Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JamesBannon · 03-20-2006, 06:32 AM

Nor me. I simply found it untenable and stupid and that was back when I was 14 or so. Now that I know a little more about the doctrinal positions I think it's even dafter than I did back then.

rhutchin · 03-20-2006, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

And, in my case, your "suspicion" is unfounded. Nothing unduly "bad" happened to me.

BTW, the Bible also says that those who were "saved", those who actually have "shared in the Holy Spirit" and who have "tasted the goodness of the word of God", can indeed "fall away" later. Hebrews 6:4-6 mentions such people.

Another Biblical contradiction.

The language used in Hebrews 6 is unique from that language used to describe those who are saved elsewhere in the Bible. Whether this is a contradiction is debatable. Much of the NT deals with issues that arose within the church as a consequence of actions by people who claimed to be saved but were not. Hebrews seems to be one more passage addressing the problem.

rhutchin · 03-20-2006, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

Nor me. I simply found it untenable and stupid and that was back when I was 14 or so. Now that I know a little more about the doctrinal positions I think it's even dafter than I did back then.

Given that it occurred when you were 14, there would be no reason to expect you to think that you were saved other than your participation in certain cultural rites (e.g., getting baptized) where people might have pronounced you saved (maybe done to make your parents feel good).

Johnny Skeptic · 03-20-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If God were different than that which the Bible portrays Him to be, we cannot know it, so our response to God can only reflect that which the Bible tells us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Your argument is ridiculous. If God is good, he would portray himself as being good, but if God is evil and deceptive, he would not portray himself as being evil and deceptive. Paul admits this. He says that Satan has transformed himself into an angel of light. The rebuttable presumption is that if God is evil, it would be quite natural for him to transform himself into an angel of light too, and that if God is evil, it would be easy for him to duplicate anything that it attributed to the God of the Bible.

Do you have any tangible evidence that the God who is depicted in the Bible is still alive? If he used to exist, maybe now he is dead and the universe is self-sustaining. It doesn’t make sense for you to suggest that people use speculation and guesswork to conclude that they should accept a God whose present existence has not been established.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The evidence we have is that contained in the Bible. If it is not sufficient to answer all your questions, then there is nothing anyone can do about it. If you doubt whether God is alive, that is fine. There is nothing wrong with doubts. If you are certain that God is not alive then you should act on that knowledge. If you have doubts whether God is alive or dead, then act consistent with that uncertainty.

You quote Paul as if you are certain that he has told you the truth or at least willing to accept the idea that he has written the truth. Treat the rest of the Bible in the same way. If you are certain that none of the Bible writers wrote the truth, then act accordingly.

Paul says that Satan has transformed himself into an angel of light. I have not accepted that Paul wrote the truth about that or that he did not write the truth about that. My position is that regarding Christians who believe that he wrote the truth about that, in order to be consistent, they must agree that there is a reasonable possibility that if God is evil, he would also choose to transform himself into an angel of light. If he did, there would be no way that Christians could be aware of it.

Your arguments are easily defeated by the simple fact that the evidence in the Bible would be sufficient ONLY if good, truthful supernatural beings AND evil, deceptive supernatural beings both disclosed what their motives are, AND if we had reliable means for determining the motives of powerful, evil, supernatural beings based upon their actions, but such is not the case, whether regarding evil supernatural beings or evil, deceptive human beings. So, written records only tell one side of the story, and a one-sided story is not sufficient evidence for people to accept the God of the Bible.

The emotional, illogical, irrational response based upon self-interest is to love the God of the Bible based upon guesswork, to assume that he is good, and that an evil, deceptive, omnipotent, omnipresent God does not exist, even though Paul says that evil, deceptive, supernatural beings exist.

Without having explanations that I deemed to be sufficient, it would be impossible for me to love a God who goes out of his way to make people blind, deaf, and dumb. Exodus 4:11 says “And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?” In addition, God ordered the death penalty for any Jew who killed another Jew, but he did not order the death penalty for a Jew who killed a slave. Further, God created the recent tsunami in Asia and Hurricane Katrina, knowing full well the suffering that would be caused even to his most faithful servants.

If God showed up and explained himself, which he ought to do, maybe I would deem his explanations to be acceptable, but maybe I wouldn’t. The Bible writers cherry-picked examples of God’s goodness and disregarded lots of obvious evidence to the contrary. Surely you wouldn’t expect any religious writer to criticize their ticket to a comfortable heaven.

