Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

recedite wrote: »

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.

You really should try reading a history book.

Galileo was punished by his own church for daring to prove that a theory of Aristotle's was wrong, but his theories were nevertheless able to be published because of the freer intellectual climate fostered by other churches in the Netherlands.

The Dark Ages were a bit of a misnomer (few reputable historians would use the term any more) as there was a fair old bit of intellectual enquiry and technological development going on at the time. Any we emerged from them primarily due to the intellectual activities of people who, for the most part, were devout believers who were funded by religious groups and studied at universities established by churches and monasteries.

To say 'religion always stifles thinking' or that the renaissance occurred 'despite Christianity' is to indulge in the kind of bigotted sweeping generalisations that distort history.

philologos

Indeed. I studied Renaissance philosophy at university.

What the humanists did during the Renaissance was to criticise scholastic philosophy that occurred within universities. Philosophy regarded Aristotle as almost gospel until this point in history.

The humanists questioned this philosophy and brought a wider array of sources under consideration so that philosophy was no longer chained to Aristotle. The humanists also brought new forms of translation into play, rather than using verbum ad verbum (word for word) they brought in translation by sense or by the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

It was only in the 19th century when Jacob Burckhardt a contemporary of Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "The Civilisation of the Renaissance in Italy" that the claim that the humanists were secularists came into play. In reality they were all devout Christians. Some such as Giofrancesco della Mirandola were so devout that they said that all philosophy should be based on the Bible rather than using pagan influences such as Plato or Aristotle.

In fact the debate amongst the humanists also led into discussions about which was more compatible with Christianity, Platonism or Aristotelianism. Of course, neither are all that compatible unless you jettison much of both authors. Plato in terms of things like collective wives in his Republic, or Aristotle in relation to the mortality of the soul in his De Anima (On the Soul).

The "secular humanist" movement owes its birth to Jacob Burckhardt.

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

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?

Oh come on! The church imprisoned him for years because of his findings. Is that not proof of my point?

And why? Is there something the matter with my late night post?

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Oh come on! The church imprisoned him for years because of his findings. Is that not proof of my point?

The point that 'all religions' offer set answers and confinement?

No, that would not be considered proof by most rational reasonable people. And certainly not by those with even a faint grasp of history.

And why? Is there something the matter with my late night post?

Apart from it being a sweeping generalisation devoid of logic?

Often, on boards.ie, late night posts are alcohol fuelled. I would hate to think that you dredged that doozy up while sober.

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

Galileo was punished by his own church for daring to prove that a theory of Aristotle's was wrong, but his theories were nevertheless able to be published because of the freer intellectual climate fostered by other churches in the Netherlands.

Galileo was imprisoned after his ideas were published. Pope Urban VIII was actually a friend of Galileo originally. He requested him to write the book Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems, with the condition that he must neither promote or demote either theory. When his own theory of heliocentrism(the one that turned out to be true) came across much stronger, they decided that he should be confined to his home for the rest of his life under suspicion of heresy.
]

Answer this question. It requires a simple yes or no answer. Were the catholic church right to convict Galileo?

Fanny Cradock

Ciaran0 wrote: »

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.

They did fear it. Hence the fence. Hence the warning signs. Hence the the potential increased risk in the development of certain caners linked to EMF. But really this has little to do with my analogy. You stretch it to breaking point.

Ciaran0 wrote: »

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.

I think we are talking past each other. I'm not positing a god of the gaps. "I can't understand it so god must have done it". You apparently are.

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.

What do you mean by proof? There is evidence for God. There is evidence against God. It's what you do with this evidence - namely how you interpret it - that determines your position on the God question, or any question for that matter. If you happen to have a spare hour or so you might want to listen to yesterdays instalment of Unbelievable?("Does science explain God, or does God explain science?"). It deals with exactly the type of epistemological canyon that divides someone like you from me. I personally found Louis Walpert's forceful insistence that there is no evidence for God to be amusing because he would largely only define evidence as evidence if it presupposed there was no God.

On a similar note, I would encourage anyone who takes the usual line on Galileo and the Dark Ages to actually consider alternative readings of history as being more accurate.

For example, Ronald Numbers, who was mentioned in the wiki excerpt Doc Farrell posted, gives a lecture entitled Myths and Truths in Science (182 MB - works fine in Windows Media Player) here.

