Wayne Delia

So what? Adam was unable to determine that disobeying God was wrong.

That's not suggested anywhere in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve.

Then why the hell would you include it in your argument? Your argument is already bad enough without weighing it down with other people's ideas you don't even agree with.

How about your responsibility to answer Sauron's question about whether rejecting any god of any arbitrary religion is "irrational" and "emotional"? You've been dodging that responsibility for quite some time now.

WMD

Wayne Delia

Adam and Eve were explicitly banned from the Garden of Eden because "they had become like 'us', knowing good and evil." Nowhere in the story is there any indication of Adam attempting to establish his own rules. You're not very familiar with the Bible, are you?

God knew in advance Adam would sin. God can't be wrong. Therefore... See if you can arrive at the proper conclusion.

Although your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, if God made Adam with the ability to sin, then it's God's own damn fault if He's upset when Adam sins.

It would only seem that way to very, very stupid people. One must believe in X in order to complain to X; atheists do not believe in X (where X = "God") so we don't even bother complaining to God. What about that simple explanation is so confusing to you?

What impacts? I've lived the majority of my life as if God did not exist; there have been no impacts whatsoever. What kind of impacts are you imagining?

WMD

Wayne Delia

"Yeah, what has science ever done for us, anyway?" (Moe Sislak, on "The Simpsons", turning off the TV over the bar)

Then you understand neither science nor evolution. "True evolution in action" is a change in allele frequencies from one generation of life to the next. The adaptation of scientific principles to newly discovered evidence has nothing to do with changing allele frequencies from one generation of life to the next. And this adaptation of newly discovered evidence is a good thing, which is the primary advantage over unchanging religious dogma: science can admit and correct mistakes, while accounting for new evidence in ways that religious dogma can never hope to achieve. That's why the current "Intelligent Design" crowd looks like such complete morons.

And you figure that ancient manuscripts of religious holy books are immune to that problem? That's probably among the major objections against religious holy books. As an example, the author of Leviticus seems to have identified bats as birds, causing all sorts of embarrassment to Biblical inerrantists.

There are plenty of mainstream Christians who would insist that they have a personal relationship with Jesus, probably a majority of Christians, who feel that God speaks to them directly. What kind of a cult did you find yourself in? It certainly wasn't mainstream Christianity.

Would you care to apply that standard against current Christians who make the same claim about God speaking to them actively? These would be mainstream Christians, not fundamentalists or any kind of cult members. I am guessing you wouldn't apply that standard against them, because they're already Christian and supposedly on your side of the argument, even though you are no longer a Christian.

Especially the one about a Muslim must die as a martyr in order to get to the Islamic heaven. That was just plain ignorant.

I'll call you on this. Provide an exact Sura reference in the Qu'ran where it says that Christians are a cult. It doesn't make that claim. In fact, the term "cult" wasn't even invented when the Qu'ran was written.

Therefore, there are no other religions at all in the world. (Are you serious?)

Judaism and Christianity are the cults. How long have you been a cult member? (Get the point? Simply identifying a competing religion as a cult doesn't make it one.)

Just not in any way you can demonstrate. OK, then - Christians have their Christ, and Moslems have their Mohammed... and all cults have a charismatic, central figure whose authority cannot be questioned. It's a symptom of a cult. Therefore, Christianity is a cult.

{Edited}

WMD

Johnny Skeptic

And what would you have bet on in 2,000 B.C.?

Johnny Skeptic

And what would be wrong with that? Is not a fully informed decision the best kind of decision? Would you object if God showed up and clearly revealed himself to everyone? Of course you wouldn't. In fact, you would celebrate it.

Nor is there any obligation on anyone’s part to accept any God with anything less than first hand, absolute proof that he has so-called supernatural powers and has their best interest at heart.

Since self-interest is emotional, if logic were the sole means of choosing a world view, no one would accept any religion. If God clearly revealed himself to everyone, emotions would be much less of a factor, right?

Consider the following scriptures:

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. [The NIV translates “works� as “miracles�.]

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

Now rhutchin, regarding the preceding scriptures, if the events actually happened, it was first hand, tangible evidence that convinced some people to accept Jesus, most certainly not emotions. First hand experiences are the most reliable kind of experiences. If heaven and hell are actually at stake, everyone deserves to be able to make a decision to accept or reject God based upon first hand experiences. While God could not possibly have anything whatsoever to lose if he clearly revealed himself to everyone, mankind would have much to gain if he clearly revealed himself to everyone.

You mentioned logic, but what logic is there in God limiting the amount of evidence that is available to people? Instead of less than 600 people who Jesus supposedly appeared to after he rose from the dead, why not one million people with varying world views instead of people who were partial to Jesus?

Regarding the intent of the human heart, you have twice conveniently avoided replying to the following:

Please reply to those arguments.

quip

Apologies if this has been stated previously; I'm not going through 33 pages!

I'm also not Christian, but here goes:

A necessary Being/creator...ie... the argument from contingency.


The Christian God qualifies as good as any other god for such a capacity.

rhutchin

One clarification. If God revealed Himself to everyone as He did to Saul on the road to Damascus, then everyone could be saved. Obviously, God did appear to a great many people in the person of Jesus Christ and was rejected. You are correct. I would be ecstatic if God showed up and revealed Himself to everyone and everyone got saved. That God does not do this indicates that He is not going to save everyone. Given that you know this, why would you do nothing (i.e., deny God)?

I agree. However, if one did not think it in his interest to endure eternal torment, then greater initiative would be called for. Otherwise, a person should do as he pleases.

I find that interesting also. God does what He wants and not that which we demand of Him. Your reaction is, If God is going to be like that, then I don’t want any part of Him. You end up screwing yourself.

I have responded to this. The person is accountable to God for everything he does. God does not have to reveal Himself to anyone (although God argues that He has done so through His creation and that is sufficient). The purpose for God to reveal Himself to anyone is to save that person. Thus, God has obligated Himself to reveal Himself only to those He intends to save.

rhutchin

Given that people don't know any more about the physical sciences today than in 2,000 BC, I would not have bet on the physical sciences then, either.

JPD

Your belief - unsubstantiated.

Your belief - unsubstantiated.

Your belief - unsubstantiated.

Your belief - unsubstantiated.


Sum total is your beliefs - unsubstantiated. There is nothing here I'm afraid. Only a fool would find your arguments compelling.

rhutchin

Nothing in terms of showing you how to escape eternal torment.

I thought the author of Leviticus identified bats and birds as animals that fly. I thought that was accurate.

They mean “directly through His word.� Did you think they were talking about God calling them on the phone or something?

That seems to be the main way to do it for the Muslim (at least to guarantee it).