Free Thinkr

Wrong. If you're right, god created everything. Therefore, sin came from god.

So god is a slave to a set of conditions? If someone uses their genitals (that god created) to copulate (an act god instilled us with a great desire to do) before marriage (an institution supposedly set up by god), god can not tolerate this person by definition? And how does god turning himself into a human and dieing help this?

Yes, but I was set up! Here's a little illustration for you:

You say that humans can not be free from sin, therefore
being human = being sinful

God supposedly created me, a human. Therefore
I = sinful

What the hell did god expect? No shit. If all god wanted us to do is accept him, why this huge elaborate scheme? Love me or I'll shoot you.

Did you read what I typed? Was this some sort of rebuttal, or an anecdote? I mentioned that people can not choose their beliefs, therefore they shouldn't be judged for them. You reply with a story about how your family judged you for beliefs you can not help. So we're in agreement, I suppose. Now why is it, again, that god tortures people for their beliefs? Do you feel your grandparents are justified in their ignoring you? Would you if they were right?

Again, did you even read my post? No, I did not choose to reject the idea of God because I can't find evidence for him. I simply don't. I didn't choose anything. Do you believe I can dunk a basketball with the rim at 12'? Did you choose whether or not you believe?

Really? Native americans and eastern Asians lived thousands of years with no knowledge whatsoever of the bible. Oh well for them, I guess. Hope they're enjoying eternal torture.

Yes, but god supposedly made me, right? Why start with a form you know to be flawed and then keep it if it betters itself and torture it if it doesn't? Can you not see the problem with this (in terms of a loving god, of course)?

Oh, but according to you he most definitely does. You say that no man can ever be free from sin. You say that god created me. Therefore god indirectly forced me to sin.

I did what I was programmed to do. If every human sins by definition, I can not help but sin, no?

Wait, I thought sin was going against what *is* right; a standard by which god is apparently held accountable to. I guess now we're back to sin being what god dislikes for whatever reason. Why is it important that god give us the ability to rape as a part of free will? Oh wait, let me guess: If we didn't have the free will to rape, we'd be mindless robots.

Magus55

Sorry God isn't a vindictive monster, as much as you like to portray him that way. If some far off people have never even heard of a Bible or Jesus, God is not gonna hold them accountable. He will most likely judge what they did with their life and if they sought any higher meaning above themselves. God knows your every single thought and desire, he will make the right decision based on the knowledge you had and how you used it.

everlastingtongue

So some marginally decent guy who lived back then goes to heaven but Ghandi, who had the unfortunate luck to be born in the era of Christ-knowledge, goes to Hell? That makes sense to you? So God cares more about timing than goodness?

Free Thinkr

You just contradicted yourself, fella.

First you said:
"Yes God is omnipotent, and he can do anything that doesn't defy who he is. Can a square not have 4 sides? No because then it wouldn't be a square. Just like God can't not be righteous and holy, otherwise he wouldn't be God."

Now you say that god can cut a break for people who were unaware of his word. If god truly could not be in the presence of sin, god would be forced to send the unsaved to hell regardless of whether or not they knew of god. Don't you see how this is an unjust system?

everlastingtongue

A better way to put it (vs. my previous post):

Suppose I live in an ancient area that has no knowledge of Jesus. I live a good life – I aspire to something better, I’m honest and hardworking. I go to heaven. But if I live the exact same life having been exposed to the knowledge of Jesus and refuse it I go to hell. Your god is not picking the right people for his team.

Wyz_sub10

This is very curious statement, on two accounts.

Firstly, you make the accusation that archaeologists are trying to disprove the bible. I cannot imagine why you think this is the case. No offence, but I don't think you're very familiar with the history of arch. expeditions in the middle east. For most of the 20th century most digs have been spearheaded by those seeking to confirm stories in the bible, not the other way around.

Secondly, no one doubts that the sites described in the bible existed.

But here's the rub...

The major events which should be supported by archaeological evidence are demonstratively false - the exodus, the Israelite conquest of Canaan. Let me give you a few examples (and you can see if you really have an open mind when it comes to new information).

The book of Numbers mentions the king of Arad "who dwelt in the Negreb". Archaeology reveals that, yes, Arad existed...but not then. This was supposedly in the Late Bronze Age, and Arad simply did not exist then. Perhaps the story did occur, but certainly not according to the timeline given (by 1,000 years). Same as the state of Edom. It simply did not exist at this time.

The walls of Jericho? No, they didn't come down with trumpet blasts for two significant reasons - 1) Canaanite cities were not walled or fortified. 2) Jericho was uninhabited by the 13th century BCE, and in the 14th century was sparsely populated. The same can be said for Ai.

This doesn't even touch on the fact that Israelites were not conquerors or immigrants to the land. Rather they were likely highland settlers from Canaan who left the cities as that civilization drew to an end.