The same people might also be might also consider reading this short paper by the late Ernan McMullin's on his research into the Galileo affair . (Incidentally, I believe he knew the great Georges Lemaitre who, I think, was also mentioned in this(?) thread).

Finally, I heartily recommend reading David B. Hart's book Atheist Delusions: Christian Revolution and it's Fashionable Enemies. It attempts to redress, amongst other popular and factually incorrect readings of history, the idea that that the Dark Ages were a time of terrible intellectual stagnation and privation, and that Christianity was somehow responsible for this. On the contrary, Hart claims that it the Dark Ages were neither dark (it was actually a time of great intellectual advance in many respects) and that the institutions of the Church actually helped to preserve knowledge from classical thinkers that may have otherwise been lost.

It really is a fantastic read - one that doesn't seek to proselytise or conbvert. Rather, it is there to challenge the poor;ly researched ideas that Christianity and science are belligerents and that Christianity at its core actively opposes the intellect. He manages, in my opinion, to successfully challenge these ideas while also not seeking to absolve Christians of responsibility for the terrible things they have done - either corporately or individually - in the name of Christ. (The antagonistic title of the book, which was originally supposed to be Christian Revolution and It's Fashionable Enemies until some editor thought better, should not put anyone off - Christian or otherwise.)

The truth of the matter is that there are often perspectives that are better researched and better attested than the "religion=bad-science=good-sure-look-at-Galileo" opinions that we often see here. But I get the impression that no amount of evidence to the contrary to this will move some people away from this coddling oversimplification.

Fanny Cradock

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Galileo was imprisoned after his ideas were published. Pope Urban VIII was actually a friend of Galileo originally. He requested him to write the book Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems, with the condition that he must neither promote or demote either theory. When his own theory of heliocentrism(the one that turned out to be true) came across much stronger, they decided that he should be confined to his home for the rest of his life under suspicion of heresy.
]

Answer this question. It requires a simple yes or no answer. Were the catholic church right to convict Galileo?

It is a little more complicated than that. (See the relevant McMullin link in my above post). But even if we were to grant that your oversimplification was an accurate account we are still left with the question, "So what?". Science gave us the knowledge to drop atomic bombs on Japan and yet it shouldn't be dismissed as a methodology because of this.

Ciaran0

I genuinely give up. Have a nice afterlife.

Fanny Cradock

tommy2bad

So what is the atheist objection?
Most atheist posters here seem to object to religion on the grounds of what it has done rather than the obvious notion that religion is rubbish because their is nogod.
Is it that no one can prove or disprove a god and so it manifestation is fair game?
Or is it that they don't like anyone telling them what to do, kinda have sympathy with that idea.
More interesting is how theists respond. Mostly contradiction and claims of misunderstanding, misrepresentation and downright lies.
How could someone believe in something that I don't believe, how can they not believe what is obvious to me.
Come on atheists why don't you believe in God? Theists why do you believe?
I'll go first;
I believe because the idea that truth, beauty and love have no echo in a dark empty universe is not tolerable to me. I start their and then try to fit myself and the universe into some kind of system that includes all those things.
Yes, I admit its an act of faith but why not? All that was left in Pandora's box was hope.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Answer this question. It requires a simple yes or no answer. Were the catholic church right to convict Galileo?

No, I believe they were completely and utterly wrong.

None of which, of course, justifies your bigoted and sweeping generalisations against religion in general.

Soul Winner

Zombrex wrote: »

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.

Yeah I guess it would.

Zombrex wrote:

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

My point was that it would be hypocritical of any man to carry these commands even if his suspicions were correct because his own conscience would not be free from the guilt of his own short failings. But God commanding this is not wrong except under your subjective opinion of the subject. Just as a matter of interest, what would you do if you found out that your wife/husband committed adultery on you?

Soul Winner

recedite wrote: »

That's a non sequiteur. Right and wrong can exist without any gods.

OK so who determines what is right and wrong?

recedite wrote: »

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.

