baulk at the idea that I should in any other way, fear Him who is said to love me, such as in the way that a child, I believe, should ideally never fear their parent.
If this infers that I should fear His wrath, then it's there that I run into problems. I think many find this problematic.
If this is the case, then is it wrong to pray for only the first six? Would such a prayer be counterproductive?

We addressed this topic some time back. See here for my brief contribution. (More here)

Many years back I had the interesting experience of visiting a power plant. We were lead through the plant, past pipes and cables and machines that hummed quietly. The tour culminated in a trip to one of the most interesting structures we visited that day. It was also the most dangerous - a warehouse that housed the pylons for the main grid. An exclusion zone ran around the perimeter of the inside of the warehouse because electricity can arc given the slightest encouragement. The air was electric and thick with ozone. Power fizzed and cracked and danced around each pylon. It was a frightening experience to be separated from such a force of nature by only a matter of meters. It was also, in some deep fashion, a humbling experience - one that I remember well to this day.

Now this little story just so happens to have some immediate flaws when it comes to drawing an analogy. Firstly, electricity isn't an intentional being like you, me or God. Secondly, God isn't an unpredictable and amoral force of nature that should be contained somehow.

My intention in telling the story is to illustrate the fear one naturally has in the face of such vast and enveloping power. And in the case of God what can be more powerful than the ultimate power? Indeed, those few who did meet God in the OT described it as a terrifying experience. I suspect that this was because something of the nature of their own sin was revealed to them when juxtaposed against God's holiness. Perfection standing over against imperfection. If you listen to this talk by the fascinating Mary Poplin she shares a very relevant personal experience she had. (Hope it's the right talk.)

Fear in this regard isn't the fear of a bully God. It is awe and due deference in the face of God. It is also a recognition that we have already fallen short of the Glory of God and that we spend our lives actively opposing him o some level. We aren't, in other words, bystanders who occasionally do the occasional naughty thing; sin separates us from God and makes us act against him as his enemies. Happily we have the cross. (I would recommend Simply Christian and Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright and The Cross of Christ by John Stott for more about the significance of the cross)

Finally, I respectfully challenge the notion that fear is absent in a child with respect to her father - at least when fear is defined as above. Fear in this respect is not just the realisation the father is stronger, smarter or whatever. It is the respect given to the moral authority the father has when he says "don't do X to your brother". I think it is quite common for adults to admit that they were in awe and fear of their loving parent as children.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

The child instinctively knows that what the stranger is doing is wrong,

For a relativist it is ironic how you rely on absolutes like "instinct" to replace morality in your metaphorical dialogues.

Simtech

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My intention in telling the story is to illustrate the fear one naturally has in the face of such vast and enveloping power. And in the case of God what can be more powerful than the ultimate power? Indeed, those few who did meet God in the OT described it as a terrifying experience. I suspect that this was because something of the nature of their own sin was revealed to them when juxtaposed against God's holiness. Perfection standing over against imperfection.

Fear in this regard isn't the fear of a bully God. It is awe and due deference in the face of God. It is also a recognition that we have already fallen short of the Glory of God and that we spend our lives actively opposing him o some level.

Finally, I respectfully challenge the notion that fear is absent in a child with respect to her father - at least when fear is defined as above. Fear in this respect is not just the realisation the father is stronger, smarter or whatever. It is the respect given to the moral authority the father has when he says "don't do X to your brother". I think it is quite common for adults to admit that they were in awe and fear of their loving parent as children.

I can accept that. I can imagine being scared witless at the sudden appearance of God and the realisation of what that meant and I'm sure my girls occasionally fear the one with the booming voice.

Simtech

lmaopml wrote: »

Personally, I think the Spirit will strengthen the gift you need at any given time, and the one you ask for too. Prayer is our communion. It's our 'Conversation' with God.

So I've begun my end of the conversation. It will be interesting to see if it goes both ways. I try to keep an open mind.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

For a relativist it is ironic how you rely on absolutes like "instinct" to replace morality in your metaphorical dialogues.

What?

Since when is biological instinct an 'absolute'?

recedite

Soul Winner wrote: »

But everyone agrees that raping women is wrong no matter what way you want to justify it in the world we actually live in, which means that there are things that are objectively wrong, which entails that there must be a God, because if there was no God then there are only subjective rights and wrongs as you quite rightly described.