I do not accept the notion of salvation by faith instead of merit. Maybe God would have an explanation that I deemed to be acceptable, but maybe I wouldn’t.

I would like to ask God why he has not sent Jesus back to earth. Maybe he would have an explanation that I deemed to be acceptable, but maybe I wouldn’t.

If the God of the Bible exists, based upon his widely varying and inconsistent behavior as depicted in the Bible, it is quite possible, actually quite likely, that he is bi-polar or manic-depressive. Certainly any human who exhibited such behavior would be put under psychiatric care.

Even if I wanted to, it would be impossible for me, and for millions of other people as well, to rubber stamp the requirements of any being, whether natural or supernatural, and to love him, simply because he has the power to hurt people that refuse to accept him, most especially if he will not show up and explain himself in detail.

Regardless of what God might have been thousands or millions of years ago, it is what he is today that is the most important. He might not exist today. It does not make any sense for you to ask people to accept a God whose present existence is not anywhere near provable. It also does not make any sense for you to ask people to accept God since as a Calvinist, your position is that God chooses who will be saved. If Calvinism is true, there is no need for anyone to make a wager, or for that matter, to be born. God could simply create a comfortable heaven and put in it people whom he would have chosen had they been born. That way, there would be no need for anyone to be born who would have ended up in hell.

Dlx2 · 03-20-2006, 03:25 PM

It doesn't really matter if God is good or evil, because the construction of the Wager is fallacious anyways.

aa5874 · 03-20-2006, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Given that it occurred when you were 14, there would be no reason to expect you to think that you were saved other than your participation in certain cultural rites (e.g., getting baptized) where people might have pronounced you saved (maybe done to make your parents feel good).

The above statement shows the invalidation and uselessness of Pascal's Wager. A person can believe that they are 'saved ' when they are not.

rhutchin · 03-21-2006, 03:49 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Given that it occurred when you were 14, there would be no reason to expect you to think that you were saved other than your participation in certain cultural rites (e.g., getting baptized) where people might have pronounced you saved (maybe done to make your parents feel good).

aa5874
The above statement shows the invalidation and uselessness of Pascal's Wager. A person can believe that they are 'saved ' when they are not.

So what. The Wager has nothing to do with a person being saved.

rhutchin · 03-21-2006, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Paul says that Satan has transformed himself into an angel of light. I have not accepted that Paul wrote the truth about that or that he did not write the truth about that. My position is that regarding Christians who believe that he wrote the truth about that, in order to be consistent, they must agree that there is a reasonable possibility that if God is evil, he would also choose to transform himself into an angel of light. If he did, there would be no way that Christians could be aware of it.

Your arguments are easily defeated by the simple fact that the evidence in the Bible would be sufficient ONLY if good, truthful supernatural beings AND evil, deceptive supernatural beings both disclosed what their motives are, AND if we had reliable means for determining the motives of powerful, evil, supernatural beings based upon their actions, but such is not the case, whether regarding evil supernatural beings or evil, deceptive human beings. So, written records only tell one side of the story, and a one-sided story is not sufficient evidence for people to accept the God of the Bible.

The emotional, illogical, irrational response based upon self-interest is to love the God of the Bible based upon guesswork, to assume that he is good, and that an evil, deceptive, omnipotent, omnipresent God does not exist, even though Paul says that evil, deceptive, supernatural beings exist.

Without having explanations that I deemed to be sufficient, it would be impossible for me to love a God who goes out of his way to make people blind, deaf, and dumb. Exodus 4:11 says “And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?” In addition, God ordered the death penalty for any Jew who killed another Jew, but he did not order the death penalty for a Jew who killed a slave. Further, God created the recent tsunami in Asia and Hurricane Katrina, knowing full well the suffering that would be caused even to his most faithful servants.

If God showed up and explained himself, which he ought to do, maybe I would deem his explanations to be acceptable, but maybe I wouldn’t. The Bible writers cherry-picked examples of God’s goodness and disregarded lots of obvious evidence to the contrary. Surely you wouldn’t expect any religious writer to criticize their ticket to a comfortable heaven.

I do not accept the notion of salvation by faith instead of merit. Maybe God would have an explanation that I deemed to be acceptable, but maybe I wouldn’t.

