Is God Omniscient?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Judging by some of their diaries that appears to be the case.

"How fortunate I am that I believe in God, whom my mother believes in. My mind is at ease when I think that God takes care of everything. God would not make my mother or myself sad. I am sure God will bestow happiness upon us. Even [though] I will die I dream of our lives together ... I can’t bear the thought of our nation being stampeded by the dirty enemy. I must avenge [it] with my own life."

While no doubt some of the kamikaze pilots took part because they were ordered to, a lot volunteered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

It is not hard to see how belief in an after life would lessen the fear of death as the only outcome of the mission, or how they would see the US landing in Japan as being a horrific outcome to be avoided at all costs.

Can't argue with that. When I die for my country then I'll have more of a right to judge.

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't a Bible quote is it

No that is not in the Bible as far as I know. Just something that gets bounced around from time to time.

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't actually answer my question, at least in the context of this thread.

The issue isn't whether God knows you did wrong. He (assuming he exists) will and always has known.

The question is how possible is it for humans to determine this themselves based on reading of the Bible.

Can you tell me if what those pilots did was wrong, and can you based this on a clear (ie not open to a lot of different interpretation) message from the Bible?

Or to put it another way, if what the pilots did is wrong, what bit of the Bible should have made that clear to them

That's easy. "Thou shalt not kill" Exodus 20:13. I fail to see where you can have another interpretation of this unless you change what it says. Can "Thou shalt NOT kill" ever mean "Thou shalt kill"?

Even a staunch atheist would have to concede that if all mankind where to live by every word that proceeded forth from the mouth of God as revealed in the Bible then it would make our world a much more wonderful place to live?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's easy. "Thou shalt not kill" Exodus 20:13. I fail to see where you can have another interpretation of this unless you change what it says. Can "Thou shalt NOT kill" ever mean "Thou shalt kill"?

Exodus doesn't actually say Thou shalt not kill, it says Thou shalt not murder

If it did say thou shalt not kill the next bits in the Old Testament would be a bit of a problem because the Hebrews spend an awful lot of time genociding other countries, children women and men, under the commandment of Moses. This may not have been murder, as it was ordered by God, but it certainly was killing.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. The issue then becomes who defines what is unlawful and what isn't. A Christian would argue that ultimately God does.

So can we determine if it is clear from the Bible whether or not what these pilots did would be considered unlawful killing in the eyes of God and if this should have been clear to them as they were reading it?

robindch

SW wrote:

"Thou shalt not kill" Exodus 20:13. I fail to see where you can have another interpretation of this unless you change what it says.

Ask wolfsbane who contributes to the creationism thread. He believes that killing is fine, and that god's ok with that, as long as the killer is covered by a law that says that killing is ok. It's his specific interpretation of the kill/murder distinction, and I'm sure there are plenty more.

Fanny Cradock

Just a quick reply as I'm capping off a couple of hard days/ late nights at work.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure we agree on a lot of things

Most likely we do. But sadly not here

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't really relevant. The vast majority of people don't become suicide bombers, Christian or otherwise.

Of course it's relevant. If you insist on offering the stories of manic Japanese Christians (that's a bit of ad lib there) as some sort of proof, I insist on retaining the right to question the significance of your claims. Irrespective of the notion of a just war, you have so far yet to established the prevalence of Christian (and for the sake of keeping the peace I'll forgo the use of inverted commas there) suicide pilots (I believe a total figure of 7 is mentioned in the link Robin provided) or how many actually fulfilled the mission of a Kamikaze. For all you know the one pilot mentioned in detail, Hayashi, may have had an epiphany moments before he fulfilled his mission and flew his plane into the water instead because he was a Christian.

Wicknight wrote: »

While no doubt some of the kamikaze pilots took part because they were ordered to, a lot volunteered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

The Wiki link you have provided fails to mention Christianity once. So I'm not sure of it's relevance to the discussion. It does, however, appear to differ with your assertion that many simply volunteered.

"while commonly perceived that volunteers signed up in droves for Kamikaze missions, it has also been contended that there was extensive coercion and peer pressure involved in recruiting soldiers for the sacrifice. Their motivations in "volunteering" were complex and not simply about patriotism or bringing honour to their families."

Robins link corroborates this assertion: "it makes clear that high levels of coercion were used to compel the students to “volunteer” for their assignments."

I think you raise valid points in regards to the notion of a "just" killing and how easily that rests with Christianity. It would be one of the 'Big 3' [questions] in my personal faith. This loop regarding the Kamikaze pilots you are stuck on is just nonsense, though.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Of course it's relevant. If you insist on offering the stories of manic Japanese Christians (that's a bit of ad lib there) as some sort of proof, I insist on retaining the right to question the significance of your claims.

Certainly, but only if the proof was in support of the idea that Christianity turns people into suicide bombers, which wasn't my claim.

The claim was that Christianity, or more specifically the Bible, doesn't stop people (through very clear instruction) from turning to suicide bombing when they feel such desperate action is necessary to protect their family and friends from a perceived on coming threat.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Irrespective of the notion of a just war, you have so far yet to established the prevalence of Christian (and for the sake of keeping the peace I'll forgo the use of inverted commas there) suicide pilots

Again, I'm not trying to.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

(I believe a total figure of 7 is mentioned in the link Robin provided) or how many actually fulfilled the mission of a Kamikaze. For all you know the one pilot mentioned in detail, Hayashi, may have had an epiphany moments before he fulfilled his mission and flew his plane into the water instead because he was a Christian.

