Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Harika

J C wrote: »

None of this prejudicial caricature applies to me.
I defend everybody's right to freedom of opinion and the expression of that opinion - and I am thus a liberal in such matters.
The pseudo-liberal only tolerates people with whom they agree ... and bad-mouths and name-calls those with whom they disagree.

Freedom of opinion but how does it look with freedom of choice? Cause yes everyone can speak out with that they think but are policies and laws still in place based solely on god or the bible as premise? Why are those restricting me or others in my freedom even when I am not a believer?
e.g. From my point of view, I understand that gays are not allowed to marry in a church, or that Catholics are not allowed to have gay sex, so if this is your believe don't do it, but why does the state not grant those loving people the same rights as heterosexual couples? Every point against those marriages is based on god or the bible.
Without now going into the details of that, this topic is anyway something imho that will be resolved in the next decades and we will look back at this like we now look back at slavery and discrimination against non-white people that was 50 years ago backed up by the use of the bible.

Brian Shanahan

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Mod: Tackle the post, not the poster. Any more personal remarks such as that will lead to a ban, permanently.

Any right thinking forum would have permabanned JC years ago. He contributes nothing to any discussion other than conspiracy theory grade nonsense.

Safehands

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Any right thinking forum would have permabanned JC years ago. He contributes nothing to any discussion other than conspiracy theory grade nonsense.

I enjoy him Brian. His rants are great. I would hate to see him banned. I would never agree with him, but isn't that what this is all about, good arguments with no real malice?

marienbad

Safehands wrote: »

I enjoy him Brian. His rants are great. I would hate to see him banned. I would never agree with him, but isn't that what this is all about, good arguments with no real malice?

If only everyone had that view

J C

Safehands wrote: »

I enjoy him Brian. His rants are great. I would hate to see him banned. I would never agree with him, but isn't that what this is all about, good arguments with no real malice?

I don't rant ... but that aside, the rest of your post is the height of genuine liberalism ... good argument is a learning experience ... and indeed progress, in all of its manifestations, is made through argument from different points of view.:)

J C

Harika wrote: »

Freedom of opinion but how does it look with freedom of choice? Cause yes everyone can speak out with that they think but are policies and laws still in place based solely on god or the bible as premise? Why are those restricting me or others in my freedom even when I am not a believer?
e.g. From my point of view, I understand that gays are not allowed to marry in a church, or that Catholics are not allowed to have gay sex, so if this is your believe don't do it, but why does the state not grant those loving people the same rights as heterosexual couples? Every point against those marriages is based on god or the bible.
Without now going into the details of that, this topic is anyway something imho that will be resolved in the next decades and we will look back at this like we now look back at slavery and discrimination against non-white people that was 50 years ago backed up by the use of the bible.

I'm not going to derail the thread by going off-topic.

I will say that we live and learn ... and the basis of Christianity is honouring God and loving our neighbour ... neither of which endorses discrimination or slavery.

Benny_Cake

Mod: Brian Shanahan is taking a permanent break from this forum. Let's get back on topic, thanks.

pug_in_tophat

God is all-knowing, perhaps unknowable himself and ephemeral. He preceded all things we can see and the mysterious forces that we cannot see. This is why he is not a plausible originator of our universe. Explaining something complex with something more complex is illogical.
When I hear hooves, I think horses, not zebras and certainly not mystical, invisible unicorns.

pug_in_tophat

God is all-knowing, and perhaps unknowable himself. He preceded all things we can see and the mysterious forces that we cannot see. This is why he is not a plausible originator of our universe. Explaining something complex with something more complex is illogical.
When I hear hooves, I think horses, not zebras and certainly not mystical, invisible unicorns.

Harika

J C wrote: »

I'm not going to derail the thread by going off-topic.

I will say that we live and learn ... and the basis of Christianity is honouring God and loving our neighbour ... neither of which endorses discrimination or slavery.

Yes I know that it was on the edge of derailing, but you dodge the question how we should handle the conflict when god is the only remaining argument to keep a law in place?

RikuoAmero

J C wrote: »

I'm not going to derail the thread by going off-topic.

I will say that we live and learn ... and the basis of Christianity is honouring God and loving our neighbour ... neither of which endorses discrimination or slavery.

Do I even need to quote the "Slaves, obey your earthly masters" verse?

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Do I even need to quote the "Slaves, obey your earthly masters" verse?

Since the derailment is already kilometers away from the tracks I might as well add a comment.

That would depend whether you genuinely want to discuss New Testament teaching on slavery or whether you are cherrypicking verses out of context again.

Paul's priority in the New Testament epistles was not to express lofty views on major social issues of the day. He was giving practical advice to Christians who were struggling to practice their faith, and witness to others, in circumstances that were often difficult and harsh. Many of the Christians he was addressing, possibly the majority of them (given that early Christianity spread among slaves faster than the rest of the population), were slaves.

So, the primary pastoral concern was how should these Christians who were in slavery behave? Should they start an armed an armed rebellion and get themselves swiftly crucified? Or should they behave in a way that would make it easier for them to share their faith with their masters and others?

Paul's pastoral response is in line with the teaching of Jesus. In Palestine the Romans operated an unjust system whereby a Roman soldier could force any Jew to carry their baggage for a maximum of one mile. Jesus said His listeners should not turn this into an occasion for bitterness or resentment, but should rather offer to carry the baggage an extra mile. Of course He was not endorsing the unjust Roman law, but He was rather addressing the things we have control over - our own reactions and feelings.

So, yes, Paul did tell slaves to obey their masters. In the same way pastors in China today tell their congregants that, if they are arrested for their faith and put in a labour camp, they should be the best workers in the labour camp and so seek to win their jailors to Christ.

The New Testament was written to people who lived in the reality of slavery. That is a very different thing from the spurious claim that it endorses or supports slavery.

marienbad

Nick Park wrote: »

Since the derailment is already kilometers away from the tracks I might as well add a comment.

That would depend whether you genuinely want to discuss New Testament teaching on slavery or whether you are cherrypicking verses out of context again.

Paul's priority in the New Testament epistles was not to express lofty views on major social issues of the day. He was giving practical advice to Christians who were struggling to practice their faith, and witness to others, in circumstances that were often difficult and harsh. Many of the Christians he was addressing, possibly the majority of them (given that early Christianity spread among slaves faster than the rest of the population), were slaves.

So, the primary pastoral concern was how should these Christians who were in slavery behave? Should they start an armed an armed rebellion and get themselves swiftly crucified? Or should they behave in a way that would make it easier for them to share their faith with their masters and others?

Paul's pastoral response is in line with the teaching of Jesus. In Palestine the Romans operated an unjust system whereby a Roman soldier could force any Jew to carry their baggage for a maximum of one mile. Jesus said His listeners should not turn this into an occasion for bitterness or resentment, but should rather offer to carry the baggage an extra mile. Of course He was not endorsing the unjust Roman law, but He was rather addressing the things we have control over - our own reactions and feelings.

So, yes, Paul did tell slaves to obey their masters. In the same way pastors in China today tell their congregants that, if they are arrested for their faith and put in a labour camp, they should be the best workers in the labour camp and so seek to win their jailors to Christ.

The New Testament was written to people who lived in the reality of slavery. That is a very different thing from the spurious claim that it endorses or supports slavery.

Why did he not do both ? Condemn the principle but offer guidelines to live with the practice ?

Nick Park

marienbad wrote: »

Why did he not do both ? Condemn the principle but offer guidelines to live with the practice ?

Actually he did. In Colossians 3:11 he said that when you become a Christian you become a new creation, and that all barriers are removed in Christ - barriers of race, gender and of slavery. That is the context in which, 11 verses later, he tells slaves (and servants - the word has a dual meaning) to obey their masters so as to be good witnesses to their faith.

You have to remember that Paul and the other early Christians were not writing as comfortable ivory tower intellectuals. They were continually being assaulted, arrested and sometimes executed. Therefore any criticisms of the Empire had to be very carefully expressed, and often coded, otherwise the end results would be painful deaths for the very people whom Paul was trying to advise and help.

This, incidentally, is why the Book of Revelation uses so much imagery (Babylon, the Beast, seven horns etc) to refer to Rome. If it was written in plain language then every single Christian would have been targeted as a traitor within.

Paul did, on more than one occasion, express his view that in Christ all the distinctions between slave and free were removed and all became equal. He also told slaves that if they could possibly do so then they should win their freedom (1 Corinthians 7:21). This is a far cry from competing non-Christian philosophies of the day - for example Aristotle's teaching was popular that argued that slavery was natural and that some races of people were inferior and only fit to be slaves. Paul also, in the only interaction recorded between him and an individual slave owner, exhorted Philemon to receive back a runaway slave "No longer as a slave but rather as a brother."

So, given the conditions under which he lived and worked, Paul spoke about as forthrightly as was possible against slavery. Anything more would have been positively suicidal and would have caused the excruciatingly painful deaths of thousands of Christians.

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

Since the derailment is already kilometers away from the tracks I might as well add a comment.

That would depend whether you genuinely want to discuss New Testament teaching on slavery or whether you are cherrypicking verses out of context again.

Paul's priority in the New Testament epistles was not to express lofty views on major social issues of the day. He was giving practical advice to Christians who were struggling to practice their faith, and witness to others, in circumstances that were often difficult and harsh. Many of the Christians he was addressing, possibly the majority of them (given that early Christianity spread among slaves faster than the rest of the population), were slaves.

So, the primary pastoral concern was how should these Christians who were in slavery behave? Should they start an armed an armed rebellion and get themselves swiftly crucified? Or should they behave in a way that would make it easier for them to share their faith with their masters and others?

Paul's pastoral response is in line with the teaching of Jesus. In Palestine the Romans operated an unjust system whereby a Roman soldier could force any Jew to carry their baggage for a maximum of one mile. Jesus said His listeners should not turn this into an occasion for bitterness or resentment, but should rather offer to carry the baggage an extra mile. Of course He was not endorsing the unjust Roman law, but He was rather addressing the things we have control over - our own reactions and feelings.

So, yes, Paul did tell slaves to obey their masters. In the same way pastors in China today tell their congregants that, if they are arrested for their faith and put in a labour camp, they should be the best workers in the labour camp and so seek to win their jailors to Christ.

The New Testament was written to people who lived in the reality of slavery. That is a very different thing from the spurious claim that it endorses or supports slavery.

What you've just said there is an endorsement of slavery, an endorsement of continuing practices that harm people. It's a teaching that says "Don't bother trying to improve your lot, just suffer silently through it, in fact, offer to debase yourself even more".
It's a teaching that that says this life is worthless, that no effort should be expended on trying to improve one's lot in this life.
Sorry no, I do not agree with Paul at all. If I was in a chinese labour camp, I'd act a goody-two shoes, but only so as to not drag attention to myself while I'm also busy plotting to escape. I have far too much respect for my life to just sit down and take a beating for no good reason.

So why didn't Jesus ever condemn the practice of slavery outright? How come he never updated the ten commandments (the first set) to include "Thou shalt not own another human as a slave"? If he's supposed to be the source of the ultimate morality system, then why the omission?

RikuoAmero

Nick, I'm also going to say this. Even if the bible were the nicest document on earth, and didn't have all the horrors in it (don't argue their existence), it still wouldn't convince me that Jesus was a god. Even if Jesus did say the nicest things, all I would do is act like a decent human being, and use Occam's Razor to remove God as a justification for those things. I don't need to believe there is a god who commands people to act decently in order for me to do it. I can justify it to myself just fine without God.
On more than one occasion, I've been chatting with christians, who blatantly say to me that if ever they were convinced that Jesus wasn't god, then they would run amok causing chaos and carnage. Are you the same? Or can you justify acting decently without having to stick God in there?

marienbad

Nick Park wrote: »

Actually he did. In Colossians 3:11 he said that when you become a Christian you become a new creation, and that all barriers are removed in Christ - barriers of race, gender and of slavery. That is the context in which, 11 verses later, he tells slaves (and servants - the word has a dual meaning) to obey their masters so as to be good witnesses to their faith.

You have to remember that Paul and the other early Christians were not writing as comfortable ivory tower intellectuals. They were continually being assaulted, arrested and sometimes executed. Therefore any criticisms of the Empire had to be very carefully expressed, and often coded, otherwise the end results would be painful deaths for the very people whom Paul was trying to advise and help.

This, incidentally, is why the Book of Revelation uses so much imagery (Babylon, the Beast, seven horns etc) to refer to Rome. If it was written in plain language then every single Christian would have been targeted as a traitor within.

Paul did, on more than one occasion, express his view that in Christ all the distinctions between slave and free were removed and all became equal. He also told slaves that if they could possibly do so then they should win their freedom (1 Corinthians 7:21). This is a far cry from competing non-Christian philosophies of the day - for example Aristotle's teaching was popular that argued that slavery was natural and that some races of people were inferior and only fit to be slaves. Paul also, in the only interaction recorded between him and an individual slave owner, exhorted Philemon to receive back a runaway slave "No longer as a slave but rather as a brother."

So, given the conditions under which he lived and worked, Paul spoke about as forthrightly as was possible against slavery. Anything more would have been positively suicidal and would have caused the excruciatingly painful deaths of thousands of Christians.

Did he say anywhere slavery is wrong -unequivocally ? The above seems to means that being a slave was no barrier to being a Christian , not that slavery is inherently wrong .

Harika

marienbad wrote: »

Did he say anywhere slavery is wrong -unequivocally ? The above seems to means that being a slave was no barrier to being a Christian , not that slavery is inherently wrong .

No this is not done, while I agree that it is a good thing to give people hope that are slaves I would expect god to rule slavery out for Christians or start a process to end slavery. But you will find passages in the old and new testament that tell Christians how to deal with their slaves what makes no sense to me if he is against slavery.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

What you've just said there is an endorsement of slavery, an endorsement of continuing practices that harm people. It's a teaching that says "Don't bother trying to improve your lot, just suffer silently through it, in fact, offer to debase yourself even more".

No, Paul actually said that if you had an opportunity to get free from slavery then you should take it (1 Corinthians 7:21). Of course we would wait until hell freezes over before the likes of you cherrypick that verse.

Why not try to understand what Paul taught as a whole rather than trying to twist and misrepresent?

It's a teaching that that says this life is worthless, that no effort should be expended on trying to improve one's lot in this life.

No, it's a teaching that says that this life is precious indeed because it gives you a lot of opportunities to bless others and to improve the lot of other people in life. Even when you're a slave you can still make a significant difference to the world. And that is why, in the time of Paul, slaves flocked to the church. They realised that this new religion offered them a dignity and a self-worth that was not available anywhere else in their world.

Sorry no, I do not agree with Paul at all. If I was in a chinese labour camp, I'd act a goody-two shoes, but only so as to not drag attention to myself while I'm also busy plotting to escape. I have far too much respect for my life to just sit down and take a beating for no good reason.

Indeed. But that contribution doesn't tell us anything about Paul, the New Testament, or how slaves who had become Christians should behave. It is simply your own commentary on your own moral fibre.

So why didn't Jesus ever condemn the practice of slavery outright? How come he never updated the ten commandments (the first set) to include "Thou shalt not own another human as a slave"? If he's supposed to be the source of the ultimate morality system, then why the omission?

Once again you demonstrate a total lack of understanding of what Christianity is all about.

Jesus didn't come to give us a set of rules. He came to give us a relationship with Him. And in that relationship the only rules are to love Him with all of our hearts and to love other people as we love ourselves. And there you have everything you need to know if slavery is wrong or not.

None of us would choose to be under the kind of slavery that we are talking about in discussions of this sort (ie the North-Atlantic Slave Trade rather than voluntary slavery such as indentured servitude). Therefore, if we love others as ourselves, we will do everything in our power to prevent others from living in that condition.

This is what inspired William Wilberforce to devote his life to getting the British parliament to ban slavery. It wasn't because of a list of rules, but because as an Evangelical Christian his relationship with Jesus Christ made the thought of slavery intolerable to someone who sought to love others as he loved himself. (The same type of thinking also motivated Martin Luther King to fight racial segregation).

Christianity is not about observing a list of rules. It's about absorbing the big principles and living by them.

Today, in 2014, there are more people living in slavery than were ever enslaved in the North Atlantic Slave Trade. There is a massive amount of activism going on in the world to end that horrendous reality - and the majority of those involved in such activism are committed Christians. Maybe you should ask yourself why that it? That would be more profitable than quote-mining out of context to produce bogus arguments.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Nick, I'm also going to say this. Even if the bible were the nicest document on earth, and didn't have all the horrors in it (don't argue their existence), it still wouldn't convince me that Jesus was a god. Even if Jesus did say the nicest things, all I would do is act like a decent human being, and use Occam's Razor to remove God as a justification for those things. I don't need to believe there is a god who commands people to act decently in order for me to do it. I can justify it to myself just fine without God.
On more than one occasion, I've been chatting with christians, who blatantly say to me that if ever they were convinced that Jesus wasn't god, then they would run amok causing chaos and carnage. Are you the same? Or can you justify acting decently without having to stick God in there?

I'm not trying to prove that Jesus is God. I gathered enough evidence to convince myself of that fact and to abandon my atheism - but to do that for you is your job, not mine.

I know that before I became a Christian, while I was an atheist, I was capable of individual acts of decency and kindness. I also discovered, I am ashamed to say, that I was capable of deceit, violence, racism and homophobia. I am glad that my relationship with Jesus has removed those things from my thinking and life.

You seem to be asking about some hypothetical scenario where I was once again to revert to atheism. Sorry, I don't think I can accurately predict my behaviour in such a hypothetical case.

Nick Park

Harika wrote: »

No this is not done, while I agree that it is a good thing to give people hope that are slaves I would expect god to rule slavery out for Christians or start a process to end slavery. But you will find passages in the old and new testament that tell Christians how to deal with their slaves what makes no sense to me if he is against slavery.

And yet Christians have been instrumental in abolishing slavery, and still are today. And it was their understanding of the Bible that made that process happen.

RikuoAmero

No, Paul actually said that if you had an opportunity to get free from slavery then you should take it (1 Corinthians 7:21). Of course we would wait until hell freezes over before the likes of you cherrypick that verse.

Funny, literally just 3 verses later, he says

Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

I also notice that he devotes just a couple lines to the thoughts of slavery there, but surrounding it are whole paragraphs about marriage. So what...rules about marriage are far more important than condemning slavery?

So if I'm a slave and God calls me...I should remain a slave...but I should escape...which is it?

voluntary slavery such as indentured servitude)

Insert discussion here where I say "This was reserved for Hebrews only, full on slavery was allowed for other races, according to the Jewish laws".

Jesus didn't come to give us a set of rules.

Which is why in 1 Cor 7, (according to Paul) he didn't hand down a bunch of rules dictating what you can and cannot do within your marriage, and that you should not divorce, and that you should not have sex outside marriage.
Oh wait...there are such rules there.
If you're going to say to me "This guy didn't give us rules", then when I read your book, I had better not find any such rules! Basic logic, Nick.

This is what inspired William Wilberforce to devote his life to getting the British parliament to ban slavery. It wasn't because of a list of rules, but because as an Evangelical Christian his relationship with Jesus Christ made the thought of slavery intolerable to someone who sought to love others as he loved himself. (The same type of thinking also motivated Martin Luther King to fight racial segregation).

And there were plenty of christians in their times who used the exact same teachings to justify the slavery and racial segregation.

marienbad

Nick Park wrote: »

And yet Christians have been instrumental in abolishing slavery, and still are today. And it was their understanding of the Bible that made that process happen.

This old canard - just that it took them nearly 2000 years to see the light and the fact that it was tied in to technological changes I suppose is irrelevant .

RikuoAmero

I'm not trying to prove that Jesus is God.

I have to ask why you're here on this thread then. Atheism/Existence of God Debates. You're yet another person I've encountered here who says he won't try to stick to the topic of debate.

tommy2bad

marienbad wrote: »

This old canard - just that it took them nearly 2000 years to see the light and the fact that it was tied in to technological changes I suppose is irrelevant .

Indeed and more damning is the fact that the abolotionist movement was a grassroots movement, not driven by the main church's but started by people on their own understanding not the teaching of their church. Kinda like some issues we are dealing with today share the laiatie are aheadahead of the clergy.

Nick Park

marienbad wrote: »

This old canard - just that it took them nearly 2000 years to see the light and the fact that it was tied in to technological changes I suppose is irrelevant .

I suggest you read some Church History. Many Christians have taught against slavery since the very earliest days of the faith. It is certainly true that Church leaders who were in bed with State authorities have often compromised on this issue (Just as they compromised and prevaricated on a hundred other things that are clear enough in the New Testament such as humility, violence etc). However, it would be a downright lie to say that Christians only began to campaign against slavery after 2000 years.

Nick Park

tommy2bad wrote: »

Indeed and more damning is the fact that the abolotionist movement was a grassroots movement, not driven by the main church's but started by people on their own understanding not the teaching of their church. Kinda like some issues we are dealing with today share the laiatie are aheadahead of the clergy.

Not so much damning, in my view, as gloriously affirming the true nature of the Church as a grassroots organism.

tommy2bad

Nick Park wrote: »

Not so much damning, in my view, as gloriously affirming the true nature of the Church as a grassroots organism.

Or even highlighting the fact that the church is the people of God, not the institute.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I have to ask why you're here on this thread then. Atheism/Existence of God Debates. You're yet another person I've encountered here who says he won't try to stick to the topic of debate.

I'm here on this thread because I'm commenting on the (not very good) arguments and points put forward by yourself and others.

I think my posting here is entirely within the Forum Charter and the spirit of this thread. If you object to that then I suggest you use the Reported Post button and let a front-seat mod address it.

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm here on this thread because I'm commenting on the (not very good) arguments and points put forward by yourself and others.

I think my posting here is entirely within the Forum Charter and the spirit of this thread. If you object to that then I suggest you use the Reported Post button and let a front-seat mod address it.

Except all of your points hinge on the IF scenario of Jesus being God, which is a rather shaky foundation. Since you've said you won't try to prove that he is God, then your arguments are without merit, since now you're not giving me any reasons whatsoever to accept them. They are without merit in their own right, since they're about accepting one's lot in life as it is and not to improve on it at all (just read Matthew Henry's commentary here http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-24.htm, it's horrifying), and not about improving human's well being.
Why should I accept my lot in life, and not seek to improve it, if you're not going to try and convince me that doing so will somehow end up with me having found favour with a dead immortal god man? (More importantly, why should I even WANT such a monster's favour, if he'll only accept me if I don't improve my lot in life?)