What The Bible Has The Others Don't...

[Rick W]

You say....

"Just because I don't believe now, doesn't mean I won't ever believe. I haven't made up my mind permanently. Please don't project closed mindedness onto me. It's very insulting"

If you were to leave your computer and take a bathroom break and on the way you tripped,
fell against the tub crushing your skull, then your decision becomes permanent don't you think :

In His Service,
turnorburn

Can't force belief turnorburn.
But I know what you're saying and you're not trying to force anything on anyone I'm sure.
Love the pic. :-D

 

[turnorburn]

You say....

"Just because I don't believe now, doesn't mean I won't ever believe. I haven't made up my mind permanently. Please don't project closed mindedness onto me. It's very insulting"

If you were to leave your computer and take a bathroom break and on the way you tripped,
fell against the tub crushing your skull, then your decision becomes permanent don't you think :

In His Service,
turnorburn

Can't force belief turnorburn.
But I know what you're saying and you're not trying to force anything on anyone I'm sure.
Love the pic. :-D

Oh I know but somebody told me he says, if you pull hard it will come easy

Well, I'm pullin..

Btw I like your signature :

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

In the presence of God there can be no sin, only good. Totally separated from God there can be no good.
God created light. Without light there is darkness. Likewise without heat there is cold and where there is no good there is only evil.

False analogy. "without heat there is no cold" no such thing in our univerese. Cold is just a word to represent a subjective feeling towards the heat state of a certain material. There is not such things as cold technically. There are just degrees of an energy state. Never reaching absolute 0 because matter/energy would cease to exist, therefore defying thermodynamics.

Of course, it is easy to see why this very issue means there is no such thing as darkness, as it is physically impossible to bring the state of anything to 0 energy, thereby 0 light. Darkness nor cold have any actual reference point for a zero condition, therefore they are just used to reference the amount of light and energy comparatively.

I don't have all the answers. Nobody does. Do I have questions? You bet. Will I get all the answers while locked in the physical? No. And will I get proof why I should believe? Again, no.
I accept that.

I am curious on you personal opinion though. I am not trying to lead it to anything. Just curiosity.

 

[Rick W]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

I had an opinion once. Well, a few really. Depended on who I was talking to at the time. Besides, I really didn't care anyway. But that changed when I was able to read the bible after being saved back in '98.
You?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

My opinion really doesn't count because I am agnostic leaning heavily towards atheistic.

For the concept of eternal damnation, I believe it leads one to have to create unsupported theology in order for it to mesh with justice. For instance, in order to believe someone rejects God to go to hell, therefore you have to start defining what that rejection is.

Is it rejecting the Abrahamic God? If that is the position of the theology, then you will damn people who never heard of the Abrahamic God. Therefore they are unjustly being damned. Such would be the fate for many indigenous peoples such as the Native Americans, Mayans, Aztecs, the Chinese in earlier history, the middle and lower African continent tribes, the Australian Natives, and so forth before the spread of missionaries. They would all be damned and in torment because God did not send an emissary to them until the spread of Christianity. One would have to wonder what was it that made all of the early Christians so special that God would send the emissary to them and give them the opportunity and not the other regions of the world.

Also, you would damn individuals who are not capable of understanding the message, such as children, the mentality challenged, and so forth.

The only saving grace so far is the belief of implied grace. If you were uncapable of hearing the message, you are saved by grace. If that were true, than all the people listed above would actually be at an advantage to anyone else. They wouldn't have to choose which religion or belief. They would just have to believe the only religion they had heard of. That would be a big advantage for anyone born in the industrialized world who have understanding of different religions and are therefore forced to pick through to find the one that they feel is true.

Also the implied grace theology is not really supported in the Bible, therefore it is more of a modern day doctrine.

You could go with the predestination doctrine, but that creates obvious justice problems as well. That would also stifle free will, a doctrine that can be supported in the Bible.

Also, hell is out of balance with justice. The punishment is infinitely more severe than the crime of rejection.

Next, why wouldn't God allow people to be saved once in hell? Once they see the end result, why would it not be possible to profess his name and then be save? Maybe this is a false dichotomy, but it would be that either God was not powerful enough to save at that point, or unwilling.

Even if I felt the evidence of a deity was enough to make me believe, I still would never reconcile the idea of a hell. There are too many different hells, and no matter what religion I picked, the odds are, I would still be destined to end up in one. I can only pick one life raft.

To be honest, there could even be a deity in existence who doesn't want to be worshiped or known, and therefore damns any theistic believer to hell, and saves all agnostics and atheists. Earth could just be a test of rationality. Those who move out side of pure rationale towards faith could be considered not worthy enough to to join the deity, therefore are dumped into eternal damnation .