That won't matter to the point unless the epiphany was from reading of a passage of the Bible that he had previous misunderstood, which is doubtful as pilots tend not to read while flying. And even if that was true, the question still remains why it wasn't clear to him the when he read through the Bible numerous times before.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

"while commonly perceived that volunteers signed up in droves for Kamikaze missions, it has also been contended that there was extensive coercion and peer pressure involved in recruiting soldiers for the sacrifice. Their motivations in "volunteering" were complex and not simply about patriotism or bringing honour to their families."

I would agree 100% with that passage. I certainly didn't mean to imply they all volunteered. I would imagine it was easier for the more religious who anticipated a blissful after life to happily accept their missions that it was for the ones who feared death.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think you raise valid points in regards to the notion of a "just" killing and how easily that rests with Christianity. It would be one of the 'Big 3' [questions] in my personal faith. This loop regarding the Kamikaze pilots you are stuck on is just nonsense, though.

Well I didn't bring it up. The assertion was made along the lines that there is no such thing as a true Christian suicide bomber, the point being I imagine is that Christianity is clear that such action is wrong. I gave the Japanese Kamikaze pilots to counter this.

I am not hung up on these pilots, I am simply responding to the rush taken to paint that these pilots as either not Christian, didn't understand Christianity, or their Christianity was over ruled by nationalism.

I see no reason to believe that these pilots, the ones given in the example, were not true Christians in ever sense of the word, had not studied the Bible properly, and did not believe their Christianity was compatible with their actions.

Therefore they are examples of proper Christian suicide bombers.

Getting back the context of this thread, the question then becomes how did these Christians come to the understanding, through interpretation of the Bible, that God supported there actions is the Bible is supposed to be clear that their actions are wrong (assuming of course that people here actually believe God and the Bible didn't support their actions)

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Exodus doesn't actually say Thou shalt not kill, it says Thou shalt not murder

If it did say thou shalt not kill the next bits in the Old Testament would be a bit of a problem because the Hebrews spend an awful lot of time genociding other countries, children women and men, under the commandment of Moses. This may not have been murder, as it was ordered by God, but it certainly was killing.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. The issue then becomes who defines what is unlawful and what isn't. A Christian would argue that ultimately God does.

So can we determine if it is clear from the Bible whether or not what these pilots did would be considered unlawful killing in the eyes of God and if this should have been clear to them as they were reading it?

Maybe not but it is still taking life. ‘Manslaughter' (accidental slaying) is not murder but it is still killing and God provided cities of refuge for those in the OT who committed manslaughter that once they got to one of those cities then they would be safe from their pursuers who wanted vengeance and they could only leave that city when the high priest of that city died.

But in terms of being clear on something that you say the Bible is not. Jesus in the NT says in Matthew 5 that if you hate in your heart for no cause then you are as guilty as a murderer, guilty in that you will receive a similar judgment as a murderer.

As for there being a clear message to Japanese pilots in the Bible that they could expunge from the scripture something to make them rest easy about kamikaze plane flight then they could use the following or at least their leaders could. I doubt very much that God will hold them to account personally for following orders and defending their country but their leader might want to watch out if they didn’t take this into consideration:

“Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.” Luke 14:31-32

Could’ve avoided Pearl Harbour with that one not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Fanny Cradock

Just a quick reply because I'm knackered and off to bed.

Wicknight wrote: »

That won't matter to the point unless the epiphany was from reading of a passage of the Bible that he had previous misunderstood, which is doubtful as pilots tend not to read while flying. And even if that was true, the question still remains why it wasn't clear to him the when he read through the Bible numerous times before.

Sorry, but why exactly can a sudden realisation only arise from reading the Bible, which we both agree is an unlikely thing to do as you hurtle towards your target (or not)? My understanding of an epiphany is that it isn't confined to any one action or point in time. Surely an epiphany could be defined as a breakthrough in understanding beyond how you once interpreted something irrespective of time. Are Christian epiphanies now limited?

Wicknight wrote: »

I would imagine it was easier for the more religious who anticipated a blissful after life to happily accept their missions that it was for the ones who feared death.

Possibly, but you don't have to be religious to be a fanatic. The fact that there were probably Buddhists and outright atheists amongst the pilots could lead one to assume that it was atheism that drove them to do such a thing. Anyway, I would contest the seemingly prevailing notion amongst some that belief produces horrid violence and oppression as opposed to graceful altruism and startlingly positive pacifism.

Wicknight wrote: »

Therefore they are examples of proper Christian suicide bombers.

I could equally assert the claim that Madalyn Murray O'Hair is the archetypical example of a proper atheist. Never mind that she was a bitter, enraged, untrustworthy, homophobe. I choose not to believe that, though. Why? Because it's preposterous to assert that a small group of people acting against the norm damn the majority.


Ugh... there goes my early night

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Maybe not but it is still taking life.

True, but taking a life in of itself doesn't appear to be something God doesn't want people to do considering the amount of times he, or his messengers, ordered his people to kill women, children and men in the Old Testament.

Soul Winner wrote: »

As for there being a clear message to Japanese pilots in the Bible that they could expunge from the scripture something to make them rest easy about kamikaze plane flight then they could use the following or at least their leaders could. I doubt very much that God will hold them to account personally for following orders and defending their country but their leader might want to watch out if they didn’t take this into consideration:

Well there you go, you believe that what they did was correct given your interpretation of the Bible. The issue now becomes do other Christians agree with you, and if they don't then why.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Well there you go, you believe that what they did was correct given your interpretation of the Bible. The issue now becomes do other Christians agree with you, and if they don't then why.

