Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Atheist?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00
ChattyMute said:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

-Epicurus, 341 BC, Samos – 270 BC, Athens

It also creates the problem of why we even need to be on Earth. Since God is all-knowing, why do we need to live this life only to end up where he knows we will end up (all-knowing)?

Why would an all-loving God send a other wise good non-Christian, or Christian, to Hell for eternity? A parent doesn't punish there kid for their whole life because they did one thing wrong. You punish, and the end the punishment once a lesson has been learned. Getting a infinite amount of torture for a finite amount of sins is illogical.

Plus, that means everyone would end up in Hell eventually, since it is possible to fall from God even in Heaven. Lucifer and his followers did it.

God would despise evil, that doesn't mean you lower your standards and act "evil" in return (genocides).

Evil can't be defined. It is relative to that culture.

I was taught that sin is going against what God wants.

The Laws of God contradict themselves. (The punishment for murder)

The Bible isn't the exact word of God anyways (even if God inspired it). It's lost meaning in translations and humans are error prone.

I don't see how sinning makes you evil. Just because a child steals from the cookie jar does not make that child evil. And aren't we supposedly God's children?

Seems to me he would want to forgive you. So why doesn't he give second chances after we die?

Jesus wasn't much of a sacrifice. He died and went to Heaven like he would have done anyways. A sacrifice would be actually bearing our punishment (Hell).

Seems to me from what you described that God is just a dictator who essentially says " Do what I want to do because I say do it or you will go to Hell."

I can't do anymore right now. I have to go.

Woe, this is a buncha "bullets" to shoot & it takes time to dive into each issue

1. On the problem of Evil.

If God created people to have two lives, (A)an earthly life, and (B) a heavenly life, Is it not reasonable that he has the right to take people from life (A)--->earthly life to (B)--->The afterlife. The answer is that it is reasonable.

2. The cross

At the cross God lays your sin and my sin upon His own beloved Son. Jesus pays the penalty for our sin. "The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6.

Also, "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:6,7

3. Death penalty

Cain kills Abel... what is the penalty for murder? not the death penalty. God didn't institute the death penalty until after the flood. We can see that the death penalty is a deterrent. Also, when a murderer is faced with the death penalty, many times facing that they will repent and be restored unto God. A classic example is jeffrey dahmer.

4. The conclusion of the matter

1 Corinthians 12:3 "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." "To recognize the Lord Jesus Christ is not a matter of intellect, but the greatest brain can never come to see it and believe it. It is a spiritual truth and something that is spiritually discerned. The Holy Spirit alone can reveal the person of Christ, but He can do it, and He can do it to anybody and to everybody." Lloyd-Jones

Furthermore, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God... neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." The only hope for us is the Holy Spirit. I'd encourage you to seek God and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal Christ to you. Why? Belief in Christ is not a matter of the intellect, it's a matter of the Holy Spirit.
 
kpd, since your theories can not be proven or demonstrated, I will have to absolutely deny and reject all said evidence until such time that this can be established as law. And if you have a board that proposes such theory, I will go to said board an offer the lack of evidence in said theory.

What do I get from my faith, you ask? Eternity with my Dad.

What do you get from your atheism? Really...what do you get? There's no up-side. In the end, at best your right. At worst, you're wrong. And that's way worse.
 
mjjcb said:
kpd, since your theories can not be proven or demonstrated, I will have to absolutely deny and reject all said evidence until such time that this can be established as law. And if you have a board that proposes such theory, I will go to said board an offer the lack of evidence in said theory.

What do I get from my faith, you ask? Eternity with my Dad.

What do you get from your atheism? Really...what do you get? There's no up-side. In the end, at best your right. At worst, you're wrong. And that's way worse.

I've observed if you say "said" enough in a in a post here, you appear more credible. ;)

...maybe not in my case, but...
 
@frying pan addict

They are just some issues I have with Christianity. Not "bullets" as you call them.

1. If we created another life form (artificial), does that give us the right to take away the life of those creatures/people as we see fit? No, it isn't. Same applies to your God. He can't jsut take and give life as he sees fit, otherwise we become mere Sims in a game.

2. Citing scripture against my issues without further explanation doesn't help. I'm not a Christian. It doesn't explain why. And you didn't address my issues with the sacrifice.
ETA: I'm correcting myself, citing scripture does help at times if that scripture answers the question. Yours seemingly did not though. If they did, explain further.

3. I hate the death penalty. What does that have to do with any of my points? I'm not trying to be rude with that remark; I just don't see much of a connection. (I also only re-skimmed the my comments that you replied to)

4. So you are asking me to throw out my intellect, which God supposedly gave me? That I cannot do. Why would he give it to me, and give me such a skeptical mind, if all he wanted was for me to worship
him?
And I don't consider faith to be a virtue like many theists do. Quite the opposite.
If you haven't read my other posts, because they are kinds long... I was a Christian once. I tried to believe. Sincerely tried. I prayed. I went to church. All that good stuff. I never felt anything. And yes, I did want to believe then. Really wanted to. I convinced myself that I did. Nothing ever happened that I couldn't explain.
 
mjjcb said:
mjjcb said:
kpd, since your theories can not be proven or demonstrated, I will have to absolutely deny and reject all said evidence until such time that this can be established as law. And if you have a board that proposes such theory, I will go to said board an offer the lack of evidence in said theory.

What do I get from my faith, you ask? Eternity with my Dad.

What do you get from your atheism? Really...what do you get? There's no up-side. In the end, at best your right. At worst, you're wrong. And that's way worse.

I've observed if you say "said" enough in a in a post here, you appear more credible. ;)

...maybe not in my case, but...

Not really... I posted a lot in my posts because I was addressing multiple things and asking multiple questions. A long post isn't necessarily a good one. Though if you make it longer by backing up your argument more, that is good.