Now, I do not actually give that merit, and this scenario is really just me being facetious , but it would be as much a valid belief as any other religion, since lack of evidence for said deity, would be accounted for by the deity not revealing himself. And, all the evidence for other religions would have been created by said deity to make it challenging to not have a theistic belief.

 

[Rick W]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I can honestly say I used to feel pretty much the same way.

 

[Guest]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

It also keeps people at a low maturity level. Only doing what is "right" out of fear of punishment is the lowest form of morals one can have. It is suitable only for children, criminals, and sociopaths.

Do you speed when driving? Do you drink and drive? How about steal money or rob banks? Why or why not? I'm sure if I continued I could find reason to believe we are all either children, criminals or sociopaths.

What is the highest form of morals?

I speed when driving, but only as fast as I think it is safe for others (every now and then I get tickets).

I don't drink and drive, because I don't want to kill myself or another person + I don't really like alcohol that much.

I don't steal money because I wouldn't want it done to me.

I don't rob banks because they're too darn hard to rob .

The only way I can accept other people telling me what I should or should not do is if they are leading by example. It's not very motivating when a pastor is telling people they shouldn't live a "gay lifestyle" because I will go to hell, but he's molesting boys behind the altar.

As it is not very motivating when a politician is prosecuting men for molesting children, yet he's online talking dirty to minors...

And I know what you guys will say: "God will judge him", but when people like that place themselves in a position to be "mediators" to God, then they fail by all standards, it's pretty sad.

 

[turnorburn]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

It just could be Christopher that your taking the wrong approach..

Atheist Paranoia

Joshua S. Black, when addressing an atheist said, "For people who don't believe in God, you guys sure are paranoid about something!!" How true that is. I have known many atheists, and I have found them to be totally committed to their negative cause. They are zealots, fanatics--who are serious, angry, hateful, and blasphemous towards something they don't believe in. And what's more, they spend their time gathering fuel for the fire of their hatred for God and those that love Him. They gather what they think is legitimate fuel, whether it is atrocities committed by hypocritical religions of history, or the horrors of the Inquisition (the Catholic church torturing Christians for their faith in Jesus). They even gather unintelligent and unscientific material. It qualifies for use because it fits their presuppositions. Any fuel will do, as long at it puts smoke between them and the God they hate "without cause." It was Jonathon Miller who said, "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." So, what is this "something" about which they are so paranoid? It is the same "something" that makes criminals paranoid, and it is that paranoia that fuels criminals to have a deep-rooted hatred for the police. It's not the individual officer they hate; it's what he stands for--civil law. And that's the root of the hatred that the atheist has for God and for those that represent Him. Once again, the Bible has said this all along. It hits the nail on its big and hard head: Romans 8:7: ". . because the mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God's Law; indeed it cannot" (Amplified Bible). They hate the morality that God's Law demands. That's the fuel for their hostility.

I mean, don't you think its possible?
:

turnorburn hit the nail on the head. If you don't believe then you simply don't believe. Period.

No. If I don't believe it is because I have seen no good reason to believe. Period.

Our answers will never satisfy your questions since you've already made up your minds what you don't believe.

Just because I don't believe now, doesn't mean I won't ever believe. I haven't made up my mind permanently. Please don't project closed mindedness onto me. It's very insulting.

If you object to something then no amount of scripture will change your mind.

So, use something other than scripture, or use scripture in a way that doesn't require blind faith in it.

You'll object to the answers anyway for one reason or another since those answers aren't the answers you're looking for in the first place. That's just the way it goes.

Of course I'd probably not accept your answers. That doesn't mean I don't want to see them. If you do have answers, how hard is it to give them?

Why should we bang our heads against the wall for nothing? Makes no sense.

True. It is pointless to ask questions to a stone wall. I'll be on my way then.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

It just could be Christopher that your taking the wrong approach..