But I didn't actual say that I believed that what they did was correct though did I? You asked me a question as to what was in the Bible for them and I answered it the best I could. You never asked me for my personal opinion about them. What exactly is it you're looking for from this discusison?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry, but why exactly can a sudden realisation only arise from reading the Bible, which we both agree is an unlikely thing to do as you hurtle towards your target (or not)?

A sudden realisation on the part of the pilot can come from anything, but it only matters to the context of this discussion if it comes from reading the Bible, because this discussion is over whether or not the Bible makes it clear either way the morality of the actions the pilots are carrying out.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My understanding of an epiphany is that it isn't confined to any one action or point in time. Surely an epiphany could be defined as a breakthrough in understanding beyond how you once interpreted something irrespective of time. Are Christian epiphanies now limited?

Well certainly if the pilot managed to some how have an "epiphany" over a passage in the Bible that he original (and probably repeatably) interpreted as supporting his action and decided at that moment that it doesn't in fact support his action, that would count.

But I would argue that if pilots are having epiphanies in the middle of the Pacific ocean about Bible passages they are recalling from memory when they are well on their way, then the original text falls short of being defined as "clear"

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Possibly, but you don't have to be religious to be a fanatic.

I don't remember claiming one did.

As you may recall I have been very vocal a number of times of my denunciation of the fanatics in movements such as Communism, and as we all know that movement is atheist in nature and very anti-religious (though I would stress the two are not the same thing).

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The fact that there were probably Buddhists and outright atheists amongst the pilots could lead one to assume that it was atheism that drove them to do such a thing.

Well I'm not sure how atheism drives someone to do something (atheism isn't a belief, it is a lack of belief), but certain non-religious motivations can drive people to very drastic things.

My point wasn't the religion is the only cause of suicidal action on the part of soldiers. My point was simply that belief in an after life would almost certainly make the prospect of death less feared. This Christian kamikaze pilot certainly did not seem to fear death, if his diaries are to be believed, and viewed it as a place where God would love him and he would be with his mother.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I could equally assert the claim that Madalyn Murray O'Hair is the archetypical example of a proper atheist.

O'Hair was the archetypical example of a proper atheist, considering a proper atheist is someone who honestly does not believe in a deities, god or gods. This is a group that I'm pretty sure includes O'Hair, and myself I might add.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Never mind that she was a bitter, enraged, untrustworthy, homophobe.

Certainly, considering that none of that has any bearing on whether or not she was an atheist. She genuinely didn't believe in god, therefore she was a genuine atheist. She was a pretty horrible person, but then that is a determining factor in whether or not a person is an atheist. Pretty horrible people don't believe in God.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I choose not to believe that, though. Why? Because it's preposterous to assert that a small group of people acting against the norm damn the majority.

How would O'Hair "damn" the majority?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But I didn't actual say that I believed that what they did was correct though did I?

Well you implied that God did, when you said that you doubt very much that God will hold them to account for following orders and defending their country.

Given that you believe God won't hold them to account, do you still believe what they did was wrong in the eyes of God?

Or, slightly more left field, would you disagree with God on this matter, and hold a personal opinion that differs from his?

Soul Winner wrote: »

You never asked me for my personal opinion about them.

You are right, I didn't, because it doesn't really matter. You aren't God, and as such your opinion of them doesn't hold any sway.

What matters is whether or not God would determine that what they did was wrong, and if that is made clear in the Bible.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What exactly is it you're looking for from this discussion?

Reading the OP's post at the start of the thread may clear up the topic of this thread. The issue is about how clear the Bible is, and can it be clearer.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I'm not sure how atheism drives someone to do something (atheism isn't a belief, it is a lack of belief)

It can also be argued that atheism is the belief that there is no God and thereby becomes a belief system itself. Agnostics are not sure whether God is, whereas atheists are absolutely sure He isn't. This is not a non position. To say atheism is 'lack of belief' is just plain wrong. There's probably as many atheists in the world who believe God isn’t as there are believers who believe He is. Either way if God is then this fact is not predicated on whether we believe it or not, likewise if He isn't.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Well you implied that God did, when you said that you doubt very much that God will hold them to account for following orders and defending their country.

If you like I can give you some scripture on the things God will hold against people.

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that you believe God won't hold them to account, do you still believe what they did was wrong in the eyes of God?

Look stealing a loaf of bread to feed your staving kids is wrong in the eyes of God when judged by His perfect standard which is His Law. If you want to talk about things that are wrong in the eyes of God then we will be here all night. Paul said that God gave the Law in order to show us our hopelessness in keeping it in order to drive us to Christ's redeeming act on Calvary which saves us from the curse of the law.

Wicknight wrote: »

Or, slightly more left field, would you disagree with God on this matter, and hold a personal opinion that differs from his?

I could hold an opinion that differs from His in the natural but once the light of God's Word shines on the issue I'll take a second look and see things differently. Someone once said: "Pressure never killed anyone, its the placement of it. If it is between you and God then it will kill you, if it drives you to God then it will make you." I think it was FB Meyer but not sure.

Wicknight wrote: »

You are right, I didn't, because it doesn't really matter. You aren't God, and as such your opinion of them doesn't hold any sway.

Absolutely.