And to answer "What do you get from your atheism?" I get more time spent with my family and doing other things. I get the comfort in knowing that when you die that is it. There is no Heaven or Hell to worry about (most likely). I realize that isn't a comfort to all. I don't have to continue lying to myself about something I really don't believe in (being honest to myself). My intellect is satisfied because there is no blind faith in my position. That's just a short list.

What followed after is Pascal's Wager and is a logical fallacy (Google it if you don't know what it is). Hundreds of religions out there that have just as much evidence as your religion.
 
chatty,

I do enjoy your work on this board. I'm not sure what you were responding to at first. I never made a comment about the length of someone's post - except I commented (I think in another thread) that I'm new here an I'm running into space limitations myself. At a certain point the screen gets all stymie.

I was responding to the question "what do you get out of religion. So you say you spend time with your family in the comfort of knowing when it's the end for you, it's the end. That's interesting, because I wasn't nearly the father that I am until I became a Christian. I didn't spend as much time with my children or wife. That's just my story. You seem to imply that atheists have the affordable time to spend with their families where Christians do not.

This is my first time exchanging with you. No hidden agenda behind this question. Just a question on it's own merit. Are you 100% sure there is no God. I seem to have read in another thread that you would call yourself an "agnostic atheist". Was that you? Am I wrong? If so, than I would imagine that this number would be much lower. It seems even your god, Dawkins, would have to leave room for his uncertainty. :tongue There's got to be even a tiny part of him that looks up in a private moment and says, "Man, I better be right..." All rubbing is forehead like. :)
 
mjjcb said:
LBob, I have got to learn the trick of long posts. Can you share?
I sent you a PM about this but you don't seem to have picked it up. Just above the space at the top of the screen where the advert comes up it should say "1 new message." Click on there.
 
mjjcb said:
kpd, since your theories can not be proven or demonstrated, I will have to absolutely deny and reject all said evidence until such time that this can be established as law. And if you have a board that proposes such theory, I will go to said board an offer the lack of evidence in said theory.

Absolute proof is almost entirely confined to mathematics so if you require this of the flat universe theory you'll be waiting forever. Our understanding of gravity is just a theory but I assume you conduct your life as if it was established law. Some theories are rather tenuous like string theory. Other theories are as solid as gravity like evolution. Flat universe theory is rather young I believe but already has significant evidence supporting it. You are, of course, free to ignore it if that's what you want.

Just out of curiosity, how do you convince yourself that the claims of the Bible are proven and demonstrated?

mjjcb said:
What do I get from my faith, you ask? Eternity with my Dad.

I can understand your hope. I lost a 12 year old son 6 years ago in a car accident and I would like nothing better than to be with him again some day.

mjjcb said:
What do you get from your atheism? Really...what do you get? There's no up-side. In the end, at best your right. At worst, you're wrong. And that's way worse.

Pascals wager? Please, thats so sleazy. It's as if a god would favor those people who could make a clever wager based on potential gains and losses. I don't want to preach but since you ask, I get to appreciate this life for what it is and not a stepping stone to some hoped for afterlife. I don't spend years of my life performing what I hope are the proper rituals to the right god. I like to think that I can appreciate the universe at face value without imagining some supernatural entity pulling the puppet strings. I guess I just can't make myself believe in something based on what is, to me, insufficient evidence.

All the best to you my friend.

Say, you completely ignored the second part of my last post. You have no comment?
 
mjjcb said:
I'd like to go deeper into your story. It does seem odd to me that an atheist, who has no hope for any lasting significance, would devote the time you have to proving theism wrong. What would drive such a person to devote such time to a purpose that has no lasting value? I know why I'm here, but I don't understand why you would be.
I'm here mainly because I enjoy discussion, and because I want to challenge my thinking by talking to people who take the opposite view. As an extra benefit I think I now better understand the views of evangelical Christians in general and creationists in particular.

I wouldn't say I'm devoting time to proving theism wrong. I'm sure you'd agree that if Christianity is true it has important implications, so everyone should know enough about it to decide what they think. In the process of investigating that, you learn stuff. Also, Christianity has had a central role in shaping our Western culture and I think that makes questions about what it is and where it comes from important.


When you say that only one book provides the perspective of a first hand account, which of them are you referring to? The Gospel of John? 1 James? 2 James? 1 Peter? 2 Peter? 1 John? 2 John? 3 John? Revelation?
The Gospel of John, which appears to claim to be based on the testimony of an anonymous disciple. I say appears because I think there's more to it, but that's another story.

Maybe you were referring to those who were written with the pen of an assistant but the voice of ones Matthew and Mark. Would it mean less if their hands didn't control the pen? Me? No. Ultimately their accounts come from those who walked and witnessed His life and thereafter.
Your last sentence is the crux of the matter. All four gospels are pointedly anonymous. If they were eyewitness accounts it would have been the simplest of things for the writers to identify themselves and gain that credibility. How confident are you that the authors are who the later Christian tradition says they are?

The earliest Christian writings we have are by Paul, and he's a good source because he was an associate of people who knew Jesus in life. Strangely, though, he doesn't tell any of the stories about Jesus' life that appear in the gospels. He says he was born, died and rose again and refers to the last supper and that's about it. If these detailed stories of miracles (walking on water, feeding the 5,000 etc) only appear in later, less reliable sources then we should ask questions.

Paul makes no reference to an empty tomb or a physical resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15 seems to me to suggest that he thought the resurrection was an essentially spiritual thing. The first gospel, written in the early 70s, has no physical resurrection either (I'm assuming you're aware that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition to the text). Matthew may be describing something physical as there Mary clings to Jesus' feet, but we're into Luke and John before Jesus starts showing people his wounds and eating things to prove he's real. So we may well be into the 90s, beyond the lifetime of any eyewitnesses, before Christians thought it important to believe that Jesus rose up in the same physical body that was crucified. If the disciples died for their faith, they did so before that faith involved a bodily resurrection.