I would like to ask God why he has not sent Jesus back to earth. Maybe he would have an explanation that I deemed to be acceptable, but maybe I wouldn’t.

If the God of the Bible exists, based upon his widely varying and inconsistent behavior as depicted in the Bible, it is quite possible, actually quite likely, that he is bi-polar or manic-depressive. Certainly any human who exhibited such behavior would be put under psychiatric care.

Even if I wanted to, it would be impossible for me, and for millions of other people as well, to rubber stamp the requirements of any being, whether natural or supernatural, and to love him, simply because he has the power to hurt people that refuse to accept him, most especially if he will not show up and explain himself in detail.

Regardless of what God might have been thousands or millions of years ago, it is what he is today that is the most important. He might not exist today. It does not make any sense for you to ask people to accept a God whose present existence is not anywhere near provable. It also does not make any sense for you to ask people to accept God since as a Calvinist, your position is that God chooses who will be saved. If Calvinism is true, there is no need for anyone to make a wager, or for that matter, to be born. God could simply create a comfortable heaven and put in it people whom he would have chosen had they been born. That way, there would be no need for anyone to be born who would have ended up in hell.

Theoretically, anything is possible. You choose to believe what you want to believe. If God wants to save you, He will; if not, He won't. There is nothing wrong with Calvinists (and even Arminians) explaining your situation to you before you stand before God since, if you want to complain about your situation, it is best to do it before you die than after when it is too late. The only problem with the Arminians is that they will tell you that you decide whether you want to be saved when that is not the case.

JPD · 03-21-2006, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Theoretically, anything is possible. You choose to believe what you want to believe. If God wants to save you, He will; if not, He won't. There is nothing wrong with Calvinists (and even Arminians) explaining your situation to you before you stand before God since, if you want to complain about your situation, it is best to do it before you die than after when it is too late. The only problem with the Arminians is that they will tell you that you decide whether you want to be saved when that is not the case.

So all you have is belief and...do you have anything concrete at all? 90 pages ago you started to try to get us to see how Pascal's wager has some validity in dealing with uncertainty and you have still not managed to demonstrate how it offers anything at all. Uncertainty, actually, is what everyone experiences when asking themselves whether (a particular) God exists, and what behaviour (a particular) God might exhibit in response to individuals behaving in particular ways or believing particular things. You have no answers to anything at all - you rely on things that other people wrote that they may or may not have actually believed at the time - if you want to go down the "Well, I'm not sure that you were a true believer since you have left it behind you" route then we are fully entitled to request that you demonstrate that the recorded beliefs are actually beliefs and not just things that people wrote down because they sounded impressive and wanted their readers to imagine that the writers had access to special knowledge (that cannot be validated or verified in any way).

rhutchin · 03-21-2006, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

So all you have is belief and...do you have anything concrete at all? 90 pages ago you started to try to get us to see how Pascal's wager has some validity in dealing with uncertainty and you have still not managed to demonstrate how it offers anything at all. Uncertainty, actually, is what everyone experiences when asking themselves whether (a particular) God exists, and what behaviour (a particular) God might exhibit in response to individuals behaving in particular ways or believing particular things. You have no answers to anything at all - you rely on things that other people wrote that they may or may not have actually believed at the time - if you want to go down the "Well, I'm not sure that you were a true believer since you have left it behind you" route then we are fully entitled to request that you demonstrate that the recorded beliefs are actually beliefs and not just things that people wrote down because they sounded impressive and wanted their readers to imagine that the writers had access to special knowledge (that cannot be validated or verified in any way).

What a person has is the Bible or the Koran or the Book of Mormon or whatever religious book. The person places his faith in that book accepting the truth of that which it tells him and he has the confidence that when he stands before the god of that religious book, that god take him into heaven and not leave him out in torment.

The Wager says that it is better to have believed in God (whoever that God is) and find out that there is no God than to have not believed in God and find out that God is real. According to the Wager, the irrational mind will argue that it is OK not to believe in God even if it turns out that God is real.

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

03-20-2006, 06:32 AM	#2221
JamesBannon Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Paisley, Scotland Posts: 5,819	Nor me. I simply found it untenable and stupid and that was back when I was 14 or so. Now that I know a little more about the doctrinal positions I think it's even dafter than I did back then.

03-20-2006, 03:25 PM	#2225
Dlx2 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 2,546	It doesn't really matter if God is good or evil, because the construction of the Wager is fallacious anyways.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.