Brojees

Amos,

Please refrain from assigning me a position that I have not myself declared then arguing counter to that position, derailing the thread.

Thank You,
Brojees

Brojees

I concur completely. This opinion sounds exactly like my own, only phrased more eloquently.

So is there a way to work past this? Or do we leave it at this?

Jobar

Well... atheists in general try to establish truth in both small and great matters in the same way. If we want to know if it's raining outside, we look to see if the ground is wet. If we want to know if God exists, we look for evidence of God.

Of course, rain is very simple; any English speaker knows what rain is. God, on the other hand, is one of the most complex words in the language; before we can discuss if it/he exists, we must first agree on what we mean when we say 'God'.

And there we run into the problem I, and BH, noted above. We cannot get a clear and consistent definition! So, if believers want to communicate with us, they need to find some intelligible definition of the word God, so we are all talking about the same thing.

Many have tried this, from both sides of the question. Not much luck so far...

B. H. Manners

Brojees,

What I personally do is ask myself what would be evidence that gods or god do not exist per see all religions in the world.

This is why I emphasize comparing the holy books of all religions.

They all seem to have:

-contradictions

-variant texts

-unproven assertions

- the religion seems to benefit certain people at
the expense of others. Ex. Brahman priests

- the different scriptures can be interpreted
many different ways. The
scriptures can also be translated many
different ways with scholars arguing forever
over which translation is correct. In other
words, no one knows just what the original
writer meant.

- false prophesies and false promises in the
holy texts themselves. Apologists have been
caught lying many times in vain attempts to
cover this up.

- When an atheist joins a discussion board of a
said faith he/she is quickly kicked off when
his/her legitimate questions go unanswered.
He/She is quickly labeled a troublemaker so as
to be disposed of quickly and not further
embarrass the "clergy".

- those who do not follow the words of a certain
book are the ones that prosper whereas those
who do become impoverished. THIS IS NOT
LIMITED TO CHRISTIANITY BUT ISLAM AND JUDAISM
IN PARTICULAR. In other words, you have laws
one cannot live by. It seems the deity(s)
bless those who oppose them and curse those
who follow them.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

Amos

That's like saying "others must speak the truth so I can benefit from lying."

The Laws were given to Moses to convict man of sin and thus not to stop sin. Moses thought that sin was good and was inspired to incorporate a natural selection plot wherein the courageous sinners would prosper at the expense of the docile obedient.

B. H. Manners

That's like saying "others must speak the truth so I can benefit from lying."

The Laws were given to Moses to convict man of sin and thus not to stop sin. Moses thought that sin was good and was inspired to incorporate a natural selection plot wherein the courageous sinners would prosper at the expense of the docile obedient.[/QB][/QUOTE]

So are you saying god wants people to sin? In the book of Romans that very attitude is condemned clearly. Also, many places in the Law of Moses state that the law was not too hard to follow and that the various punishments contained therein were for the purpose of stopping sin and evil from spreading.

My point is that the laws of the Bible may actually be bad laws, since those who follow them become impoverished and trodden down whereas those who do not follow them seem to prosper. Even Job in the book by the same name made this same observation.

It also says in the Bible that god gives people "laws they cannot live by" as a punishment for sin. Well, no one prospers following the laws Christians and Jews call "his" so they must be bad laws. Or, like I pointed out in another thread, is it possible Satan inspired parts of the Bible? I do not believe in a Satan or Jehovah, but "bad laws" can be formed by men and not be the responsibility of some god. A god could invent perfect laws that would allow no room for abuse or failure. They would work perfectly everytime without the need for some future judgement at the end of the world. Anything said to the contrary is false and rationalizations on the part of believers.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

Amos

Hello BH, I would say that God has nothing to do with religion or there would be temples in the New Jerusalem (Rev.21:22).

Yes the Laws were given to Moses for the conviction of sin. The concept sin is just a tool needed (as inspired by Moses) to redeem the first benevolent nature of man.

For the concept sin to be effective the Law must be written upon the human heart "as if in stone" from where it serves as an anvil for the act of sin to clash upon with conviction. For the law to become entrenched in our mindset (written in stone) a stream of consciousness is needed and this is where the Epistels and OT pastoral writings were all about. It is against this stream of consciousness that sin can be made, that is, no law equals no sin, and if the cross of eternal salvation is for sinners only, sin must be the illusory cause for the redemption of eternal life (prior nature). Clever but simple.

Amos

There are no bad Laws because they are made that way to encourage the courageous to take advantage of them through the violation of these laws. This is the natural selection plot I suggested above.

All sin is an illusion but with a purpose and if sin was not an illusion there would be sin in heaven or else there could not possibly be a heaven.

B. H. Manners

I don't mean to offend, but I just do not understand what you are saying. Please rewrite what you said in a clear and precise manner. The same goes for your post below the one quoted above.

Brojees

To be sure, one cannot apply the descriptions of natural phenomena when attmpting to describe spiritual phenomena, and yes granted the definitions of spiritual phenomena do vary, just as the definitions of unexplained natural phenomena vary as well. But does the variance in definition of unexplained natural phenomena invalidate the existence of the phenomena?