I know you have plenty of examples when you refer to discrepancies, so could you provide some specifics?
Apart from the above, how many women went to the tomb? Were there guards at the tomb? Was there an earthquake? Did they meet with angels there? If so, how many? What did they do then? If they told the disciples, how many? How did the disciples react and who did what next?

You didn't provide your belief in the origin of our universe (or I didn't glean it), so my purpose in posing the question failed.
I said I didn't know. I believe the scientific view that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and began with the big bang, but if future evidence shows this to be incorrect I'll be happy modify my view. I don't claim to know why the big bang happened, or even if that's a question that means anything.
 
mjjcb said:
chatty,

I do enjoy your work on this board. I'm not sure what you were responding to at first. I never made a comment about the length of someone's post - except I commented (I think in another thread) that I'm new here an I'm running into space limitations myself. At a certain point the screen gets all stymie.
"I've observed if you say "said" enough in a in a post here, you appear more credible." I was replying to that with regards to the length of posts. Perhaps you can clear up what you meant if I misinterpreted?

I was responding to the question "what do you get out of religion. So you say you spend time with your family in the comfort of knowing when it's the end for you, it's the end. That's interesting, because I wasn't nearly the father that I am until I became a Christian. I didn't spend as much time with my children or wife. That's just my story. You seem to imply that atheists have the affordable time to spend with their families where Christians do not.
I'd like to make it clear that I have no intention of speaking for anyone but myself, not even other atheists.

Why did you become a better father when you were a Christian? Did you need motivation or was it something else? My motivation for being a good person,spending time with my family, etc. is that this is the only time I have, and I want to spend it doing things that make me happy, which is spending time with my family, and empathy for the human race (wanting to make the world better for future generations to live in).

I don't mean to imply that, only that I have more time. I don't find Church a family activity as I was usually separated from my parents and sister while I was there. Some Christians see that as a family activity. So in not going (the rest of my family doesn't go anymore either), I have more time to spend with them on Sundays and when I would be going to youth group.

This is my first time exchanging with you. No hidden agenda behind this question. Just a question on it's own merit. Are you 100% sure there is no God. I seem to have read in another thread that you would call yourself an "agnostic atheist". Was that you? Am I wrong? If so, than I would imagine that this number would be much lower. It seems even your god, Dawkins, would have to leave room for his uncertainty. :tongue There's got to be even a tiny part of him that looks up in a private moment and says, "Man, I better be right..." All rubbing is forehead like. :)
Absolutely not. I think taking the stance that there is no God is completely idiotic. It's making an assertion that there is no evidence for, and most likely there will never be evidence for that position.

I think several atheists here are agnostic atheists, but yes, I am one. I obviously don't believe in a God, but there could be one. I just have no reason to believe in one. As to the percentage chance of their being one, I'm not sure.

Dawkins is hardly my god. I've never read a single one of his books. I didn't even know who he was until a year after I discovered the term atheist. I also disagree with him on things (and agree on other points). I think Dawkins position is that there is a possibility there is God, but that possibility is extremely low. Actually, I really doubt he does that. I've never done it. The God I would believe in that resembles the Christian God wouldn't send people to Hell just for being atheists.
 
There are a lot of issues raised here. I might probably take some time to cover them all but I will reply to all unanswered questions over the next few days....

Chattymute,
you said earlier that you were interested in discussion - I'd like to know what exactly 'discussion' is according to you. I don't think we can 'discuss' preferences - we can just state them and the other is informed of the fact - but it yields to no discussion. For eg: If we were to 'discuss' preferences in colors and I said I liked white the most and you said some other color, then we're done with the discussion there - we've informed each other of our preferences but there is no reason behind this preference that is to be discussed. That's just what a preference is - it requires no reason, just personal taste and satisfaction. No reasons behind it, and no discussion is possible.

Similarly, eternal/universal truths cannot be discussed. They are everyday facts that can be perceived by every sane mind. I'm not talking about theories here - just eternal truths. The truth or reason behind 2+2=4 cannot be discussed any further than just stating it as it is.

So, what we can discuss is our interpretation of observations that give meaning to or explain something else that can/cannot be observed. Since each of us can interpret the same given observation in a different manner and would have different reasons in arriving at them, these different reasons yield to a good discussion.

So, my problem here is this - you want to have a discussion but you're a relativist and relativism pertains to personal preference which does not yield to discussion.
And just because morals are relative, doesn't mean I won't criticize someone else's morals if I don't agree with them. I have the right to criticize anything and everything.
Of course, you do have the right to do anything. You have the right to hold any belief you want. That's your 'free' will to choose. But if you were trying to discuss a point, you can't appeal to your own preferences as a reason that can be discussed. How can a discussion on morality take place if the moral law is up to each one's personal preference?

So, firstly, we need to determine if morality is something that can be discussed. If morality is only a matter of preference, then there's no point in differentiating between good and evil because they just become a matter of personal taste and satisfaction. But if morality is not preference, then what?

For instance, if we are to discuss whether slavery is morally right or wrong, you can't tell me that slavery is wrong because you feel so and expect it to be sufficient. If it's not personal preference, then it's either -
1) a universal absolute law
or
2) an interpretation of good/evil as you put forth here -
To clarify, I don't believe in absolute morals, but some things remain consistently seen as bad or good by different cultures.
It seems like you've used some word play to say that all things 'consistent' can be declared to be like 'absolute'. I too am actually saying the same thing - the 'absolute' will eventually turn out to be 'consistent'.
Let's revisit this statement of yours- if you mean that you'd agree to and accept 'consistent' things that have been accepted by many cultures across many ages, then it's more like saying that 'the majority rules' or 'the powerful rule'.