Wicknight wrote: »

What matters is whether or not God would determine that what they did was wrong, and if that is made clear in the Bible.

When Moses came down form the mount after receiving God's Law he killed 3000 people for worshipping a golden calf and then asked God to blot him out because he had sinned and God said I'll say who has sinned and who hasn't sinned. So at the end of the day it is God who determines who has sinned or not.

Wicknight wrote: »

Reading the OP's post at the start of the thread may clear up the topic of this thread. The issue is about how clear the Bible is, and can it be clearer.

I think the example above sort of puts into perspective how God feels about sin and motives. He has revealed Himself in His Word to be a Just Judge and you can like that or not like it but at the end of the day it will be God who prevails so best thing to do is get on His side.

Soul Winner

mcgarnicle wrote: »

More spefically does God know the past, present and future all at once as is usually contended by Christians. If he is then surely this obviates any notion of context as a method of reading the various biblical writings as, if God were able to know how we would read them today, he would have put forth the writings in a far less parochial and less sadistic way given that he would be at once aware of how the writings would be received where they were presented and also exactly how they would spread and how they would be read thousands of years later.

Surely this then means that God

a) Meant what he wrote literally or b) did not write the bible at all.

Or it might not have happened that way at all. Here's a very simplistic look into what might really be going on in this universe of ours.

We know from the Bible that God claims to be Alpha and Omega the Beginning and the End. If this is true then what happens in between is the now.

So Satan rebels in Heaven then Satan gets cast out of Heaven along with one third of the angels who sided with him and all this before Adam was created.

Adam is then created in order to re-populate the void left in Heaven by Satan and his angels. Adam also succumbed to a fall under the influence of Satan but God made provision for Adam's salvation from his fallen state, but not so for Satan and his minions. Their rebellion was so vile that it turned God off on them forever.

So God chooses a people through Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And from one of Jacob's sons (Judah) was the King to arise. He narrowed the choice down even further by choosing the line of David and so it went until Christ was born.

Since the fall of Adam God has been looking for people who will trust Him when He says something. To hang their very lives on His every Word. But God had to fulfil His Word when He said to them that for sin comes death. They had sinned and He said that if they did sin they would die. So who was to pay this debt? Adam should have but that would have meant eternal death for Adam so God stood in for Adam Himself by sending His Son to pay the price for Adam's sin. For through one man came sin into the world and also through one man came life eternal.

This is the Bible in one big broad stroke. Now God can get back to what He started in Adam and that is to re-populate the void in heaven with people who will trust Him as the price for Adam's sin is now paid in full by Christ.

If this is true then God really is in control of everything and is also Omniscient.

JoeB-

My opinion is that the bible isn't clear at all and God is responsible for the suffering caused by genuine believers who cause harm to others through incorrect understanding of Gods word.

Plain as day... if God had said
'To kill another human is always wrong, ALWAYS WRONG'
there could be no confusion... and people who have killed because they have a genuine belief that it is acceptable in Gods eyes would not have done so (obviously because they couldn't have convinced themselves it was acceptable if it was crystal clear it wasn't).


There is also the issue of the Tower of Babel... apparently God is responsible for the earth's many different languages... and mis-translation and competing translations (of Gods scripture) cause many problems in the modern world. How is an omniscient God not to be held responsible for people who genuinely believe the wrong thing through a mis-translation?


Finally Jesus commited suicide... most definitely. He knew what was due to happen, he had the power to prevent it and yet he went along with it... so Jesus took actions (or took no preventative actions) which he knew full well would result in his own death.... that would seem to fit the definition of suicide perfectly. So possibly Jesus was the first Christian suicide.
(An alternative way of putting this is that Jesus voluntarily placed himself into a situation where he knew the outcome would be his own death, and yet he took no preventative action of which many were available to him.. ergo, Suicide.)
(Heading off possible criticism... consider 'suicide by cop'... it is still suicide even though the individual doesn't actually kill himself, so placing oneself in situations where the (desired) outcome is one's own death is suicide)

Cheers
Joe

JoeB-

Soul Winner wrote: »

So Satan rebels in Heaven then Satan gets cast out of Heaven along with one third of the angels who sided with him and all this before Adam was created.

Did God not see this coming? I am also confused as to your use of the word 'before', surely Satan and God don't reside in our universe of which time is a property, they operate in a timeless static place?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Adam is then created in order to re-populate the void left in Heaven by Satan and his angels. Adam also succumbed to a fall under the influence of Satan but God made provision for Adam's salvation from his fallen state, but not so for Satan and his minions. Their rebellion was so vile that it turned God off on them forever.

So is this a limit to Gods forgiveness? Strangely enough I thought he had infinite powers of forgiveness... I would have thought that if the Devil asked for forgiveness it would be forthcoming in a flash.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So God chooses a people through Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And from one of Jacob's sons (Judah) was the King to arise. He narrowed the choice down even further by choosing the line of David and so it went until Christ was born.

But Jesus was born to a virgin woman... so how can he be considered to descend from David? (Unless you believe it was Mary who was descended from David, not Joseph)

Soul Winner wrote: »

But God had to fulfil His Word when He said to them that for sin comes death. They had sinned and He said that if they did sin they would die.

This is quite incredible... surely God said that to sin results in eternal damnation, how is that death?
Also is this an example of God changing his eternal mind? 'Before' he changed the rules was he aware he was going to change them? Did he lie when he first said what he said? (Or was he merely mistaken?)