But in a world driven by purely Darwinian processes it doesn't matter what goes on as long as the group survives and propagates its DNA. There is no ultimate right and wrong, good or evil. Its like what Richard Dawkins says:

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," published in Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85

In this world rape is but another way of making sure that this happens and would be selected for by Natural Selection. Just like the way great white sharks copulate with their females, its forced on them and is essential to their survival. In a purely Darwinian sense we are no better or worse than sharks and therefore the rules that apply to them could apply to us because Natural Selection is not concerned with morals, only survival. Of course we might make up morals and apply them for what we see as the betterment of the group but that does not make these morals objectively right. But you admit that there are objective rights and and wrongs, and I agree with you but my point was that in a world without God there is no objective right or wrong, Dawkins admits this in the above quote by using the word if. Therefore if we happen to live in a world where we have objective moral values (and we do) then that shows that God exists, so the conclusion does follow from the premise and therefore its not a non sequitur.

recedite wrote: »

Most theists fail to grasp this concept; mistakenly thinking that Darwinian natural selection = amorality= atheism.

I don't know many theists who propound that idea but the frist part is true. Darwinian natural selection is amoral viz it is morally neutral. I don't know any theists who say that atheism is amoral though. Atheism has no ground for ultimate morality but its not morally neutral, that is pretty clear.

recedite wrote: »

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.

That's why Jesus came to put it away. No mortal man has the right to judge anyone but that doesn't mean that the judgment itself is not just. God is being consistent to his word if He executes judgment on sinners. He chose not to though and freely gives grace instead. That is the gospel, and its for everyone, but sadly not everyone will accept it. There are two things that must happen if one is to receive a gift. For one, it has to be freely given by someone to someone else, and that someone else must freely receive it. If they choose not to receive it then they won't have it. If God was to force it on them then what about those who don't want it? Should He force it on them? Only beings with free will can be held accountable for the choices they freely make in life. If we did not have free will and all our actions are determined by dancing to our DNA (as Dawkins puts it) then we cannot be held accountable for they things we do because there is no ultimate accountability and therefore there is no ultimate right and wrong and therefore there are no objective moral values, but we know that there are objective moral values and therefore God exists.

Soul Winner

tommy2bad wrote: »

Theists why do you believe?

I look at the world and the universe and intuitively take for granted that it could only be the work of a creative mind. This proves nothing obviously but its my reaction nonetheless. The reason I believe that Christianity is true is because I believe that God has decisively revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. I believe this simply by reading the New Testament. His Words to me are the most astonishingly wisest in all of literature, they are good and eternal in nature and substance and I don't believe are the product or merely human minds. After committing my life to this Jesus from the heart I know He lives in me and is guiding me through life so what more could I ask for?

Simtech

Soul Winner wrote: »

I look at the world and the universe and intuitively take for granted that it could only be the work of a creative mind. This proves nothing obviously but its my reaction nonetheless. The reason I believe that Christianity is true is because I believe that God has decisively revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. I believe this simply by reading the New Testament. His Words to me are the most astonishingly wisest in all of literature, they are good and eternal in nature and substance and I don't believe are the product or merely human minds. After committing my life to this Jesus from the heart I know He lives in me and is guiding me through life so what more could I ask for?

I respect your position, your belief and your honesty. As long as you and those who share your position do no harm, I will continue to do so.

Soul Winner

Simtech wrote: »

I respect your position, your belief and your honesty. As long as you and those who share your position do no harm, I will continue to do so.

Christians who commit evil acts (and they have done many many times) in the name of their religion then they are not acting in accordance with the teachings of Jesus. However when Muslims act in this way then they are actually acting in accordance with their religion because their religion expressly tells them to do so. Sura 9 for instance. Jesus would not have approved of the crusades for instance but Mohammad was involved in camp raids and used the sword to bring the world into submission (which is what Islam means), so he and the Quaran would approve similar acts. So as a Christian (i.e a follower of Christ) the world is not in any threat from Christianity except by those who do evil things in Christ's name, things He would not have them to do.

Just because violence is advocated by some religions that does not mean that all religions should be lumped in the same camp as them. Christ's command to His Church was to proclaim the gospel (good news) to the world, not to convert the world and certainly not to forcefully convert it. Jesus said to His disciples: Love one another as I have loved you. The epistle of Paul to the Philippians says to esteem others greater than yourselves. If all Christians followed these teachings then Christianity would have a better name than it does today. That it has the reputation it has, has to do with the false teachers that permeate most church organisations in the world today. Jesus said by their fruits you shall know them. Just look a the fruits of most of the big church organisations and that will tell you were there are in relationship with God. That shouldn't mean that the true church should stop preaching the good news Jesus died to bring about. What's missing from 99% of Christianity today is the gospel they are supposed to be preaching.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yeah I guess it would.