If you're appealing to majority consensus, then are you telling me that 'might makes right' or 'numbers make right' ? What if there are 99 people saying one thing for very many years and 1 person saying the opposite - are the 99 to be deemed right by default? Is there no way that the last person could be right? This can't be so because this has been contradicted by experience through history when certain moral reformers have turned the tide against a dominant society holding the opposite view. That's why they're called moral pioneers. So, there is a possibility that the last person could be right and all the 99 wrong. Now, if that 1 person was right, how does he convince others he's right -
1) does he appeal to a universal absolute law
or
2) does he appeal to his own personal preference (back to where we began)

So, either morality is a universal absolute or a personal preference - if it's a personal preference, then how can we discuss that?
So, if I were to ask you why slavery is wrong - would you say that it is so because so many generations have considered it wrong. (I think if we check up on the actual statistics, we might surprise ourselves by finding that more generations practiced some form of slavery than not.) But we've just seen that majority does not necessarily mean right - maybe all the generations that were against slavery were actually wrong while the few who did practice that were right - what reason is there for slavery to be wrong? Aren't we appealing to an eternal truth of equality?
I don't make an appeal to authority though. I have a brain, so I'll use it to determine what is good and bad (again by what I think).
Personal preference? If so, you are entitled to it by all means. But if you want to question others, then you're either contradicting yourself or simply acting unfair. If good and bad is actually up to each one's personal preference and you start judging others based on that, then It's like you questioning me why I like the color white just because you don't.
I know the Bible says God is perfect, but I'm not going to be convinced because a book written 2000 years ago said it.
Personal preference again? By all means. But it wouldn't be valid to question the authenticity of any other source or belief based on your personal preferences.
People can learn form their mistakes. Not everyone does, but some can.
How can a relativist actually learn from his mistakes? He has to, in his brain, accept that he is wrong to be able to learn. But what if the relativist wrongly thinks that he's right and entitles himself to this falsehood and won't listen to the universal independent authority? Wouldn't you call that stubbornness? Every chance to repent and turn to God is given now, just make sure you're not ignoring it.

I'll answer the rest later...
 
ivdavid said:
There are a lot of issues raised here. I might probably take some time to cover them all but I will reply to all unanswered questions over the next few days....

Chattymute,
you said earlier that you were interested in discussion... ...How can a discussion on morality take place if the moral law is up to each one's personal preference?
It's not personal preference. I don't personally choose how I perceive reality. That is how my mind works. I can alter what conclusions I come to though be learning more about logic and such, and I can alter my view by discussing with others who perceive things differently and add light to something I hadn't thought of. Also, like you said, a fact is a fact. How we interpret that fact is the relative. I'm not so close minded that I assume I perceive everything logically. I can alter my view of reality as I learn more or find a view that I see as more logical, better supported, etc.

So, firstly, we need to determine if morality is something that can be discussed. If morality is only a matter of preference, then there's no point in differentiating between good and evil because they just become a matter of personal taste and satisfaction. But if morality is not preference, then what?
Like I said above, it isn't really a matter of preference, especially since your morals are also influenced by your environment growing up. Morals are relative, but that doesn't mean all morals are logical. Someone who grew up in an environment where it is alright to steal and be violent would see that as moral. However, that doesn't make that moral logical. And when I say logical, I mean that in a broader sense than it's definition in logical arguments.

For instance, if we are to discuss whether slavery is morally right or wrong, you can't tell me that slavery is wrong because you feel so and expect it to be sufficient. If it's not personal preference, then it's either -
I don't base my morality off what I feel is right and wrong. I have arguments behind them.
1) a universal absolute law
or
2) an interpretation of good/evil as you put forth here -
To clarify, I don't believe in absolute morals, but some things remain consistently seen as bad or good by different cultures.
It seems like you've used some word play to say that all things 'consistent' can be declared to be like 'absolute'. I too am actually saying the same thing - the 'absolute' will eventually turn out to be 'consistent'.
Let's revisit this statement of yours- if you mean that you'd agree to and accept 'consistent' things that have been accepted by many cultures across many ages, then it's more like saying that 'the majority rules' or 'the powerful rule'. [/quote]
I don't base my morality off what I feel is right and wrong. I have arguments behind them.
No. If I had meant absolute, I would have said absolute. Morals change as society changes. So what is morally consistent today wouldn't have necessarily been morally consistent 500 years ago. For example, public punishments (like the stocks). No one I have ever spoken to thinks public punishments are moral today (that I am aware of), but plenty of people agreed with their use back in colonial ages of America and in many areas of Europe.
No, I wouldn't agree to that statement. Just because most people think it is moral, doesn't mean it is logically sound moral. In other words, there isn't much rational behind that moral or many decent arguments to support it. That's where the discussion and arguments for an against its morality comes into play, as I said somewhere above.

This is where Ethics starts to come into play. And in ethical arguments/situations, there is often times more than one right answer.

If you're appealing to majority consensus, then are you telling me that 'might makes right' or 'numbers make right' ?
No. "Numbers make right" is a logical fallacy.

What if there are 99 people saying one thing for very many years and 1 person saying the opposite - are the 99 to be deemed right by default? Is there no way that the last person could be right? This can't be so because this has been contradicted by experience through history when certain moral reformers have turned the tide against a dominant society holding the opposite view. That's why they're called moral pioneers. So, there is a possibility that the last person could be right and all the 99 wrong. Now, if that 1 person was right, how does he convince others he's right -
Neither are right or wrong because they are in the minority or majority. And you attempt to convince others you are right though sound arguing. You can also protest to get laws changed and change the moral consistency of your society. Like the Civil Rights Movement.

1) does he appeal to a universal absolute law
or
2) does he appeal to his own personal preference (back to where we began)
There are more options than these. And I addressed personal preference above.

So, either morality is a universal absolute or a personal preference - if it's a personal preference, then how can we discuss that?
You keep creating a logical fallacy called a dilemma. You give only two choices which I am supposed to choose from when there are more.