Atheist Paranoia

Joshua S. Black, when addressing an atheist said, "For people who don't believe in God, you guys sure are paranoid about something!!" How true that is. I have known many atheists, and I have found them to be totally committed to their negative cause. They are zealots, fanatics--who are serious, angry, hateful, and blasphemous towards something they don't believe in. And what's more, they spend their time gathering fuel for the fire of their hatred for God and those that love Him. They gather what they think is legitimate fuel, whether it is atrocities committed by hypocritical religions of history, or the horrors of the Inquisition (the Catholic church torturing Christians for their faith in Jesus). They even gather unintelligent and unscientific material. It qualifies for use because it fits their presuppositions. Any fuel will do, as long at it puts smoke between them and the God they hate "without cause." It was Jonathon Miller who said, "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." So, what is this "something" about which they are so paranoid? It is the same "something" that makes criminals paranoid, and it is that paranoia that fuels criminals to have a deep-rooted hatred for the police. It's not the individual officer they hate; it's what he stands for--civil law. And that's the root of the hatred that the atheist has for God and for those that represent Him. Once again, the Bible has said this all along. It hits the nail on its big and hard head: Romans 8:7: ". . because the mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God's Law; indeed it cannot" (Amplified Bible). They hate the morality that God's Law demands. That's the fuel for their hostility.

I mean, don't you think its possible?
:

turnorburn hit the nail on the head. If you don't believe then you simply don't believe. Period.

No. If I don't believe it is because I have seen no good reason to believe. Period.

Our answers will never satisfy your questions since you've already made up your minds what you don't believe.

Just because I don't believe now, doesn't mean I won't ever believe. I haven't made up my mind permanently. Please don't project closed mindedness onto me. It's very insulting.

If you object to something then no amount of scripture will change your mind.

So, use something other than scripture, or use scripture in a way that doesn't require blind faith in it.

You'll object to the answers anyway for one reason or another since those answers aren't the answers you're looking for in the first place. That's just the way it goes.

Of course I'd probably not accept your answers. That doesn't mean I don't want to see them. If you do have answers, how hard is it to give them?

Why should we bang our heads against the wall for nothing? Makes no sense.

True. It is pointless to ask questions to a stone wall. I'll be on my way then.

That is some of the worse garbage writing I have ever read. "Paranoid about god". What a joke. The person that wrote that seriously had serious defects in his ability to critically think.

One who believes it is not possible to have morals without threat of a deity, truly does not understand morals.

I do not like to sound harsh, as I do understand I am a guest on this site, but I am unsure how someone could post such garbage that basically compares atheist to being a psychopathic criminal.

For your sake, I truly hope that was tongue in cheek.

 

[turnorburn]

You said:

I do not like to sound harsh, as I do understand I am a guest on this site, but I am unsure how someone could post such garbage that basically compares atheist to being a psychopathic criminal.

For your sake, I truly hope that was tongue in cheek

What do you think God compares an atheist to, wasn't it God haters that
crucified his Son. :

In His Service,
turnorburn

 

[turnorburn]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMZ5B06JIFw&NR=1

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

Atheism doesn't = God haters.

Some atheists are antitheistic, but that is by far the minority. Its just the minority that yells the loudest usually seems the biggest.

Atheists hate the Abrahamic God as much as you hate Ra, Zeus, Waaq, or Imhotep.

 

[unred typo]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

OP title says:
What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

My Bible only has one 'L'... 8-)

Too bad I already lost my easy button...

 

[Free]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

One who believes it is not possible to have morals without threat of a deity, truly does not understand morals.

And neither does one who thinks that morals are not absolutes.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

One who believes it is not possible to have morals without threat of a deity, truly does not understand morals.

And neither does one who thinks that morals are not absolutes.

There are absolute morals from each persons perspective. Something he can look and judge others against.

If morals where absolute, than historically we should see a set standard. We do not. Not even in the OT versus our time now. We view invading another country and murdering all the men, women, and child deplorable. But it was done in the OT. Would you support a slaughter of the secular countries of today?

 

[Free]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

There are absolute morals from each persons perspective. Something he can look and judge others against.

That is called moral relativism.

If morals where absolute, than historically we should see a set standard.

Not at all. An absolute standard does not mean that everyone will follow it or even that anyone will follow it.

We view invading another country and murdering all the men, women, and child deplorable. But it was done in the OT.

You used the term "murdering". What is murder? You also used the term "deplorable". What is deplorable about murdering everyone in a country?

Would you support a slaughter of the secular countries of today?

No and I wouldn't support the slaughter of religious countries either.

Since you believe that morals are relative then you have no argument.

 

[Drew]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

I suggest the following as a way to think about the question of "absolute" morals:

1. Fact: Human society is a system of individuals that interact in a context where there are limited resources.

2. Assumption: All human beings ultimately desire the same things - peace, freedom, security, happiness, comfort, prosperity, intellectual challenge, etc.

3. Since 1 is obviously true, and if 2 is indeed correct, then it follows that different "rules of behaviour" are differentially effective in optimizing the desired end states described in (2).