That's a non sequiteur. Right and wrong can exist without any gods.
Also, we tend to measure things at a local level; the level of the family or tribal group, ie subjectively. At that level rape is "wrong" because it imposes suffering on you or your sister/ daughter etc. Now supposing some "superman-rapist" had peculiar qualities (for example an extraordinary disease resistance) and was improving the human race by bestowing his superior genes on as many (reluctant) females as possible. It's still "wrong" at the subjective level we humans operate at, even though it may enhance the survivability of the species as a whole, in a purely Darwinian sense.
Most theists fail to grasp this concept; mistakenly thinking that Darwinian natural selection = amorality= atheism.

Soul Winner wrote: »

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.

Very dangerous words IMO. Its one small step for someone to "purify" themselves using some religious ritual, and then they are free to become a righteous killer or a suicide bomber.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Many years back I had the interesting experience of visiting a power plant...It was a frightening experience to be separated from such a force of nature by only a matter of meters. It was also, in some deep fashion, a humbling experience - one that I remember well to this day.

Good anecdote. Electromagnetic forces are the forces at the very heart of the universe, but those technicians working at the power plant are not afraid because they understand enough to do their job. Respect; yes. Fear; no.

I think it is quite common for adults to admit that they were in awe and fear of their loving parent as children.

Yes, but the god or gods who decided to wipe out an entire civilisation in the accounts of "the flood" starring Noah and/or Utnapishtim were in a whole different league.

lmaopml

recedite wrote: »

That's a non sequiteur. Right and wrong can exist without any gods.
Also, we tend to measure things at a local level; the level of the family or tribal group, ie subjectively. At that level rape is "wrong" because it imposes suffering on you or your sister/ daughter etc. Now supposing some "superman-rapist" had peculiar qualities (for example an extraordinary disease resistance) and was improving the human race by bestowing his superior genes on as many (reluctant) females as possible. It's still "wrong" at the subjective level we humans operate at, even though it may enhance the survivability of the species as a whole, in a purely Darwinian sense.
Most theists fail to grasp this concept; mistakenly thinking that Darwinian natural selection = amorality= atheism.

What? It's either right or wrong recedite - unfortunately people tend to de-humanise others and see the 'spoils of war' nothing new there....What Moses proposes is the opposit of this, it's to see the vulnerable as just that...vulnerable and he passes laws to deal with the people of that particular time and age...think twice before you decide to dehumanise somebody..

Very dangerous words IMO. Its one small step for someone to "purify" themselves using some religious ritual, and then they are free to become a righteous killer or a suicide bomber.

Thou shalt not kill. This is one law of the the Christian God, not to be mixed up with kamikaze thinking.

Good anecdote. Electromagnetic forces are the forces at the very heart of the universe, but those technicians working at the power plant are not afraid because they understand enough to do their job. Respect; yes. Fear; no.
Yes, but the god or gods who decided to wipe out an entire civilisation in the accounts of "the flood" starring Noah and/or Utnapishtim were in a whole different league.

Yes. A whole different league...the only league worth trying to understand, considering he does want you to live in 'this' world and not suppose yourself beyond it, and to turn the other cheek, love your enemy etc. etc.

A totally different league.

tommy2bad

Thou shalt not kill. This is one law of the the Christian God, not to be mixed up with kamikaze thinking.

And in fairness it the one we never break unlike the 9 others we at least keep that one, well apart from judicial killing but thats not killing really, oh and in war, and self defense and well apart from all them times we do at least keep the 5th. Yeah I know but its fifth in our book OK.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

And in fairness it the one we never break unlike the 9 others we at least keep that one, well apart from judicial killing but thats not killing really, oh and in war, and self defense and well apart from all them times we do at least keep the 5th. Yeah I know but its fifth in our book OK.

Hmm, I don't think anybody is perfect Tommy - We just set our foot on a path as such..

Scripture deals with obeying the law givers of any given age...and requires us to live within the law as such - 'Render onto Ceaser that which is Ceasers, render onto God that which is Gods..'

tommy2bad

Render onto Ceaser that which is Ceasers, render onto God that which is Gods..

