Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 01-07-2010, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

While there may, hypothetically, be an infinite number of gods, the skeptic need only consider those gods who have made themselves known to people and who have made known to people that a they can seek mercy from him to escape punishment for their sins. That narrows it down considerably.

In 2,000 B.C., what percentage of the people in the world had heard about the God of the Bible? I assume less than 5%. Assuming 5% for the sake of argument, is it your position that God did not save any of the 95% who died without any knowledge of his specific existence?

I suspect that the percentage was much higher. Given that the Queen of Sheba heard about Solomon and came to visit him, and that ships from Israel seemed to go to many parts of the world, I think many people knew of Israel and the stories of its god. Regardless, it does not appear that God was saving many people outside Israel and even within Israel, it does not seem to have been that many.

rhutchin · 01-07-2010, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Let's consider a hypothetical skeptic named John Smith. John is an agnostic. He is convinced that it is a virtual certainty that no God from any religious book exists, that since the universe is infinite, an infinite number of possible Gods exist, and that if a God exists, he is deisist, and that there is not any credible evidence that the deist God poses any danger to skeptics after they die. John believes that if a God exists who will judge mankind, he will judge mankind based upon some kind of merit, not upon faith. John detests any possible God who insists upon faith without providing a lot of tangible, first hand evidence, and lots of personal, tangible conversations. John believes that there is not any fair, just, and reasonable goal that a loving, merciful God would not be able to accomplish with killing injuring and killing people with hurricanes. John believes that no God would claim that he is not the author of confusion, but frequently causes needless confusion, often even among conservative Christians, the issue of slavery over the past 2,000 years being a good example. John believes that no loving, merciful God would send people to hell for eternity without parole. John believes that a loving, merciful God would be able to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal without injuring and killing people with hurricanes.

Since John believes that the odds are astronomical that the odds of risk are far greater from an infinite number of possible Gods than from the God of the Bible, if John should pray at all, he should first pray and ask any of the infinite possible number of Gods for mercy. Then, if he wishes, he can ask the God of the Bible for mercy with the belief that the odds are astronomical that he does not exist. I doubt that the Bible implies that it would be helpful for a man to pray like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

While there may, hypothetically, be an infinite number of gods, the skeptic need only consider those gods who have made themselves known to people and who have made known to people that a they can seek mercy from him to escape punishment for their sins. That narrows it down considerably.

On the contrary, if humans are at risk from being judged by a God, the odds are astronomical that that God is not the God of the Bible. There are thousands of good reasons for people to reject the Bible.

Rather than posturing, which is not useful, I suggest that we discuss specific evidence. Let's start with the book of Genesis and see how far we have to go before you can reasonably prove any claim that you believe is important.

OK. Start a new thread. Try to be concise and to the point in what you write.

spamandham · 01-07-2010, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So, can a man who does not believe in God ever exercise his freedom to choose to seek God's mercy? He can because everything he needs to do so is available to him..

Well, you're getting the cart before the horse. Someone like myself, who truly honestly doesn't believe there are any gods...who finds the idea as silly as the idea of leprechauns or ETs mutilating cattle, or the Flying Spaghetti monster, *can't* choose God's mercy any more than we can choose the mercy of Frankenstein. These are all mythical/fictional beings and they are not taken seriously.

To choose to follow them, you must first believe they exist, and you must also believe that you have reliable information regarding them. If you do not believe they exist, you can not choose to believe they exist either. If you don't believe me, try to convince yourself that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is real. You can't, because you know the idea is so silly and contrived that it just can't possibly be real. The same with gods.

rhutchin · 01-07-2010, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

And how, do you propose, that one accomplishes this task?
Are the words different, among the different versions, of the "holy" scripture, such that one would then have confusion about the proper interpretation?

In view of Johnny Skeptic's meritorious admonition to return to the subject of the thread, let us compare some writings, attributed to Jesus, to address this question, of how one should proceed to interpret the Bible, or the Quran.

OOPS. yes, the words are different, and yes, the interpretation does have theological consequences, even for those who insist, as does rhutchin, that mere human beings can inform supernatural gods of their intent to be "saved", notwithstanding the supernatural, omnipotent god's predetermined course of action for that particular individual.

The passage is a familiar one: John 14:28, juxtaposed to John 10:30, in two different Greek texts.

Hort & Westcott:
oti o pathr meizwn mou estin
Byzantine Majority:
oti o pathr mou meizwn mou estin

Isn't it fascinating? Somewhere in time, post Constantine, someone felt uncomfortable with the lack of "mou", so, decided to insert one.

"the" father, becomes: "my" father, with a few strokes of the quill.

Even more interesting, is the opposite notion to the one expressed in John 14:28 "For the (my) father is greater than I am." That concept is brilliantly summarized by Jesus, contradicting himself, by supposedly saying in John 10:30:
egw kai o pathr en esmen
The father and I are one. Here, all of the extant Greek versions are identical, and n.b. "the" father, not "my" father.

How can one entity be identical with a second entity, and yet be dissimilar? One, or both, of these two sayings, attributed to Jesus, must be false.

avi

The issue partly relates to text types. I think Hort/Westcott is based on the Alexandrian text while the Byzantine Majority is based on the byzantine text. So which text is the true text?

However, let's deal with the situation in the byzantine text where we read "the" father in one place and "my" father in another. I don't have a problem here because one of my sons refers to me as "the" father at various times and at other times as "my" father. He is usually referring to my authority and a particular decision I made (especially if he does not like it) when he refers to me as "the" father and will refer to me as "my" father when introducing me to someone

I sense a distinction like that between the byzantine rendering of John 14:28 and John 10:30.

rhutchin · 01-07-2010, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So, can a man who does not believe in God ever exercise his freedom to choose to seek God's mercy? He can because everything he needs to do so is available to him..

Well, you're getting the cart before the horse. Someone like myself, who truly honestly doesn't believe there are any gods...who finds the idea as silly as the idea of leprechauns or ETs mutilating cattle, or the Flying Spaghetti monster, *can't* choose God's mercy any more than we can choose the mercy of Frankenstein. These are all mythical/fictional beings and they are not taken seriously.

To choose to follow them, you must first believe they exist, and you must also believe that you have reliable information regarding them. If you do not believe they exist, you can not choose to believe they exist either. If you don't believe me, try to convince yourself that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is real. You can't, because you know the idea is so silly and contrived that it just can't possibly be real. The same with gods.

I think it better to say that you "won't" choose rather than "can't." You basically argue why you "won't" choose to believe and not why you "can't" believe.

If you "can't" believe, then it seems you should argue that you have never heard of the God of the Bible and no knowing what or who the God of the Bible is, you can't believe something about Him. You, however, give evidence of knowing about the God of the Bible, and have simply choosen to take the position, I "won't" believe.

show_no_mercy · 01-07-2010, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

There is nothing about eternal life (i.e. nullifying Adam's curse) in the Hebrew bible. Outside of Genesis, Adam's sin is theologically/soteriologically irrelevant to the Hebrew bible.

Then why does God send the prophets continually to Israel to complain about the sins of the people and continually call for them to repent?

Why does God make the Israelites His chosen people and want to use Israel an as example to all the other nations?

The whole of the OT is about sin and repentance and it all started with Adam.

But there's no concept of eternal life. The one thread running throughout the Hebrew bible is Israel's prosperity, and how their sins bring destruction to Israel. Not any individual Jew's eternal life.

bacht · 01-07-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

There is nothing about eternal life (i.e. nullifying Adam's curse) in the Hebrew bible. Outside of Genesis, Adam's sin is theologically/soteriologically irrelevant to the Hebrew bible.

Then why does God send the prophets continually to Israel to complain about the sins of the people and continually call for them to repent?

Why does God make the Israelites His chosen people and want to use Israel an as example to all the other nations?

The whole of the OT is about sin and repentance and it all started with Adam.

Yes, but not eternal life, that starts with Daniel's righteous saints and the Hellenistic apocrypha. The OT prophets are working with reward and punishment in this world, and usually on a corporate level (Israel) rather than the individualistic focus of later times.

In the gospels Jesus is portrayed as a continuation of the apocalyptic prophetic tradition, speaking against "this generation" and announcing the imminent Day of the Lord. This would be fine if we just ended up with a "Book of Jesus" or whatever, but there's the supernatural messiah bit that evolves into Christianity. The epistles present the act of God giving up his Son prior to the end, apparently a new twist on messianic expectation.

Obviously the end of the Jewish cult and state, if actually predicted by Jesus, represent fulfilled prophecy. The Christ angle is a different question.

Deus Ex · 01-07-2010, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Well, you're getting the cart before the horse. Someone like myself, who truly honestly doesn't believe there are any gods...who finds the idea as silly as the idea of leprechauns or ETs mutilating cattle, or the Flying Spaghetti monster, *can't* choose God's mercy any more than we can choose the mercy of Frankenstein. These are all mythical/fictional beings and they are not taken seriously.

To choose to follow them, you must first believe they exist, and you must also believe that you have reliable information regarding them. If you do not believe they exist, you can not choose to believe they exist either. If you don't believe me, try to convince yourself that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is real. You can't, because you know the idea is so silly and contrived that it just can't possibly be real. The same with gods.

I think it better to say that you "won't" choose rather than "can't." You basically argue why you "won't" choose to believe and not why you "can't" believe.

If you "can't" believe, then it seems you should argue that you have never heard of the God of the Bible and no knowing what or who the God of the Bible is, you can't believe something about Him. You, however, give evidence of knowing about the God of the Bible, and have simply choosen to take the position, I "won't" believe.

Typical.

This is the tired argument from theists that atheists secretly believe in God and are rejecting him.

Let's consider an analogy:
If a religious sect approached me and told me that the only way to escape eternal punishment was to believe that the moon is made up of moldy cheese, do you think that I would be able to choose to believe something that goes against my background knowledge of the moon?

My background beliefs would convince me that the moon is made up of rock and not cheese. I would be unable to conform to the creeds of the religious sect out to save my soul. At best, I would only be able to pretend to believe the moon was cheese--I would not really believe.

The same goes for mainstream world religions. My experiences and background beliefs convince me that 'holy books' are just the writings of men and not divine revelations from gods. I cannot make myself believe something that I simply do not believe.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-07-2010, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptifc

Rather than posturing, which is not useful, I suggest that we discuss specific evidence. Let's start with the book of Genesis and see how far we have to go before you can reasonably prove any claim that you believe is important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Start a new thread. Try to be concise and to the point in what you write.

Nope, since the Bible is the original claimant, it is up to Christians to present their case.

You have made many claims in many threads that God said this and that, and that God did this or that, and that God will do this or that, but you have not provided specific evidence that backs up your claims.

rhutchin · 01-07-2010, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I think it better to say that you "won't" choose rather than "can't." You basically argue why you "won't" choose to believe and not why you "can't" believe.

If you "can't" believe, then it seems you should argue that you have never heard of the God of the Bible and no knowing what or who the God of the Bible is, you can't believe something about Him. You, however, give evidence of knowing about the God of the Bible, and have simply choosen to take the position, I "won't" believe.

Typical.

This is the tired argument from theists that atheists secretly believe in God and are rejecting him.

No. The argument is that atheists can read as well as anyone else, do not believe, secretly or otherwise, in God and have decided not to believe, not because they "can't" but because they "won't."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Let's consider an analogy:
If a religious sect approached me and told me that the only way to escape eternal punishment was to believe that the moon is made up of moldy cheese, do you think that I would be able to choose to believe something that goes against my background knowledge of the moon?

My background beliefs would convince me that the moon is made up of rock and not cheese. I would be unable to conform to the creeds of the religious sect out to save my soul. At best, I would only be able to pretend to believe the moon was cheese--I would not really believe.

The same goes for mainstream world religions. My experiences and background beliefs convince me that 'holy books' are just the writings of men and not divine revelations from gods. I cannot make myself believe something that I simply do not believe.

Poor analogy. However, suppose astronauts traveled to the moon and came back and reported that there was indeed plenty of cheese on the moon and that God, who made the cheese, was coming to judge you. Would you entertain the reports of the astronauts as being possibly true, given their backgrounds, and not reject them out-of-hand?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.