Cheers

Conar

PDN wrote: »

I have said that the prohibition of wars is not the central theme of the Bible.

PDN I applaud you for continuously debating with us darn atheists but surely you can see where we are coming from.

As the OP's original question asks (loosely) why would such a God have themes that contradict?
Why not be definitive?
There is no reason, its not like he was being rushed by publishers

You have suggested that his attitude to slavery was to wean the Jews off it so to speak, but is this not the same God who saw fit to destroy Sodom for their bad ways?
Why wouldn't he just teach people that kept slaves a lesson, then everyone would have known from that day forward that slavery was bad, umkay.
This is the same God that killed off everyone except for Noah and his crew because they had gone wayward, why did he allow them to start off on the wrong foot again by allowing slavery even begin?

PDN wrote: »

I have also said that many Christians believe in the concept of a just war. I have not said that 'my religion' condones just wars. Please stop twisting my words. I, personally, am a pacifist. That is 'my religion'.

The fact that you admit that it is your religion shows that you agree that the bible is totally open to interpretation. So how do you know that you have the right interpretation?
How do you know that people in the past didn't believe that God agreed with slavery and rape?
Do you believe that God is fine with homosexuality and sodomy? I assume not, but why did he treat homosexuals with more contempt than he did people who kept slaves?
One can only assume that God is implying that homosexuality is a worse moral crime than slavery can we not?

I really can't see how you can pick all the best bits of the bible and say thats what God was talking about and ignore all the rest.
You criticise Wicknight for selectively twisting parts of the bible but he is only taking what is said literally.
Would you not dismantle anyones argument in the same manner?
Surely if Gods words cannot stand up to a puny Wicknight then he's not much of a God?

This twists and turns back to the OP's point.
If there really was a God and if the bible really was his collective wisdom then why fill it with so much hate, ambiguity, lies, while all the time trying to convey an underlying message of love and acceptence?

There is a certain irony in how I as an atheist cannot give such an all powerful head rub such as 'God bless you and your ignorance', but then hey, I'm a god in my daughters eyes so Conar blesses you and your crazy ways!
(Please don't take that last bit as an insult I'm just kidding)

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

It can also be argued that atheism is the belief that there is no God and thereby becomes a belief system itself.

Well I suppose anything can be argued, but I've yet to see a convincing argument along the lines that atheism is a belief system in of itself.

Have you heard the phrase -

Atheism is a religion (belief system) in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby

An atheist doesn't believe in God. That information doesn't actually tell you what the atheist does believe in.

Therefore knowing that he/she is an atheist tells you nothing about their actually belief system other than that it doesn't include a supernatural deity, in the same way that knowing someone doesn't collect stamps tells you nothing about their actual hobbies other than the fact that their hobbies don't include collecting stamps.

One wouldn't say that not collecting stamps is a hobby, and by the same token it would be peculiar to say that atheism is a belief system in of itself.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Agnostics are not sure whether God is, whereas atheists are absolutely sure He isn't. This is not a non position. To say atheism is 'lack of belief' is just plain wrong.

What is a "non-position" other than a lack of belief.

Do I believe in gods? No. Then I'm an atheist (an "a"-theist, the reverse of a theist, a theist being someone who does believe in the existence of gods).

Soul Winner wrote: »

There's probably as many atheists in the world who believe God isn’t as there are believers who believe He is.

Well it depends on what you mean by "God".

Something like 93% of the worlds population (this is obviously a rough estimate, they didn't ask everyone) claims to believe in a supernatural deity or groups of deities.

Now naturally this belief is not uniform. The Hindus don't believe in the Christian "God", and vice versa.

As Dawkins likes to say everyone is atheist when it comes to 99.99% of the gods and goddesses that humanity have ever worshiped. "Atheists" just go one god more.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you like I can give you some scripture on the things God will hold against people.

Well in the context of this thread, scripture that supports the idea that God will not hold these action against these Japanese pilots as something they need to repent for, would probably be more helpful.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Look stealing a loaf of bread to feed your staving kids is wrong in the eyes of God when judged by His perfect standard which is His Law. If you want to talk about things that are wrong in the eyes of God then we will be here all night. Paul said that God gave the Law in order to show us our hopelessness in keeping it in order to drive us to Christ's redeeming act on Calvary which saves us from the curse of the law.

Where does that leave people who try to figure out a good way of living from the teachings of the Bible?

I think we would both agree that just because nothing is perfect doesn't mean that everything is equally bad. Otherwise what would be the point of the law in the first place?

Soul Winner wrote: »

So at the end of the day it is God who determines who has sinned or not.

That isn't in dispute. But you appear to be saying that we cannot know if what we are doing is a sinned or not until God decides it is. That would render the teachings of the Bible some what pointless. I imagine that isn't what you mean to say, but it is certainly coming across like that.

Soul Winner wrote: »

He has revealed Himself in His Word to be a Just Judge

Well that is the point of this discussion, the question of the logic of simply accepting that as a given.

You appear locked in cyclical reasoning, God has revealed himself to be just, therefore he is just, and because he is just the way he reveals himself is just.

stevejazzx

mcgarnicle wrote: »

More spefically does God know the past, present and future all at once as is usually contended by Christians. If he is then surely this obviates any notion of context as a method of reading the various biblical writings as, if God were able to know how we would read them today, he would have put forth the writings in a far less parochial and less sadistic way given that he would be at once aware of how the writings would be received where they were presented and also exactly how they would spread and how they would be read thousands of years later.