There is nothing sinister about any of these discoveries. In many cases, the initial discoveries were made by Christians, who then developed theories to explain the discrepancies. But as more discrepancies were discovered, it become pretty much impossible to reconcile the stories with the evidence.

Explaining why the exodus couldn't have happened requires more space, but the evidence is clear and unambiguous.

No, I'm referring to, say, the complete lack of evidence for a global flood. The flood, itself, is implausible, and the lack of evidence (in fact, evidence to the contrary) suggests that it could not have happened.

Of course you could just say that god did it and covered up the evidence (perhaps to test our faith). But this is supposition unsupported by anything in the bible or Jewish teachings. In other words, it's an ad hoc solution to a very real problem.

Well, that presents two problems - how do you differentiate literal meaning from metaphor?

Here's a question - was Jonah swallowed by a big fish? Well talk about that, but I want to hear what you think first.

The second problem is that this does not account for direct contradictions. Who was the paternal grandfather of Jesus, for instance?

I'm afraid it wasn't. You could argue that most of western morality is based on the bible. There may be some truth to that, in as much as most of the western world is Christian. But in practice, you will not find a difference in western, eastern, African or Pacific "morality", so it's not the bible's moral code that permeates society. It's the moral code that makes society sustainable across the world. (Before Moses, people still had morals)

I don't understand the first part of this quote. But as for the last part, if god did exist, he doesn't interact directly with us, so what morality a transcendent being would follow is irrelevant to us. But in your belief god did give the "moral code" to humans, so there should be some connection between this code and what is "right".

How do you know what I've done? Feel free to consider yourself a criminal - that's your choice. But I don't think it's your job to assess the state of others.

Doesn't god already know my crimes, and whether my heart is contrite? I didn't create humanity and its imperfections, and I didn't set my brain up. I'm actually quite good at dealing with temptations. Is it a sin to be tempted to, because I can do nothing about that.

But I don't believe that. How can you force yourself to believe in something that goes against everything you know? It's not possible - literally.

Besides, you didn't address my challenge. Could you force yourself to sincerely believe I was 5 years old if you had nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so?

Sorry, this statement is so full of inexplicable self-loathing that it makes me feel sad for you. I don't mean that in a condescending way - I mean that it's sad, to me, that you think you are deserving of death and hell, that you were saved by an event that happened 2 thousand years before you were born. I value myself and the people around me far more than that. I would think that, as god supposed creations, he would value as more than that too.

Magus55, this makes no sense. Jesus was god, right? So what did he give up? If god sent him here to die, than giving up his earthly life was no big deal because that's the only reason he was here in the first place. Plus, he was god incarnate - he couldn't die, he was guaranteed salvation. So what did he lose?

And how did this "stop-and-go" visit to earth constitute any kind of sacrifice whatsoever?

This is a bad, bad argument - god created us with the capability to sin. We sinned so god had to send someone to die so we could be cleansed of the sin that happened because god allowed it in the first place.

Do you have an open mind? Truly? Or does "open mindedness" only work one way for you?

Think about the situation you are describing. If you cannot make sense of it without falling back on "who are we to question god", then you have some soul searching to do.

They say the same about you. Why should I believe you and not them?

What "backing" are you talking about? Numbers? History? "Miracles"? I think if you did some research, you'd find that this simply was not true. If you lived in a Hindu town, with Hindu parents, you would think differently.

Like what? You mention evidence, backing, etc. but what, specifically, are you talking about?

Let me put it this way - you and a Muslim stand before a man who knows nothing of religion. What can you tell him that will provide more support than you Muslim peer?

Why did Christians burn witches at the stake? Or lead the Crusades?

Besides, if I'm Mulsim, I'll say to you that Allah's morality is supreme. That he is not bound by human law. And who are you to question Allah's decisions? (did you not use all of these same arguments to justify god's behaviour? can you not see that, when the tables are turned, there's no real difference?)

This is false. There is no promise of little boys, and really, you are misunderstanding things. After all, not everything is meant to be literal....right? Did you not just say that yourself?

Apart from polygamy, how does this differ from the OT??

Again...so? Who are you to judge god's morality?

You've played your hand, my friend. See, *you* - Magus55 - have an understanding of morality independent of god and the bible. You can read something and find it repugnant or "wrong" regardless of what the bible says.

Why is Allah's command to kill infidels wrong when Yhwh's commands to kill infidels is justifiable?

So the bible doesn't discuss farting? That means it doesn't condemn it as ineloquent, either. Yet you seem to have decided - all on your own - that god would never do this. Why?

So his "earthly life" and "sacrifice" were both no big deal. If he was god, he really didn't lose anything. It's not a sacrifice to die when you know that your death is no death at all. He could have sent himself 50 times a year to do the exact same thing.