Odd then that it was what God commanded them to do.

Soul Winner wrote: »

My point was that it would be hypocritical of any man to carry these commands even if his suspicions were correct because his own conscience would not be free from the guilt of his own short failings.

I don't see anywhere in the Old Testament that says at the end of these commandments to execute people "...unless you are also feeling a bit guilty about the bad stuff you did"

The Bible says that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she is to be executed, not if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she is to be executed so long as the person executing her isn't feeling a little guilty about the other stuff he has done.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But God commanding this is not wrong except under your subjective opinion of the subject.

Er, I thought it was

If she is actually having an affair then being jealous is understandable but killing her over it is wrong.

So killing her over it, only a bit wrong? Not really wrong? If God would have been happy with you killing her how do you know raping her wouldn't be equally ok?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, what would you do if you found out that your wife/husband committed adultery on you?

I would drag them up front of a priest and demand that they take a drink of poison water that inflicts great pain on them and causes them to abort any unborn baby that my wife might be carrying as part of the affair*.

Oh no wait, no I wouldn't do that. That would be barbaric.

I would divorce them.


* yeah turns out God not so big on the pro-life campaign.

Soul Winner

Zombrex wrote: »

Odd then that it was what God commanded them to do.

No man has the right to carry out judgment on sin except as God's instrument of execution and under the circumstances described in the Old Testament that's what was required of them. But even if the man did actually carry out this judgement he would in my view be a hypocrite knowing what I know from what Jesus said in the New Testament. He who is among you that is without sin cast the first stone. But no matter how you slice it, its not your judgment that matters. You don't have to like God's judgments (and clearly you don't and I kind of don't blame you) but you seem to have the idea (as do a lot of atheists) that because you disprove of God's dealings with His people that that somehow should merit some weight somewhere. Why should it?

If God is, then He is not out there looking for advice on what is righteous or not. All He has to do is be consistent with His spoken Word and He is being Just and Righteous. Him bringing judgment on sin is Him being faithful and true to His Word because He said for sin comes death. You are not His judge. You are the one on trial in this relationship not Him. You need to worry about your eternal standing with Him not the other way around. He is not going to change His ways because you don't like them. He will do everything He can to bring you onto His side but He will not compromise His own nature because you refuse to accept that He is faithful to His Word and will bring it to pass no matter what. Like I said, you don't have to like it but its up to you if you want to allow your personal feelings over the way God decides to act to dictate your eternal relationship with Him.

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't see anywhere in the Old Testament that says at the end of these commandments to execute people "...unless you are also feeling a bit guilty about the bad stuff you did"

No you don't but He does say it in the New Testament.

Zombrex wrote: »

The Bible says that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she is to be executed, not if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she is to be executed so long as the person executing her isn't feeling a little guilty about the other stuff he has done.

There was loads of laws in the Old Testament that the people did not keep. That's why the priests had to make atonement once a year for the sins of the people so that their trespasses and sins could be forgiven for that year. Trespasses being the sins that they knew about and sins being their general condition of sin, the sins they were ignorant of. I'm sure there were many that failed to keep this particular commandment as well, I would have. But that does not mean that the judgment itself was unjust, it wasn't according to the one who is Just. As Christians we believe that He came to fulfill this Old law in Himself and ended up nailing it to a cross where it died never to be resurrected. When He rose after doing away with the Old law he brought in a new law, that a righteousness apart from the old law was possible, righteousness by faith (trust) in His promises, which was a law that actually preceded the Old Law of works (Read Hebrews 11) but could not come about with power from on high until sin was dealt with and put away.

The Law of works says that you must keep it perfectly, only then can you be judged as righteous according to that law. If you miss it even once then you have fallen short of the mark and by the Law's own standard you are unrighteous in His sight. It took the perfect One to keep it for us and then in order for it to pass away He had to become the curse that was to fall on us, being made a curse over us where under we could pass out of its way. But He actually had to pay the price in order to inaugurate this new standing with Him. Those under Christ by faith do not get hit with this curse because He took it for them. Those who reject this covering, who want to try and get in by their own merits will take the curse on themselves because they did not have the covering of Christ between them and it.