Surely this then means that God

a) Meant what he wrote literally or b) did not write the bible at all.

I completely agree and you've phrsed the problem very well, unfortunately Christians will just say 'faith'. The bible can be represented in any fashion really and defended using one of the catch-all defenses i.e fatih, God works in mysterious ways, free will etc etc.
So the only answer really to this is that Gods plan was to either inflict or allow the most terrible of confusion, pain and suffering upon the whole of his creation for ever and then see who survived and made it out as a good christian.
So in the meantime people of the earth would have to suffer continuously - with the existence of god becoming more and more unlikley as generations progressed and evolved. He would even plant fossils all over the earth to confuse them and there would be available to them countless other ways in which they might explain the universe and some of these methods would be scientific and do not even invoke any supernatural elements .
They would discover space aviation and see the vastness of universe, they would become utterly entrenched in the developmnt of their species and their technology.
They would look at history and discover that certain elements were recorded incorrectly either through bias or ignorance. Generations would be so far removed from the initial histories of the bible that they would simply never even consider it as a real accont of history.
Billions of them, billions!, wouldn't even enter into the real fatih becasue of geography and litreally nil exposure to said religon but exposure to other strong belief systems and indeed other religons.
Humankind is supposed to endure all this confusion and still be in some kind of position where it's possible to chose a chrsitian God.
It's a patently ridiculous idea but its defended by people who can only be described as fundamentalists for how can anyone claim moderatism by declaring they speak for the one true fatih.

Steve

Soul Winner

JoeBallantine wrote: »

My opinion is that the bible isn't clear at all and God is responsible for the suffering caused by genuine believers who cause harm to others through incorrect understanding of Gods word.

Plain as day... if God had said
'To kill another human is always wrong, ALWAYS WRONG'
there could be no confusion... and people who have killed because they have a genuine belief that it is acceptable in Gods eyes would not have done so (obviously because they couldn't have convinced themselves it was acceptable if it was crystal clear it wasn't).


There is also the issue of the Tower of Babel... apparently God is responsible for the earth's many different languages... and mis-translation and competing translations (of Gods scripture) cause many problems in the modern world. How is an omniscient God not to be held responsible for people who genuinely believe the wrong thing through a mis-translation?


Finally Jesus commited suicide... most definitely. He knew what was due to happen, he had the power to prevent it and yet he went along with it... so Jesus took actions (or took no preventative actions) which he knew full well would result in his own death.... that would seem to fit the definition of suicide perfectly. So possibly Jesus was the first Christian suicide.
(An alternative way of putting this is that Jesus voluntarily placed himself into a situation where he knew the outcome would be his own death, and yet he took no preventative action of which many were available to him.. ergo, Suicide.)
(Heading off possible criticism... consider 'suicide by cop'... it is still suicide even though the individual doesn't actually kill himself, so placing oneself in situations where the (desired) outcome is one's own death is suicide)

Cheers
Joe

In a nut shell I think you're confusing the God in your head with the real God as revealed in the scriptures. The God in the scriptures (if He truly does exist) is not out there asking you to accept Him, He’s telling you to. Nor does He care what you think. From His point of view you either get on His side or you're a goner. If you don't accept that kind of God then fine, it doesn’t really matter, because if that God truly is then He is and He’s top Dog so he’s going to win out in the end. Plus He's not looking for friends either, nor does He need them. What you have in your mind is a traditional view of God which you have absorbed from whatever exposure to learning about Him you've had in your life. That is not God's fault. If you really want to know about God then you will seek Him diligently but if you don't then you'll just take whatever second hand garbage there is out there and try to beat the real God over the head with it. The questions you ask are probably valid from a humanistic point of view but the revealed God of the scripture is not a humanist, neither was Jesus “I’ve come to do the will of the Father who sent me” that is not humanist nor was it suicide. Jesus asks God in John 17 “If it be possible let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will but thy will be done” that is not someone who is suicidal. You see you’re judging the Judge with very limited understanding. It’s like a pig sitting at a dinner table judging the eating habits of others at the table.

To me those who don't like the God as He has revealed Himself to be and who want Him to be different are like flees on a train track not accepting the train coming at them. Sooner or later... SPLAT!!!! And you don't have to accept that either. What you fail to see is it doesn't matter at all what you think, its what God thinks that matters. He's not taking votes, you're either on His side or your dead. You choose.

I bet you’ll just come back with something that basically reads ‘Well I don’t accept that” Who cares???

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

If this is true then God really is in control of everything and is also Omniscient.

Well actually if any of it is true then you run into some major logical problems with the idea of an omniscient god as the God you have described in your summary does not appear to be omniscient

The Bible claims that God is omniscient yet describes a god who acts in the manner of a non-omniscient god.

which is probably where the OP, and others including myself, first starting have trouble with the idea that the Biblical God is supposed to be omniscient.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I suppose anything can be argued, but I've yet to see a convincing argument along the lines that atheism is a belief system in of itself.

Have you heard the phrase -

Atheism is a religion (belief system) in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby

Maybe not but you’d be hard pressed to find as many non stamp collectors as against stamp collecting as there are atheists against belief in God.

Wicknight wrote: »

An atheist doesn't believe in God. That information doesn't actually tell you what the atheist does believe in.


Therefore knowing that he/she is an atheist tells you nothing about their actually belief system other than that it doesn't include a supernatural deity, in the same way that knowing someone doesn't collect stamps tells you nothing about their actual hobbies other than the fact that their hobbies don't include collecting stamps.