This tells me:

- god has bad foresight
- god didn't understand his creations
- god made a mistake
- god should not have created the ability to sin
- god had to send *himself* to clean up the mess he made

Sure. But that sounds pretty greedy and self-centred, doesn't it? Dreaming of all the stuff you can get in heaven if only you do this and that? Maybe you get 77 virgins to satisfy you? Perhaps the bible only implies what the Koran states implicitly.

[QUOTE] You're right, i deserve Hell just like you...[QUOTE]

Speak for yourself.

What's the point of this eternal torment? Not to teach me a lesson, because there's no way out. Why would a loving god do this? Please don't tell me it's because he can be with sin, because that does not explain the torment or the eternity.

Who are you to limit gods powers? If he saved us through dying on the cross, how do you know he can't save us some other way? You are making assumptions while, all the while, telling me that I cannot do the same.

Non sequitur. It does not follow that this is the only way, even if Jesus *did* have perfect faith.

So do you deserve to pay for my speeding tickets too? Or can you agree that I should pay them and that the courts are justified in asking me to do so? If guessing you think I should pay for them myself. I'm guessing you think that just because a thief should go to jail, it does not follow that you have to go to jail too, just because you are a sinner.

If so, then you haven't answered my question - just avoided it.

Okay, so if I steal all your stuff and beat cousin within an inch of his life, you'll not press charges, nor will you expect any punishment because, after all, you're a sinner too.

Is this what you are saying? I doubt it is. (I hope it isn't)

At some point (if not already) you may have a son or daughter that will require your discipline. You cannot divest yourself of this responsibility simply because you are a sinner.

So answer the question.

theophilus

Tongue;

First, I do not subscribe to these types of arguments as proof of God.

However, for the sake of having meaningful discussion, it is important that you correctly understand (and represent) the arguments of your opponent (neither of which you've done).

Re the argument "from" design (technically known as the Teleological argument) says nothing about the perfection the earth's design. It says the earth exhibits characteristics consistent with having been designed with intelligent purpose. If this is true, it cannot be accounted for by "chance."

The Cosmological argument (first cause or first mover) was propounded at least as far back as Aristotle. Aquinas, who tried to superimpose Aristotelian Forms onto Christian thought, picked it up and used it as an argument.

The basis of the argument is that, in our experience, every material effect has a cause (never mind Hume). In this context, material existence is considered as an "effect." Since "things" do not set themselves in motion (at least in our experience); they are always "set" in motion by another. To avoid "infinite regress," i.e., tracing causes back infinitely, the argument says there must have been a "first" cause.

Either material effects are "self-caused" contrary to our experience and the "laws" of science, or there is an "uncaused" first cause.

God, by definition, is not "self-caused" or "self-created;" both of those would be logical contradicitons. God is "self-existent;" he did not have a "beginning" and he depends on nothing outside himself for his continuing existence.

God, at least the one who is reveled in scirpture, is an "immaterial" being and, as such, is not affected by the constraints of time and space existence. So, it is logically conceivable that he is eternal.

I hope this clarifies the issues.

everlastingtongue

Thank you. These arguments do make much more sense now.

If I someone presented me with these arguments I would counter by saying that either the universe has always existed, just a Christians claim God has, or given infinite chances over an infinite amount of time, I can believe that the universe came about on its own. Either concept seems to me just as likely as the existence of a creator. Yes the universe can appear to be of an intelligent design, I’ll give you that. But only because it is organized can we sit here and type about it. Who knows how many failed universes existed before this one?

My real problem comes when a Christian claims that just because there might be a creator, it proves the existence of their God and legitimizes the Bible. Fine, there might be a creator, but how can someone claim to know this creator, what he wants and the details of his creation? In my experience this is the leap they nearly always make. Proving that a creator exists is far from proving that the Christian version of God exists.

theophilus

Both these statements are manifestly false.

See here for an example that there was a firm belief that the Bible was not trustworthy regarding ancient events and civilizations: http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_...chaeology.html

See here for a credible challenge re Jericho: http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/...millennium.php

Additionally, the Bible is not presented as nor is its purpose to provide a comprehensive/detailed chronology of world events. It, rather, presents it's history thematically (in order) according to God's redemptive working. When dates are given, they are in relation to the reign of a particular king.

People (Christians and non) have gotten into trouble because they tried to make the Old Testament an uninterrupted chronology, e.g., Bishop Butler and because Plolemey's chronology was taken as authoritative, which it is not.

theophilus

This is one of the reasons I don't subscribe to these arguments (I do believe that the creation gives evidence of the "power and godhead" of a creator).

There are some who would argue, e.g., Hugh Ross, that God's love and purpose can all be deduced from the nature of creation. I do not believe this.

The larger question for all of us is "how do we know anything?" I believe, and have argued elsewhere, that knowledge is inexplicable without God and his revelation.