My long winded reply is to attempt to get you to see the book as a whole, not just an isolated passage that you don't like in the Old Testament. You know the way Jesus feels about those who judge in the New Testament. Matthews 7:1. When you apply that to the Old Testament you'll see that nobody had the right to carry out this particular commandment unless they were perfectly carrying out all of God's other commandments, and we know that they didn't because atonement had to be made for them each year. Even the High Priest who presented the sacrifices in the Holy of Holies could not enter in without the sprinkling of the blood of the lamb as his standing. Just trying to give you some context.

tommy2bad

but you seem to have the idea (as do a lot of atheists) that because you disprove of God's dealings with His people that that somehow should merit some weight somewhere. Why should it?

Yes it must carry some weight. You claim that their is an absolute good and evil, it's not relative. If god commands or even dose something evil then he must be opposed. If hes not then it is only fear of retribution that keeps us obedient. Obedient mind not moral.
Yes I get that its a slow process of development from murdering each other (Cain + Able) to the message of Jesus but I don't accept that God had any act or part in any of the repugnant acts described in the OT.

If you accept it then why do you need god at all, couldn't it be man on his own learning from mistakes?

Mistress 69

Soul Winner wrote: »

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.

I never intended to infer that contributors to this thread were attempting to justify such actions, and apologies if I gave that impression. I probably phrased my post badly. The similarities regarding violence against women are stated in both the good books.

kelly1

So how's the debate going folks? Any conclusions reached?

Soul Winner

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes it must carry some weight.

Why?

tommy2bad wrote: »

You claim that their is an absolute good and evil, it's not relative. If god commands or even dose something evil then he must be opposed.

You're putting God on an equal billing with his creation. Why must He be apposed? Are we to substitute His judgement for the judgments of men? Are we wiser than He?

tommy2bad wrote: »

If hes not then it is only fear of retribution that keeps us obedient. Obedient mind not moral.

I agree.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes I get that its a slow process of development from murdering each other (Cain + Able) to the message of Jesus but I don't accept that God had any act or part in any of the repugnant acts described in the OT.

What about when the earth swallowed up Korah? When Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed? The flood? Are these the acts of men?

tommy2bad wrote: »

If you accept it then why do you need god at all, couldn't it be man on his own learning from mistakes?

Not really sure what you mean by that. If God exists then as the source of all life we all need Him for life.

Mistress 69

kelly1 wrote: »

So how's the debate going folks? Any conclusions reached?

It is unlikely that any conclusion will ever be reached, in fact it is a certainty.:pac:

ISAW

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Oh come on! The church imprisoned him for years because of his findings. Is that not proof of my point?

No they didn't! Given it isnt true it isnt proof of anything

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Galileo was imprisoned after his ideas were published.

No he wasn't! He published in 1615 and the Italian Inquisition told him not to go on about it. 1 In 1616 the Holy Inquisition issued its first condemnation of Galileo’s hypothesis of heliocentrism, which added new data to Copernicus’ theoryhttp://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_003_Galileo.html
He went on about it until 1633
Pope Urban VIII only broke his good relations with Galileo when the latter wrote the book Dialogo, or Massimi Sistemi, in which he tried to ridicule the Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy in dealing with the systems of Ptolemy and Copernicus. Only then, in 1633, did the Pope deliver him to be judged by the Holy Inquisition for the second time

Pope Urban VIII was actually a friend of Galileo originally.

"He was judged and politely obliged to abjure his errors. Galileo himself acknowledged that he was treated indulgently by the Inquisition throughout the affair. The condemnation prescribed prison, but it was not put in practice.
...
"But Galileo did not limit himself to attacking Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy. Leaving the terrain of science, he went further and entered the realm of theology as well. To harmonize them with the Copernican theory, he proposed to modify the traditional interpretation of various texts of Scripture that mentioned the movements of the sun and earth. Further, he proposed that Scripture sustained errors."

He requested him to write the book Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems, with the condition that he must neither promote or demote either theory. When his own theory of heliocentrism(the one that turned out to be true) came across much stronger, they decided that he should be confined to his home for the rest of his life under suspicion of heresy.

Not true. The book was out for years. The Church knew it was a false dichotomy since the Jesuits knew of Tycho Brache's system.

Answer this question. It requires a simple yes or no answer. Were the catholic church right to convict Galileo?

Answer me this. Of what charge was he convicted?

The Church was not his problem the academics were. He was cleverer than them. Hte idea that it is al;l about "pure knowledge" and that personality of politics does not enter into the situation is not true even today.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

No man has the right to carry out judgment on sin except as God's instrument of execution and under the circumstances described in the Old Testament that's what was required of them.

Didn't you say it was absolutely wrong?

So killing your wife for adultery (or for not being a virgin on her wedding night) is sometimes ok.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But even if the man did actually carry out this judgement he would in my view be a hypocrite knowing what I know from what Jesus said in the New Testament.

How hypocritical he is is rather irrelevant to whether the act of killing the wife is correct or not.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But no matter how you slice it, its not your judgment that matters.

Nor yours, which is why I was original asking about rape. You said it would be wrong they wouldn't do it. That is your judgement. If God commanded people to rape their wives it would be fine, just like killing your non-virgin wife.

So you objecting it on moral grounds is not a reason to think you won't find it in the Bible.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You don't have to like God's judgments (and clearly you don't and I kind of don't blame you) but you seem to have the idea (as do a lot of atheists) that because you disprove of God's dealings with His people that that somehow should merit some weight somewhere. Why should it?

No, my argument is that modern Christians are disgusted by God's judgements in the Old Testament when taken as is, so a spin is put on them to make them sound better than they actually were.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If God is, then He is not out there looking for advice on what is righteous or not. All He has to do is be consistent with His spoken Word and He is being Just and Righteous.

According to who? Who defined being righteous as being consistent with your word?

Soul Winner wrote: »

You need to worry about your eternal standing with Him not the other way around.

Worrying what punishment I will face for not thinking it is a good idea to execute your wife because she isn't a virgin on our wedding night is not a pressing motivator for me Soul Winner.

God - If your wife is not a virgin on your wedding night then it is just to stone her to death.
Me - Er, no it isn't, that is horrific and totally unjust.
God - If you don't accept me and what I say is just I'll throw you into hell.
Me - Oh well in that case, pass the rocks.

:rolleyes:

Soul Winner wrote: »

No you don't but He does say it in the New Testament.

Not much help for all the women stoned to death in the Old Testament.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But that does not mean that the judgment itself was unjust, it wasn't according to the one who is Just.

So you would have refused to do it, but that doesn't mean it was wrong or unjust?

So why would you have refused to do it?

Also you appreciate in the Old Testament God wasn't giving you options as to what laws to follow and what laws not to follow, these were commandments from God.

Soul Winner wrote: »

As Christians we believe that He came to fulfill this Old law in Himself and ended up nailing it to a cross where it died never to be resurrected. When He rose after doing away with the Old law he brought in a new law, that a righteousness apart from the old law was possible, righteousness by faith (trust) in His promises, which was a law that actually preceded the Old Law of works (Read Hebrews 11) but could not come about with power from on high until sin was dealt with and put away.

That really has nothing to do with an Israelite woman who is standing infront of a mob about to stone her to death, does it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

My long winded reply is to attempt to get you to see the book as a whole, not just an isolated passage that you don't like in the Old Testament. You know the way Jesus feels about those who judge in the New Testament.

No you don't want me to look at the book as a whole, you want me to look at the New Testament. The New Testament has lots of nice parables about not judging people and being kind to your neighbour.

And if it was just the New Testament that would be dandy. But it is also the Old Testament. So I'm actually looking at the whole thing, you like so many Christians are looking at the New Testament and then trying to retroactively explain away the horrors of the Old Testament.

Soul Winner wrote: »

When you apply that to the Old Testament you'll see that nobody had the right to carry out this particular commandment unless they were perfectly carrying out all of God's other commandments

That is nonsense Soul Winner, these were commandments from God they were expect to be carried out and they are described as being carried out.

It was required by God that the Israelites carried out these punishments. No where in these laws does it say "but only if you are righteous, which none of you are"

How sinful the person carrying out the law was not an issue for requiring that it be carried out. Women got stoned to death for adultery. The fact that the guy stoning them to death was coveting his neighbors wife was irrelevant. All men are sinners, there was no righteous person in Israel, but that didn't stop God sending these commandments on what to do with people caught doing these sins.

Getting back to the original point, this sort of white washing of the Old Testament is what I'm talking about.

The whole book Soul Winner, you need to face up to the whole book, not just the nice bits.

tommy2bad

Quote: Originally Posted by tommy2bad
Yes it must carry some weight.

Why?
Because we stand for 'right' or whats the point.
Quote: Originally Posted by tommy2bad
You claim that their is an absolute good and evil, it's not relative. If god commands or even dose something evil then he must be opposed.

You're putting God on an equal billing with his creation. Why must He be apposed? Are we to substitute His judgement for the judgments of men? Are we wiser than He?
Yes I am, that his creation is fallen doesn't change the fact that it was designed 'good' and since the resurrection is again capable of being 'good'
Quote: Originally Posted by tommy2bad
If hes not then it is only fear of retribution that keeps us obedient. Obedient mind not moral.

I agree.
See were not so different

Quote: Originally Posted by tommy2bad
Yes I get that its a slow process of development from murdering each other (Cain + Able) to the message of Jesus but I don't accept that God had any act or part in any of the repugnant acts described in the OT.

What about when the earth swallowed up Korah? When Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed? The flood? Are these the acts of men?
Acts of God
Like used in an insurance claim
Quote: Originally Posted by tommy2bad
If you accept it then why do you need god at all, couldn't it be man on his own learning from mistakes?

Not really sure what you mean by that. If God exists then as the source of all life we all need Him for life.

Concider for a moment that he dosn't
How do you do that cut up quote and answer thing?

lmaopml

kelly1 wrote: »

So how's the debate going folks? Any conclusions reached?

LOL..

I thought of Ecclesiastes earlier while thinking about the charges being made about God, and it struck me that God can't murder, only we can - we're his creatures, he's not a creature......

...and then I thought, what the heck am I even doing trying to justify God's immense and unfathomable justice when he's the only justice because he's totally beyond us - he lives in every time and sees them all at once, knows all things, and directs all things for the greater good.

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.



What gain has the worker from his toil? I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil—this is God’s gift to man.
I perceived that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear before him. That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away.


I actually love that verse tbh.

Soul Winner

Zombrex wrote: »

Didn't you say it was absolutely wrong?

So killing your wife for adultery (or for not being a virgin on her wedding night) is sometimes ok.

I've explained this to you several times I am not explaining it again. Please re-read my earlier posts.

Zombrex wrote: »

How hypocritical he is is rather irrelevant to whether the act of killing the wife is correct or not.

Again I've explained this to you several times already. I'm sorry if you don't/can't get it.

Zombrex wrote: »

Nor yours, which is why I was original asking about rape. You said it would be wrong they wouldn't do it. That is your judgement. If God commanded people to rape their wives it would be fine, just like killing your non-virgin wife.

If God is the ultimate judge then actions carried out by his people based on His command cannot be held against those people because they are simply carrying out what they were commanded to do by God. However for his people to pick and choose which commands to carry out and what ones not to would be hypocritical on their part. If they kill their wives for adultery knowing that they're as much of an adulterer as their wives then they are hypocrites in my view. The more prudent thing to do would be to ask God to forgive them for their sins and to also forgive their wives for their sin, make atonement and move on. But then I have the advantage of coming at it from a New Testament point of view that they did not have.

Zombrex wrote: »

No, my argument is that modern Christians are disgusted by God's judgements in the Old Testament when taken as is, so a spin is put on them to make them sound better than they actually were.

Of course we don't like God's judgments in certain cases in the Old Testament, but that doesn't mean that those judgement were not Just from God's point of view, which if He exists is the only one that matters.

Zombrex wrote: »

According to who? Who defined being righteous as being consistent with your word?

Great question. Whenever God set up a covenant in the Old Testament it was usually a one way deal. He set the terms, just like the way a last Will and Testament is done today, one person sets the terms. If you want to leave your estate to your pet mouse then nobody can say or do anything about it unless there are legal entitlements due to the wife or something like that. In the garden (I don't care if you believe it or not) the covenant was that if they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil then they would die. They are off it and God -to be a Just and Righteous God - had to keep his Word otherwise all the denizens of eternity would conclude that He is capricious and arbitrary and doesn't really mean what He says and as such there is no basis for trusting His Word which is the basis of all faith. So what must it have been like in the eternities to see God not carrying out His Word on those first two sinners? The Word must have got around that God doesn't mean what He says. So God has a problem. He doesn't want to them to die but He must be seen to be faithful to His Word. So to cut a very long story shirt this was accomplished in the death of Christ where God's justice and forgiveness were satisfied by the death of Christ. When Christ rose from the dead He set up a New Covenant which said that if you have faith in God's promises that relate to your life and if you believe that Jesus is Lord and that god raised Him from the dead then you will be given eternal life through Him. To be righteous in this covenant or testament then you must keep faith. To be righteous in relationship to the Old Testament Law you must keep that Law in every respect, personally, perpetually and perfectly from birth to death, which you wouldn't get because you would be worthy of life eternal because the covenant that that Law taught was that if you keep these things then you will live in them and if you fall short (sin) then you will not live, i.e. die. So to be righteous to whatever covenant you choose you must keep that covenant. In the Old Testament it was God's perfect standard of the Law in the New Testament it is the covenant of faith, which is simply trusting what God says over everything else that contradicts it.

Zombrex wrote: »

Worrying what punishment I will face for not thinking it is a good idea to execute your wife because she isn't a virgin on our wedding night is not a pressing motivator for me Soul Winner.

Nor should it be. What should worry you however is whether or not you are keeping one or other of the above covenants. If this doesn't worry you then it doesn't worry you. What can I say?

Zombrex wrote: »

Not much help for all the women stoned to death in the Old Testament.

What women?

Zombrex wrote: »

So you would have refused to do it, but that doesn't mean it was wrong or unjust?

Again already answered this. You don't like the answer, we get that. Can we move on?

Zombrex wrote: »

So why would you have refused to do it?

Because I know I deserve the same fate.

Zombrex wrote: »

Also you appreciate in the Old Testament God wasn't giving you options as to what laws to follow and what laws not to follow, these were commandments from God.

Do you agree that God exists to give these commands yes?

Zombrex wrote: »

That really has nothing to do with an Israelite woman who is standing infront of a mob about to stone her to death, does it.

Look, I'm not saying that God's judgments in the OT were not awful, they were. Thank God that that Old Law has passed away though. He put it away Himself, otherwise we would all be without hope now. God chose these people in the Old Testament to be His oracle, His instrument of Teaching to the world. He even used their sins and evil doings to teach us today about His ways. You are very quick to hate God for the way He acted in the OT but slow to love Him for His acts in the New Testament. Jesus said that that Old Way could not pass away until every jot and tittle was fulfilled. He fulfilled and now its gone. You should be rejoicing.

Zombrex wrote: »

No you don't want me to look at the book as a whole, you want me to look at the New Testament. The New Testament has lots of nice parables about not judging people and being kind to your neighbour.

And if it was just the New Testament that would be dandy. But it is also the Old Testament. So I'm actually looking at the whole thing, you like so many Christians are looking at the New Testament and then trying to retroactively explain away the horrors of the Old Testament.

Read my previous reply to you last point.

Zombrex wrote: »

That is nonsense Soul Winner, these were commandments from God they were expect to be carried out and they are described as being carried out.

Where are they described as being carried out?

Zombrex wrote: »

It was required by God that the Israelites carried out these punishments. No where in these laws does it say "but only if you are righteous, which none of you are"

Zombrex wrote: »

Getting back to the original point, this sort of white washing of the Old Testament is what I'm talking about.

Whose white washing?

Zombrex wrote: »

The whole book Soul Winner, you need to face up to the whole book, not just the nice bits.

What are you talking about? I've explained it over and over again. The Old Testament was terrible but it would have been a lot more terrible had there never been one. If God had of wiped them out right from the beginning you wouldn't be here to argue about it. If you think the Old Testament was that terrible then you should be the first one to thank God for doing away with it.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

Concider for a moment that he dosn't
How do you do that cut up quote and answer thing?

I know how to do this, but not the multi quote thing so hope this makes sense..

When you quote somebody, you will see tags either side of the quotation - the tags are in square brackets like this [ with 'QUOTE' written inside ] at beginning, and and at the end like this [ with forward slash /QUOTE ]

In order to break the quote up, and respond point by point - just take out the tags, and put the same tags in that format, to begin and end wherever you wish in the post you are quoting.

ISAW

lmaopml wrote: »

I know how to do this, but not the multi quote thing

Just click on the little ' ''' ' - symbol next to the "quote " button for eac one you want to reply to . then when you eventually click on the "quote " button all the others will be included in the reply.