One wouldn't say that not collecting stamps is a hobby, and by the same token it would be peculiar to say that atheism is a belief system in of itself.

So what do you believe in? Seems like a pretty easy gig to just put down others for what they believe in all the time wouldn’t you agree? You said it to PDN and Brain Calgary yourself, that the reason for your posts is to challenge their beliefs in ways they do not like them being challenged. If I had as negative an interest like that in non stamp collecting then the stamp collectors would get a little hot under the collar don’t you think? Expecting me to storm in on their philatelic get-togethers any minute.

Wicknight wrote: »

What is a "non-position" other than a lack of belief.

Spose!

Wicknight wrote: »

Do I believe in gods? No. Then I'm an atheist (an "a"-theist, the reverse of a theist, a theist being someone who does believe in the existence of gods).

Ok I get it, you do not believe in a God, you are an ‘A’ Theist. Let me tell you I have nothing against people who do not believe in God or a deity. I just don’t like when they put others down for having a different opinion or belief system. I would stand up for an atheist the same way if he where being put down for not believing in God in the same manner.

Wicknight wrote: »

Something like 93% of the worlds population (this is obviously a rough estimate, they didn't ask everyone) claims to believe in a supernatural deity or groups of deities.

Now naturally this belief is not uniform. The Hindus don't believe in the Christian "God", and vice versa.

As Dawkins likes to say everyone is atheist when it comes to 99.99% of the gods and goddesses that humanity have ever worshiped. "Atheists" just go one god more.

Sorry hold there. How can 93% of the world’s population believe in a supernatural deity and yet (as you say Dawkins puts it) everyone is an atheist when it comes to 99.99% of the gods and goddesses that humanity has ever worshipped? Something wrong with these figures I think.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well in the context of this thread, scripture that supports the idea that God will not hold these action against these Japanese pilots as something they need to repent for, would probably be more helpful.

Does it have to mention each pilot by name or would a general idea in a text suit better? St Paul the Apostle says that for you to do something that is wrong to you then it is sin for you to do it even though it probably wouldn’t bother God as much. We could use the following as an earthly example: Let say your kid thinks that you really hate him jumping on your bed and he does it with that in mind, you come in a find his jumping really cute. Has the kid do something wrong?

Wicknight wrote: »

Where does that leave people who try to figure out a good way of living from the teachings of the Bible?

Are you serious? Like I said before if everyone in the world where to do the things revealed in the law of God then the world would be a much better place to live. Even though it (the Law) was fulfilled in Christ. And what if everyone did the things Jesus said to do? Like to love your neighbour as yourself and if a man strikes you turn the other cheek or if a man steals your cloak give him another garment. You cannot argue that if everyone followed rules like these that the world would be a worse place to live. Can you? Seriously? You are asking me to give you scripture then you reject the scripture I give you.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think we would both agree that just because nothing is perfect doesn't mean that everything is equally bad. Otherwise what would be the point of the law in the first place?

Yes some things are worse than other things alright even though they be not perfect themselves. Like not killing someone is better than killing them, but better than even that is to buy them a car as well.

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't in dispute. But you appear to be saying that we cannot know if what we are doing is a sin or not until God decides it is. That would render the teachings of the Bible some what pointless. I imagine that isn't what you mean to say, but it is certainly coming across like that.

It certainly does sound like I’m saying that but when God told Moses that he did not sin even though he had killed 3000 people then that is God’s divine providence. Moses was so angry that after God delivered them out of Egypt and seen all His miraculous doings then is given the law of God on the mount to come down and see them worshipping a graven image just took the biscuit. God lamented that the children of Israel only knew His acts, only Moses came to know is ways. Moses had God’s ways in His heart and got angry in the right direction. Look put yourself in God’s position for a minute. You create the world and your creation fails to recognise your handiwork and ascribes it something else and doesn’t give you praise or glory for it, would that not pee you off just a little?

Wicknight wrote: »

You appear locked in cyclical reasoning, God has revealed himself to be just, therefore he is just, and because he is just the way he reveals himself is just.

I can say the same for your signature quote for example: "Every religion is right about one thing. And that is that all the others are completely wrong" - Prof. Ronald de Sousa. Isn’t that also a form of cyclical reasoning? Do really believe that no religion ever said anything right?

Let’s say you reveal yourself to be an ignoramus wouldn’t that make you an ignoramus? Likewise with God revealing Himself to be Just. Judas revealed himself to be a betrayer, Peter revealed himself to be a coward, Richard Dawkins revealed himself to be an atheist and so on…

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Maybe not but you’d be hard pressed to find as many non stamp collectors as against stamp collecting as there are atheists against belief in God.

that doesn't really matter. A non-stamp collector may very well hate stamp collecting, and hate the very idea of anyone else collecting stamps. Or they may not.

How they feel about others collecting stamps is a seperate issue to whether or not they do.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So what do you believe in?

Lots of things. You will have to be more specific if you want me to go into detail.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Seems like a pretty easy gig to just put down others for what they believe in all the time wouldn’t you agree?

Well I also cook

Soul Winner wrote: »

You said it to PDN and Brain Calgary yourself, that the reason for your posts is to challenge their beliefs in ways they do not like them being challenged.