Convenient for Ceaser that

Fanny Cradock

recedite wrote: »

Good anecdote. Electromagnetic forces are the forces at the very heart of the universe, but those technicians working at the power plant are not afraid because they understand enough to do their job. Respect; yes. Fear; no.
.

Considering I never mentioned the technicians I'm unsure what your point is. Could you explain?

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

What Moses proposes is the opposit of this, it's to see the vulnerable as just that...vulnerable

What planet are you living on?

Numbers 31
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Explain to me how Moses is seeing the vulnerable as "just that, vulnerable"?

lmaopml wrote: »

Thou shalt not kill. This is one law of the the Christian God, not to be mixed up with kamikaze thinking.

The law is thou shalt not murder (illegally or immorally kill). The Israelites killed all the time, with full blessing of their (your) god.

Lucy8080

moses supposes his toeses are roses but moses supposes erroneously

but moses he knowses his toeses arent roses as moses supposes his toeses to be!

Ciaran0

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Considering I never mentioned the technicians I'm unsure what your point is. Could you explain?

He talks about the technicians not fearing the power because they understood it. You on the other hand didn't have the assurances of complete safety that they had because you you weren't in a position of knowledge. You didn't understand the power.

Much like how religion came about in the first place. Primitive humans didn't understand the power of nature. They couldn't figure out how things worked so they were fearful. They decided there must be higher powers controlling these incomprehensible things. Then there were gods. Gods were things to be feared. The rest is history.

With understanding we erase the fear. A young child may be afraid of the dark, but with understanding the child loses this fear. God doesn't offer us knowledge so we can understand the world. He offers us fear(and love apparently), but nothing we can use to define the world around us.

All religions offer set answers. This is how it is and we have to follow these rules or else! Understanding can't operate within confinement like that (think Galileo). When you begin to understand how the world around us works, you begin to realise how silly it was to be fearful of a thing like god. How mindless it was to blindly follow something with no proof of it's existence. It's four o'clock. I'm out of words.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

All religions offer set answers. This is how it is and we have to follow these rules or else! Understanding can't operate within confinement like that (think Galileo). When you begin to understand how the world around us works, you begin to realise how silly it was to be fearful of a thing like god. How mindless it was to blindly follow something with no proof of it's existence. It's four o'clock. I'm out of words.

Ok, I'm thinking Galileo.

A devout Christian who believed that a God of order created a universe with orderly processes, and whose faith inspired him to explore that universe (building on the insights of Copernicus, a Polish clergyman).

Maybe you should avoid late night posting?

philologos

Simtech wrote: »

Using Ockhams' Razor, it is more likely that the Universe sprang from nothing than that it sprang from a creator who sprang from nothing. I'd like to believe there is a God, the creator, (it would give me hope that I don't have) but it doesn't make rational sense in my mind. There are fewer steps to it if the Universe sprang from nothing.

Occam's Razor: the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred

Other definitions say "beyond necessity". I don't see how it is "needless" or "beyond necessity" to say that God exists and created all things.

indioblack

I always thought it was "Thou shalt not kill".
Judicial executions, self-defence, war - I remember reading these in my catechism as exceptions to the commandment.
But it's only "Thou shalt not kill" in the Old Testament.
I guess it required interpretation.

recedite

PDN wrote: »

Ok, I'm thinking Galileo.......A devout Christian

Who was punished by his church for daring to prove that at least one aspect of their teachings was wrong, and was only "forgiven" hundreds of years later.

We emerged from the Dark Ages despite Christanity, not because of it.

Doc Farrell

recedite wrote: »

PDN wrote: »

Ok, I'm thinking Galileo.......A devout Christian

Who was punished by his church for daring to prove that at least one aspect of their teachings was wrong, and was only "forgiven" hundreds of years later.

We emerged from the Dark Ages despite Christanity, not because of it.

I do love history. The Dark Ages, a dramatic term, always worth a quick wiki! Here's what i found.

Other misconceptions such as: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy", are all cited by Ronald Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, although they are not supported by current historical research.[49] They help maintain the idea of a "Dark Age" spanning through the medieval period.

Hang on, that doesn't sound right....

When will these religious types learn to mind their own business, look at this crazy Belgian priest with his 'cosmic egg exploding at the moment of creation ' theory! Who could believe that!
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître