Johnny Skeptic

Although I frequently debate various positions for the sake of argument, my actual position is that I am an agnostic. Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines the word "agnostic" as "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god." So, I do not argue for or against the existence of any God, but you do. You claim that you do not argue for the existence of the God of the Bible, but Genesis 1:1 says that the God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth. If you believe that, then you are arguing for the existence of the God of the Bible. If he does not exist, then the Gospels are fraudulent.

If a supernatural being created the universe, I am not aware of any evidence that he has revealed his specific identity and will to mankind. The existence of the Gospels does not reasonably prove that the possible being who inspired the writers is the same being who created the universe, which brings up the question of what gives the God of the Bible the right to enforce rules of his own choosing? Even if the being who created the universe inspired the writers, that does not mean that he has revealed his true intentions. Paul basically says that it is not surprising that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Would you find it to be surprising if God is masquerading as an angel of light?

If some other supposed God showed up and endorsed moral standards that you oppose, and insisted that you love him or he would send you to hell, what would you do?

Tigers!

Don't be too modest. Of course you argue against the existence of the God of the Bible. Virtually every thread you have ever started has that as it's foundation.

Any lack of awareness on your part is not the same as saying there is no evidence

Oppose him. But I know what you will say next so I'll get in 1st and avoid a tedious e-mail flurry.
You are free to choose which God(s) you will or will not follow. There will be consequences to that choice. We will all have to accept the consequences whether good or bad of our choices.

Johnny Skeptic

Even though I do not believe that the God of the Bible exists, I seldom argue against his existence. You obviously do not know my threads as well as you claim you do. Most of my threads in four forums are about the nature of God if he exists, not his existence.

I will be happy to consider any evidence that you have that the God of the Bible has revealed his true intentions. Paul basically says that it is not surprising that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Would you be surprised if you found out that God masquerades as an angel of light too?

Ok, you would oppose any supposed God who you believed does not have good character. That is my position as well. If the God of the Bible exists, I would not be able to accept him unless he first answered some questions to my satisfaction. I could never love any being who refused to answer my questions in person in tangible form. Judged by humans standards, many of God’s actions and allowances are quite strange for a supposedly loving being. I doubt that God could ever explain to my satisfaction why he injures or kills some of his most devout follows with hurricanes, and destroys their homes. However, I might be wrong, and God might explain his actions and allowances to my satisfaction. At any rate, I could never accept him unless he loved me enough to explain some of his actions and allowances to me in person in tangible form. I doubt that God could have anything to lose by clearly revealing himself to everyone, but I do not doubt that if he did, some people would become Christians who were not otherwise convinced.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;3731339]You've confused two concepts. The existence of God, and the message of the gospel. One can be agnostic about the existence of God, since it is a "factual" claim. The gospel is not a factual claim. It's a narrative that asks an existential question, who are you? based on certain terms relating to God's love. You really have to accept it or reject it, since the message isn't factual in nature.

[QUOTE]The gospels prove nothing and aren't intended to. That's like saying Shakespeare's Hamlet doesn't prove that life is perplexing, and our certainties about it fleeting. Yep, it doesn't prove it alright.

The gospel isn't about who created the universe, so why are you burdening it with this obligation?

I would find it surprising since existence is good, so whoever is responsible for it appears to rather like me. If you're saying would an evil God decieve us into thinking he's good by giving us the incredibly valuable gift of existence, I guess I would respond, what do you mean by evil? On it's face a God who gives me a meaningful existence is good in my book, and I know my existence is meaningful, since I can contemplate it.

How many times are you going to ask that, and how many times must I answer.

If a God showed up imposing moral standards, I'd reject him as a false God, since salvation isn't about moral standards. You can get that from the local boy scouts. God is about love, so goes the gospels, and it is the existential confrontation of the gospels that informs my Christianity, not sound moral advice.

But not to blow off your question -- I'd do what Abraham did when God said he was going to destroy Sodom. I'd tell him he's wrong and he needs to reconsider. If its the real God he'll be happy in my moral independence, which is what it means to be human, just as the God in the Abraham narrative was. If he's not the real God, he'd be upset, but he would have no power to send anybody to hell.

Further, one isn't sent to hell in Christianity. Hell is alienation for God and one's true loving self. We are already in hell. The gospels attempt to free us from it.

Johnny Skeptic

If God is masquerading as an angel of light, and sends everyone to hell, existence is most certainly not good. In such a case, any good that is experienced during this brief, temporal life would quickly vanish. Some babies are born with severe birth defects and die a few days later. How is existence good for them?

Consider the following post that I made today at the EofG Forum:

If some other supposed God showed up and endorsed murder, lying and theft, and required that you love him with all of your heart, soul, and mind or he would send you to hell, are you saying that you would be able to love him based upon the experiences that you have had or an increased knowledge of a situation?

Do you let the Bible determine for you everything that is moral?
It seems to me that you have moral standards of your own apart from what any other being says. You said:

And yet, you now say “People can change their views on morality based on the experiences they have had or an increased knowledge of a situation. You are not stuck with your moral standards. They can change. No reason why they cannot change enough to let you love God (unless of course you just prefer your moral standards to those of God no matter what).”

So, how much would you be able to change your views if another supposed God showed up and endorsed moral standards that you currently strongly object to?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Gamera: If you are right that the existence of humans and the existence of good proves that God is good, that does not necessarily mean that the God of the Bible created the universe. If the supposed God of the Bible did not create the universe, what makes his judgments valid?

Gamera

There is no proof whatsoever that the God of the bible made the universe, nor does the bible suggest there is. Indeed, it proposes the opposite: that faith, not empirical evidence, is the only acceptable way to approach the knowledge of God. Further, I can't imagine what proof of God would entail. Whatever "proof" is proposed could be dismissed as a delusion. Indeed, Jesus practically says as much in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.

You certainly can reject that proposition. But you can't really burden a text with a task it didn't undertake.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;3734003]On what basis do you presume that? You simply assume hell is a place that makes existence not worth having. That's circular reasoning. I can imagine hell as a place where existence is still meaningful and hence good. I mean existence here isn't all that perfect -- we are suffused with pain, alienation and disappointment -- and yet it still has value.


So many unexamined assumptions here. First you can't force anybody to love, so if your salvation depends on loving God, whether a good or bad God, then of course you'll never had salvation, since you can't will yourself to love anybody.

Second, why can't you change your moral values. Mine have changed significantly through my life, so empirically your statement is false. I suspect you're not speaking empirically but want to make some logical claim about choicing to love an evil God, but frankly your argument eludes me.

Third, how would you ever know God is evil, and again what does evil mean in a universe where you existence, and hence where you have meaning, and hence where there is goodness, in the sense of something valuable (indeed, somethiing more valuable than any thing, since existence is always better than not having existed). Seems to me once you admit that your existence is meaningful, and once you attribute that existence to God, you must conclude God is good.

I think you asked this question about 10 times now and I've answered everytime. I guess your really don't want a dialog, but rather a diatribe. But I'll answer again. I couldn't love a good God or a bad God on command. Love doesn't work that way, does it? Furthermore, why have you made loving God the premise of salvation. That simply isn't a Christian teaching. Salvation doesn't come from loving God, but from accepting the gospel, which is the proposition that God loves you. You got it backwards somehow.

The Bible is a complex work of many texts, many of them with ironic intent. So it's difficult to answer your question. All I can say is that Jesus says to love one another. I take that seriously and I beleive the promise that by accepting God's love I will be given the capacity to love others, a capacity which would otherwise elude me without accepting the gospel.

Frankly I'm not that interested in morality as area of knowledge, but as an experience, governed by the capacity to love, promised in the gospel.

I don't think love is a moral standard, but rather an experience. I don't think morality as a series of propositions is very interesting or useful. But the capacity to love, in contrast, governs my identity as an authrentic person.

See above. I would find such a God rather boring and meaningless to my life.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Gamera: If the universe was created by an intelligent being, what evidence do you have that that being is the God of the Bible? It seems to me that if a supernatural being inspired the writing of the Bible, we do not know whether or not he created the universe, and whether or not he revealed his true intentions. Any notions one way or the other would be mere speculation and guesswork.

Gamera

Message to Johnny: I have no such evidence and never claimed it, as I've repeated about ten times. If there were evidence of God, there would be no need for faith. There is no evidence of God or that God inspired the Christian and Hebrews texts. That's not what Christianity is about. Christianity is about the gospel, which is a challenge to examine who we are in relationship to ourselves and God. It offers no "evidence" and I am unclear what that evidence would be in any case and what good it would be. That's like addressing an audience who just enjoyed Hamlet and asking, what evidence is there that Hamlet existed? The answer is who cares -- Hamlet is a meaningful play. Similarly, the gospel is meaningful and that's all that matters.