4. There is necessarily an optimal "set" of rules that produces the most peace, most freedom, most prosperity, etc.

5. That set constitutes a code of morality that is grounded in the reality of the system.

I think that this constitutes a good argument against the position that "atheists cannot ground their morality in anything" as well as against the position that morals cannot be "absolute". In fact, I would dare to suggest that, because God loves us and designed us a certain way, "God's moral law for us" is essentially an application of the above principles. God wants us to be happy and prosperous and free and .....etc.

God, of course, is infinitely more wise than we are in respect to "figuring out the best set of rules". So, of course, God's laws may seem mysterious to us.

I suspect that this argument is most vulnerable in respect to item 2.

 

[Free]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

Drew,

There are a couple of main issues with this.

While I agree that number 2 is a reasonable assumption for all humans, things such as happiness, comfort, prosperity, etc., are relative terms. The main problem is happiness since the postmodern view is "as long as I don't hurt anyone else I can do what I want"; it's hedonism. And hedonism shows that although one may appear or even desire to follow a social moral code, in the end they will do what makes them happy.

Of course the main problem with a social contract theory type of morality is that it is still relative, just at the societal level. And in the end people will still do what they want to do. Hence the reason there are so many laws. What we're left with in the end is that apart from morality being grounded in an absolute, morals really are meaningless.

The Christian's position is based on the existence of God and because he is there, real morals do exist.

This is why the Christian (or a Christian society, if there is one) can say with certainty that what Hitler (and German society as a whole) did was wrong but those who do not believe that morals are absolute can say nothing. This is where relativism will fall apart since those who advocate it do, at some level, actually feel that what Hitler did really was wrong.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

Drew,

There are a couple of main issues with this.

While I agree that number 2 is a reasonable assumption for all humans, things such as happiness, comfort, prosperity, etc., are relative terms. The main problem is happiness since the postmodern view is "as long as I don't hurt anyone else I can do what I want"; it's hedonism. And hedonism shows that although one may appear or even desire to follow a social moral code, in the end they will do what makes them happy.

Of course the main problem with a social contract theory type of morality is that it is still relative, just at the societal level. And in the end people will still do what they want to do. Hence the reason there are so many laws. What we're left with in the end is that apart from morality being grounded in an absolute, morals really are meaningless.

The Christian's position is based on the existence of God and because he is there, real morals do exist.

This is why the Christian (or a Christian society, if there is one) can say with certainty that what Hitler (and German society as a whole) did was wrong but those who do not believe that morals are absolute can say nothing. This is where relativism will fall apart since those who advocate it do, at some level, actually feel that what Hitler did really was wrong.

But again, pushing the moral code up to the level of God doesn't solve any of the above stated problems; it just puts them into a theological area that can't be rationalized against.

For instance, is good and wrong quantities that exist outside of God? Likely you will say no because God is the ultimate power and there can not be a set of rules that are above his authority.

Or does God set the rules humans are to follow. If he does that, then we are back to relativism. There is no good but what God says to be good. And if he can choose what is right or wrong and rationalize it, why are we not allowed the same ability? What if he changes his mind tomorrow and decides that murder is good, and feeding the poor is evil? Would we feel differently about the two? If evil and good are defined by God, and there is no reasoning as to why they are that way except but his command, which would certainly be the implication. Evil is just defying his command. There is nothing intrinsically different from me stabbing you to death, or lending you a helping hand. Its just God commanded me not to do one, and to do the other.

Or the other way I have heard it is that evil is the absence of God.
But, if evil is the absence of good and good is God, how can evil exist if God is omnipresent? Does God choose how much he wishes to grace a particular place? As in: he is concentrated in one place more than another? Like he is most potent in Heaven and least present in hell (although he still has to be in hell because he is omnipresent)? Hmm, this surely cannot be the case because if that were true then God would decide how evil hell is by choosing how much he wishes to grace hell. Also, how do you corrupt God if he is omnipotent?

I just think that neither can claim a victory over the moral issue.

 

[unred typo]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

quote by VaultZero4Me:

There is no good but what God says to be good. And if he can choose what is right or wrong and rationalize it, why are we not allowed the same ability? What if he changes his mind tomorrow and decides that murder is good, and feeding the poor is evil? Would we feel differently about the two? If evil and good are defined by God, and there is no reasoning as to why they are that way except but his command, which would certainly be the implication. Evil is just defying his command. There is nothing intrinsically different from me stabbing you to death, or lending you a helping hand. Its just God commanded me not to do one, and to do the other.

I think you have put your finger on what it means to be God, the creator and not part of his creation. Don’t you think it’s kinda nice that he is good and not evil? :-?