So, if I were to ask you why slavery is wrong - would you say that it is so because so many generations have considered it wrong. (I think if we check up on the actual statistics, we might surprise ourselves by finding that more generations practiced some form of slavery than not.) But we've just seen that majority does not necessarily mean right - maybe all the generations that were against slavery were actually wrong while the few who did practice that were right - what reason is there for slavery to be wrong? Aren't we appealing to an eternal truth of equality?
I answered this somewhat above, but I'll do it again. Slavery is wrong because of the Golden Rule, which I try to follow my life by. I consider the Golden Rule to be right because of empathy, and I want our species to survive. It is not beneficial to society to suppress people like slavery does. You can plainly see that in history. Societies are generally better off where everyone has a right to freedoms.

[quote:3h0dk2wy]I don't make an appeal to authority though. I have a brain, so I'll use it to determine what is good and bad (again by what I think).
Personal preference? If so, you are entitled to it by all means. But if you want to question others, then you're either contradicting yourself or simply acting unfair. If good and bad is actually up to each one's personal preference and you start judging others based on that, then It's like you questioning me why I like the color white just because you don't. [/quote:3h0dk2wy]
Personal preference is incorrect because it ignores certain aspects of thinking. It is a preference by what color is my favorite. I don't have any reasoning why blue is my fav color. It just is. Morality and ethics is much more complicated than that. You have to have reasoning behind it. (well, not have to, but you should if you want to be taken seriously in a debate)

[quote:3h0dk2wy]I know the Bible says God is perfect, but I'm not going to be convinced because a book written 2000 years ago said it.
Personal preference again? By all means. But it wouldn't be valid to question the authenticity of any other source or belief based on your personal preferences.[/quote:3h0dk2wy]
Not really. It is not a personal preference to question everything. That is the scientist mind in me and how I was raised. I also seek truth, and asking questions and have evidence to support your conclusion is a vital part of that.

[quote:3h0dk2wy]People can learn form their mistakes. Not everyone does, but some can.
How can a relativist actually learn from his mistakes? He has to, in his brain, accept that he is wrong to be able to learn. But what if the relativist wrongly thinks that he's right and entitles himself to this falsehood and won't listen to the universal independent authority? Wouldn't you call that stubbornness? [/quote:3h0dk2wy]
What makes you think that everyone is a relativist is close minded enough to assume he/she is always right and sound in their thinking? I can admit I am wrong if someone can give me a sound argument to why I am wrong. Just saying "I am right, and you are wrong" or basing your answer solely on faith tends to make me ignore people or put them off as they can't show me how I am wrong. So far not many people have done that here (on this thread).

I don't see sufficient evidence for a universal independent authority, and no one has been able to give me a sound argument to support it. So by that I wouldn't call it stubborn. I would call it close minded on the basis said-person won't accept anything but what he/she already believes, reasoned out for themselves (logically or illogically), etc.

Every chance to repent and turn to God is given now, just make sure you're not ignoring it.
And that goes back to the argument about God being all-knowing.
 
Slavery is wrong because of the Golden Rule
I thank you for sharing your views. I apologize for putting you in a dilemma. But it seems to me that all your reasoning has still led you to appealing to a universal absolute law.

If slavery being wrong is your personal belief and this was the reasoning you employed to arrive at that belief, then there is no argument against that and no discussion can arise.

But if you want to discuss slavery with someone, then you will have to appeal to a universal absolute law to show that it is wrong. Relativism doesn't hold.

Your reasoning and explanation for why the Golden Rule is to be correct, again can be subject to the same skeptic questioning - why should we feel empathy for humanity? The answer again must be an appeal to a universal absolute law or one must ignore the question on grounds of personal preferences.

Do you see any other option available?
 
chattymute wrote:
Also, dangling an eternal punishment before you and just forcing you into a position where you have to choose him or perish is not free will. That is called a scare tactic.
kpd560 wrote:
Also, how is the Holy Kings statement not simple blackmail? In other words, "Do what I say is best for you or I'll burn you in hell forever."
I simply can't get this argument.
Would a nation's supreme court which passes a law like this - do not be a terrorist; if you do, you'll be imprisoned for life - be considered resorting to blackmail?

The authority, lawgiver, judge etc. as defined by the nation's laws are only setting forth deterrents to prevent crime. A person need not worry about it at all if he is not a terrorist. But if a person still goes ahead and does it, then he's a willful offender who deserves to be condemned.

Similarly, God is asking you to act according to His will. Hell is the condemnation. It should be treated as a deterrent to prevent sin. One need not be worried about it at all if he's not a sinner. But if one willfully is, then God is only being just in condemning him.


I think the common misconception is that - a sinner is one who sins. It's more like - one sins because he's a sinner. Being a sinner is part of our nature, and on account of that springs forth sins. Take self-pride and rebellion. I ask someone to lay down their self-pride, i think that's when it peaks. It's part of the human nature. We are rebels by nature who need a Saviour.

Just because someone doesn't follow God doesn't make them evil
By definition, it does - anyone against an All-Good God is evil.
And I disagree, there is no all good, or all evil.
Personal preference? If so, you are indeed entitled to it. I shall not question that.
What about someone who has never heard of God?
Everybody does know God - some just suppress the truth and give it different names or attribute it to something else. God does reveal Himself to a person who truly and justly seeks and continues to seek after truth in faith.
...but there are many who do it selflessly, Christians and non-Christians.
You can't say that for sure - as I said, you're only privy to their acts of selflessness - you don't know what is in their hearts. This was why I'd used the boy and cookie example - to show that even if the command seems to be obeyed, the heart might not be right. It's not to show some abuse of authority.
I see obedience to a parent just because they are your parent as illogical (same for respect). There need to be reasons behind actions, and if they aren't explained to me, I usually "rebel" (or just keep asking why annoying the heck out of my parents).
Do you ask out of curiosity or do you demand as if you had a right to know? If it's out of curiosity, then your heart has anyway decided to obey with/without an explanation. But if it's a demand to know, then what's the intent behind it? Is it second-guessing your parents? If so, it shows a lack of trust that they would have the right intent and wisdom. Even if that can be excused in the case of parents, God is neither wrong-intentioned nor unwise. So, any refusal to obey shows a lack of faith in the perfect God and all this second-guessing shows that you actually think that you could be right and God wrong - I think it's basically self-pride that triggers all such rebellion.

I don't see how sinning automatically makes you evil. Since humans are imperfect, we are obviously going to make mistakes, and to make a mistake is pretty much sinning. (like trying drugs is a mistake for many).
Who are we deceiving? Humans are imperfect because they are sinners and rebels by nature. They want to run the show by themselves and ignore God. So, there are what you call 'mistakes' like drugs. I mean, honestly, is beginning to try drugs a mistake like you mistaken the wrong lane or the wrong house. What causes the desire to first try it, continue in it and then later become slaves to it? Isn't it satan's temptations and the person's own evil desires and lusts? We can term it however we like, but nobody is left with an excuse. And here's where God's mercy and love is seen all the more - for He wills all people to repent and turn to Him irrespective of what they've done - all their confessed sins are thrown into the ocean depths.

Why doesn't he go ahead and eradicate evil? What's he waiting for? Why is his will to prolong suffering and sin here on Earth?
Well, personally, I believe in second chances, for pretty much everything.
I've answered it already in my previous post - I'll do it again. Since it is we people who are evil, eradicating evil would mean eradicating us. He's waiting for us to repent out of His longsuffering and forbearance. This is where you get as many chances as you want - denying it doesn't make God unjust.

If Satan fell to Hell, what is keeping the rest of the souls that go up there from falling to Hell (eventually) as well? Wouldn't that mean that eventually everyone ends up at Hell?
I've answered this too. To summarize - self pride and rebellion can arise because of our will. These go against God's will and are the cause for the fall. Believers in this world are lead into repentance against these - we experience God's mercies and grace and love - and we submit our will to be in conformity to God's will and grace, thereby removing the possibility of a future fall.
And we can't learn that in Heaven because...?
To learn humility, you need to be fallen. To learn faith, you must have adversities that test your faith. Nothing imperfect or evil will be present in the Kingdom of God. Heaven is the promised rest.

Or do souls just pop into existence at conception/ sometime in pregnancy?
Yes, we are created sometime then.

I know many who then accept him if they had actual evidence of his existence and didn't have to base it on pure faith.
It's always about faith - because the very reason that man rebelled against God is that he thought too much of himself and too little of God thereby lacking faith in God that He'd be always All-Wise and All-Loving and All-Powerful. So, to prevent a future possibility of self-pride and rebellion, God saves people by grace through faith.
So, expecting evidence for God is just the same as saying you won't put faith in God which only confirms the proud and rebellious nature of man.

I don't think faith in that way is a good thing, by the way.
Personal preference? I've experienced salvation through faith which seems to be the best thing.
And just to clarify, God is very real to us true believers in Christ - so, this is what we count as 'evidence' - it just can't be empirically observed by everyone - each one has to experience God personally through faith.
And faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Read the Bible earnestly again if you want to receive faith. Just a suggestion - totally your choice.

I don't see how that is a sacrifice either.
I guess some things about God can never be comprehended by man. God is not a theory to be evaluated - He's a person who can be known through the Bible by faith. I would never want to personally experience how a worm feels like, so if God chose to come down in the flesh, then that is a sacrifice in itself. Our personal interpretations then come in the way - You look at Jesus being spiritually separated from His Father and say that it isn't enough. I look at it and say - if God decreed that this covered all the sins of the world, then Jesus' separation and enduring the wrath of the Father must have been tremendous and is the greatest sacrifice and the greatest act of love. Each to his own faith.
And why did that even need to be done in the first place?
Because if God didn't do it, He would be overlooking sin and that would make Him unjust.

God judging you as a bad person is the judgment, not the sentence. Hell is the punishment for not doing what he commanded and Heaven is the reward.
Are you stating your personal preference? Or is this a question? If it's your personal interpretation, I'd respect that. If it's not, then let me tell you that condemnation is different from punishment. Punishment leads to repentance. Condemnation is being judged and life-sentenced for your sin and rebellion.
No, God doesn't do that here, punishment. If he made it clear that it is a punishment to all and made his presence known (at least to that person) then they would have reason to think something is a punishment.
He does, we just refuse to acknowledge that this is God reprimanding us.
Otherwise, and this is my opinion, things happen as reactions to what others have done/ nature patterns and environments. No God needed for that in my view.
If you were expecting fire to fall from the sky to punish you and teach you, then I think that might not happen. God does use the world to chide and chasten us - the Old Testament is full of such instances. Denying that God is the cause for everything doesn't cease His existence.

But that's the thing, nothing is perfect. And who defines perfect anyways? That's like trying to define what/who is normal.
Defining perfect and defining normal isn't the same. If I were to ask what is 5/4, I could get a 'normal' answer of 1.2 but the 'perfect' answer is 1.25. Normal is subjective and dependent on the interpretation. Perfect is a conceptual singularity - just because we are unable to comprehend it doesn't make it subjective, it only means we are not that knowledgeable.
The definition of perfect is God. And God defines it as Himself.

Thank you for replying. I'll cover any remaining stuff in a later post...
 
ivdavid said:
Slavery is wrong because of the Golden Rule
I thank you for sharing your views. I apologize for putting you in a dilemma. But it seems to me that all your reasoning has still led you to appealing to a universal absolute law.

If slavery being wrong is your personal belief and this was the reasoning you employed to arrive at that belief, then there is no argument against that and no discussion can arise.

But if you want to discuss slavery with someone, then you will have to appeal to a universal absolute law to show that it is wrong. Relativism doesn't hold.

Your reasoning and explanation for why the Golden Rule is to be correct, again can be subject to the same skeptic questioning - why should we feel empathy for humanity? The answer again must be an appeal to a universal absolute law or one must ignore the question on grounds of personal preferences.

Do you see any other option available?

So you're saying the Golden Rule is a universal absolute? The Golden Rule is also relative. I think most people don't want to be a slave, but when it comes to smaller things, people can defer greatly. Like some people like receiving compliments, I'd rather take criticism.

You've got it backwards. I arrived at slavery being wrong because of the Golden Rule. I consider the Golden Rule to be a fair standard for morality in most cases, though I could still offend someone/mistreat them because of what I said above. That makes it relative.

So I fail to see how the Golden Rule is a universal absolute since people want to be treated differently.

I never said the Golden Rule is correct; that is different than from me saying it is a reasonable way to derive morality. The Golden Rule isn't perfect.

Empathy is a natural feeling for social animals. For the human race to best survive, we work together to accomplish goals and become interdependent of one another. To keep things running smoothly (not perfectly, but you get the idea) in a society, humans have to be aware of others and willing to compromise- empathy. If we were another animal like Cheetahs, we wouldn't need empathy because we would then be solitary creatures with no need to communicate to survive as individuals.
Again with the dilemma. There are hardly ever just to answer/solutions to an answer. Just because you can only see two doesn't mean there aren't more. What I said was neither a universal absolute law or ignoring the question because of personal preference.

I can't get to your other post at the moment.
 
ivdavid said:
chattymute wrote:
Also, dangling an eternal punishment before you and just forcing you into a position where you have to choose him or perish is not free will. That is called a scare tactic.
[quote:tkuo1ia7]kpd560 wrote:
Also, how is the Holy Kings statement not simple blackmail? In other words, "Do what I say is best for you or I'll burn you in hell forever."
I simply can't get this argument.
Would a nation's supreme court which passes a law like this - do not be a terrorist; if you do, you'll be imprisoned for life - be considered resorting to blackmail?[/quote:tkuo1ia7]

I'll try to explain again.

You're trying to equate what God desires to what a nation demands. God claims that he wants us to make a free choice whereas a nations laws have no such intent. A free choice means exercising free will without fear of retribution for your choice. In what way is this difficult to understand?

Furthermore, if God just wants to dictate laws to us then we shouldn't concern ourselves with all this talk of free will. If however, God values free will and genuinely wants it from us then He shouldn't blackmail us into a decision. Specifically, He shouldn't tell us that He loves us but we have to do what He wants or we'll be horribly tortured for eternity.

I truly don't know how to be any clearer than that. :shrug

Best wishes ivdavid.
 
Absolute proof is almost entirely confined to mathematics so if you require this of the flat universe theory you'll be waiting forever. Our understanding of gravity is just a theory but I assume you conduct your life as if it was established law. Some theories are rather tenuous like string theory. Other theories are as solid as gravity like evolution. Flat universe theory is rather young I believe but already has significant evidence supporting it. You are, of course, free to ignore it if that's what you want.

It looks like you pick and choose some theories and evidence that backs them up as well. You seem to have no problem taking the leap of faith where there are holes in the theories that support your beliefs.

Just out of curiosity, how do you convince yourself that the claims of the Bible are proven and demonstrated?

I hope this isn’t intended as belittling as it comes across. First (and I understand this is foreign to you) I don’t convince myself. The Holy Spirit leads me to be convinced. Some things in the Bible obviously can’t be reproduced. Taking the journals which are now books in the Bible along with supporting documentation from non-Christian historians of the time solidifies the authenticity of New Testament scripture for me.

I can understand your hope. I lost a 12 year old son 6 years ago in a car accident and I would like nothing better than to be with him again some day.

What can I say to this? You had a horrible loss, and I’m truly sorry to hear about that. Was this instrumental in your loss of faith, or were you always a nonbeliever? The Christian would say that in our fallen world, bad things happen as a result of sin. And there’s always something good than can come from the most tragic event. Who can counsel someone who has had a still-born baby better than someone who has gone thru that tragedy herself? I’m not downplaying the pain you have felt since it happened. And I hope my response doesn’t cause further anger. It’s not intended to. I’m just saying how Christians try to make sense out of, and deal with, horrible things. It’s been said that God whispers to us in the good times and screams to us in the bad.

Pascals wager? Please, thats so sleazy. It's as if a god would favor those people who could make a clever wager based on potential gains and losses. I don't want to preach but since you ask, I get to appreciate this life for what it is and not a stepping stone to some hoped for afterlife. I don't spend years of my life performing what I hope are the proper rituals to the right god. I like to think that I can appreciate the universe at face value without imagining some supernatural entity pulling the puppet strings. I guess I just can't make myself believe in something based on what is, to me, insufficient evidence.

My comment was only to suggest that if an atheist is correct, the outcome is “nothingâ€. But if the atheist is wrong, there will be horrible consequences in ignoring the Truth. We don’t make a “clever wagerâ€. We listen to the Holy Spirit and respond. We also consider all the evidence available. Christians find much joy in this life. We’re not intended to live our lives with our heads hung low. Those that do, do not seem to fully accept the Gospel. And I don’t perform “the proper rituals†for God. That’s legalism. I simply accept and love Jesus. It’s about a “relationshipâ€, not doing this or that.

Say, you completely ignored the second part of my last post. You have no comment?

I’ll go back and respond as time permits. Again, I was dealing with the glitches in the system that only allowed me to type so much in the text box. I took some advice that Logical Bob emailed me about copying to Word and plugging in quotes before and after. I hope I did this right and it formats as I intend it to.
Thanks for your exchange, and thanks to Bob for the advice.
 
"I've observed if you say "said" enough in a in a post here, you appear more credible." I was replying to that with regards to the length of posts. Perhaps you can clear up what you meant if I misinterpreted?

Chatty, just to set the record straight, in my original statement about using "said" to be more credible, I wasn't referring to anyone else. I was poking fun at myself, because in my previous post, is typed: "said evidence", "said theory", "Said forum", said, said, said at nausea. I don't know why I wrote like that. Personally, it's one of my pet peeves when people talk like that. They (and I) sound like they're trying to make themselves sound more sophisticated. And I know Dawkins isn't your god. But he does seem to be the loudest voice in the atheist camp. I find him very condescending to anyone with faith that he is debating or conversing with. He seems to me to be very militant and bitter.
 
ivdavid said:
chattymute wrote:
Also, dangling an eternal punishment before you and just forcing you into a position where you have to choose him or perish is not free will. That is called a scare tactic.
[quote:tongue956gpku]kpd560 wrote:
Also, how is the Holy Kings statement not simple blackmail? In other words, "Do what I say is best for you or I'll burn you in hell forever."
I simply can't get this argument.
Would a nation's supreme court which passes a law like this - do not be a terrorist; if you do, you'll be imprisoned for life - be considered resorting to blackmail?...[/quote:tongue956gpku] I'll refer you to kpd's post.


I think the common misconception is that - a sinner is one who sins. It's more like - one sins because he's a sinner. Being a sinner is part of our nature, and on account of that springs forth sins. Take self-pride and rebellion. I ask someone to lay down their self-pride, i think that's when it peaks. It's part of the human nature. We are rebels by nature who need a Saviour.
First, not everyone is like that. Second, it doesn't follow that because we rebel at times we need a savior. If someone tells me to do something that I think is illogical, then I won't do it. That doesn't necessarily make me a rebel or need a savior.

By definition, it does - anyone against an All-Good God is evil.
You have yet to show me how he is all-good. I don't think genocides are all good. Why end a "bad" person's life like that when they are going to Hell anyways? Surely there is a better way.

Personal preference? If so, you are indeed entitled to it. I shall not question that.
You keep using that phrase. I already told you why it is incorrect. It's not a personal preference when I have reasons to back it up. I believe that because there is evidence to show it. A "bad" person can always do something good, and a "good" person could always lie or cheat.

Everybody does know God - some just suppress the truth and give it different names or attribute it to something else. God does reveal Himself to a person who truly and justly seeks and continues to seek after truth in faith.
Ah, no. You're assuming that every culture has a religion or worships a God. Buddhist is good example of a religion without a God. Hinduism is also completely different than Christianity with completely different concepts. I did try to seek God. I wanted to believe in him. He didn't show. And don't try on that holier-than-thou attitude by telling me that I didn't seek hard enough of truly want it. I did.

You can't say that for sure - as I said, you're only privy to their acts of selflessness - you don't know what is in their hearts. This was why I'd used the boy and cookie example - to show that even if the command seems to be obeyed, the heart might not be right. It's not to show some abuse of authority.
I can tell you right now that I have volunteered because I cared for the people who needed the help and not for my selfishness. You can't say for sure that no one has done that.
And I already told you that to do something just because any authority figure tells you t do it is illogical.

Do you ask out of curiosity or do you demand as if you had a right to know? If it's out of curiosity, then your heart has anyway decided to obey with/without an explanation. But if it's a demand to know, then what's the intent behind it? Is it second-guessing your parents? If so, it shows a lack of trust that they would have the right intent and wisdom. Even if that can be excused in the case of parents, God is neither wrong-intentioned nor unwise. So, any refusal to obey shows a lack of faith in the perfect God and all this second-guessing shows that you actually think that you could be right and God wrong - I think it's basically self-pride that triggers all such rebellion.
My parent's don't have to tell me, and I don't have a right to know.
Curiosity, and no that doesn't mean I would do what they said without the explanation. If my father told me to go get up and get him a piece of cake when he is perfectly capable of doing it himself, I wouldn't do it. If he gave me an illogical reason when I ask for it, I wouldn't do it. And yes, that has happened before. Mom backed me up because she believes the same thing. Everything isn't as black and white as you present it.
How am I supposed to trust a figure that has no evidence? Who's supposed book is over 2000 years old written by people we don't even know? There is no reason to give my complete trust to that book.
I don't think a God could be wrong because I don't believe he exists. Yeah, there could be a God; I doubt it is yours if there is one.

Who are we deceiving? Humans are imperfect because they are sinners and rebels by nature. They want to run the show by themselves and ignore God. So, there are what you call 'mistakes' like drugs. I mean, honestly, is beginning to try drugs a mistake like you mistaken the wrong lane or the wrong house. What causes the desire to first try it, continue in it and then later become slaves to it? Isn't it satan's temptations and the person's own evil desires and lusts? We can term it however we like, but nobody is left with an excuse. And here's where God's mercy and love is seen all the more - for He wills all people to repent and turn to Him irrespective of what they've done - all their confessed sins are thrown into the ocean depths.
I agree that humans tend to rebel when they don't agree. However, I don't believe in sin.
It is easy to ignore a God who probably doesn't exist, but it is really hard to ignore the people who do think he exists. People like being in charge. What's wrong with that?
People can try drugs because they are depressed or need an outlet as well. Yes, some do it out of rebellion. I wouldn't call depression an evil desire or lust. That is demeaning a very powerful, negative emotion.
What love? How can a perfect God create a world like this?

I can't answer the rest right now. I'll get to it later.
 
mjjcb said:
But if the atheist is wrong, there will be horrible consequences in ignoring the Truth.
Not all consequences of an atheist being wrong are horrible though. One of the consequence is that he is reincarnated over and over(assuming another religion is true and Christianity wrong).

Here's a question and I think ivdavid could entertain this as well.
According to Christianity, what is life? ( how do we define one alive, eg: feelings, senses ..etc )
 
Back
Top