Certain. One of the things I do believe in is that ideas, all ideas, must be challenged to their very core on a regular basis, particularly when they concern ideas that shape how humans handle matters such as war and killing. And also that no idea is infallible, and that belief in infallible ideas is dangerous.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Let me tell you I have nothing against people who do not believe in God or a deity. I just don’t like when they put others down for having a different opinion or belief system.

Define "put others down"

If you are referring to PDN I didn't put him down because he had a different belief system to me. I "put him down" because he was making assertions in reply to the OP's original questions that simply did not stand up.

I don't accept this idea that one must pussy foot around beliefs lest we offend those who hold them. I respect PDN has a right to hold and express any idea he likes, but I don't accept that I must respect the idea itself.

BTW I'm pretty sure that PDN doesn't give two sugars about what I say to him or about him.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Sorry hold there. How can 93% of the world’s population believe in a supernatural deity and yet (as you say Dawkins puts it) everyone is an atheist when it comes to 99.99% of the gods and goddesses that humanity has ever worshipped? Something wrong with these figures I think.

Because every religion (or at least the vast majority of religions) rejects every other religion's gods and godesses as either not being real, being the work of deceptive forces (such as the devil in Christianity) or being actually a confused version of their own god.

For example the majority of Christians don't believe in Thor, Zeus, Odion, Chiuta etc etc

There are litterally hundreds and hundreds of known gods that at one point have been worshipped by some humans some where, and probably far more that history has forgotten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

Soul Winner wrote: »

Does it have to mention each pilot by name or would a general idea in a text suit better?

It doesn't have to mention the pilots at all.

It has to make it clear, by reasonable standards, that suicide in the persuit of indiscriminately killing the enemy is immoral. And it has to not be blatantly contradicted by another passage some where else.

It is the contradiction that gets the Bible into its most trouble. In my opinion it is far too long and far too convoluted to be used as a serious moral guide (there is a thread about this in the Atheists forum)

Soul Winner wrote: »

St Paul the Apostle says that for you to do something that is wrong to you then it is sin for you to do it even though it probably wouldn’t bother God as much. We could use the following as an earthly example: Let say your kid thinks that you really hate him jumping on your bed and he does it with that in mind, you come in a find his jumping really cute. Has the kid do something wrong?

Well without knowing more of the context of this example, I would say yes. He is setting out to upset you on purpose. Like I said I don't know why he is doing this, but he is doing that, and it is not something I would teach my kids.

If I understand your point it is that God would not concern himself with such a tivial matter or morality, but it can still be considered right or wrong.

But at the same time I'm not sure jumping on a bed quite equates to flying a plane into a battleship.

If that would concern God, what would get God's attention?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Are you serious?

Always .. except when I do this :eek:

Soul Winner wrote: »

You cannot argue that if everyone followed rules like these that the world would be a worse place to live. Can you? Seriously?

Well it depends on how far you take it.

If everyone loved everyone else then no one would ever strike another person as an enemy, so Jesus' commandment to turn the other cheek would be redundent.

On the other hand if enemies still existed in the world, and people turned the other cheek we would probably all be enslaved by now under what ever facist regime that appeared first.

Some people take that instruction very seriously, such as some Quakers who believe that violence is never an option not matter what is actually happening, even going so far as to refuse to pay tax on military and defense spending.

A world where everyone is a Quaker might be wonderful, but a world where 50% of the population is a Quaker and the other half are Nazis would be so great.

Of course the Quakers may argue that it isn't this world that matters in the long run.

The issue with a lot of the nice things in the New Testament (the Old Testament is just horrible, so we will skip that) that Jesus taught is that they are simply far too abstract and wishy washy, as summed up brillantly by the TV series "Sunday Heros"

Love your enemy as your neighbour sound nice, but does it actually mean anything in a tangable way as a guide to life that we wouldn't have figured out anyway?

I am very weary of sound bite morality that proports to be profound but actually ends up saying very little.

People are left to their own devices to figure out how to apply these sound bites to actual real world situations, which makes them rather pointless since people just end up doing what they probably would have done anyway.

Except now they believe God agrees with them, which does cause trouble.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Look put yourself in God’s position for a minute. You create the world and your creation fails to recognise your handiwork and ascribes it something else and doesn’t give you praise or glory for it, would that not pee you off just a little?

No.

Firstly, God is omniscient. At no point in his existance, as infiniate as it is, did he not know that that was what was going to happen. God is ultimately responsible for the creation of everything. He therefore ultimately has control over how everything is and will be. The idea that a creation of his could annoy him is illogical.

Secondly the idea that a deity gets "peed off" is rather ridiculous. Being annoyed is a human trait, and not one that I would imagine a perfect being has

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do really believe that no religion ever said anything right?

No, at least not when it comes to what they claim to have authority over, that being speaking about the nature of the universe and existence.

If I had a euro for every claim a religion has made about reality that has turned out to be completely wrong I would give Bill Gates a run for his money.

The ultimately problem with religion, any religion, is that it pretends to know what it doesn't actually know.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Let’s say you reveal yourself to be an ignoramus wouldn’t that make you an ignoramus? Likewise with God revealing Himself to be Just.

But that is cyclical reasoning because your religion also teaches that God decides what is Just in the first place.

God doesn't reveal himself to be just by our standards of morality. Our standards of morality say that a army should not enter a town and kill all men and children in the town and then take the virgin women as wives for the soldiers. There is not a single situtation where that would be considered just under any circumstance in any of the modern societies on Earth.

God commands the Hebrews to do this in the Old Testament a number of times.

(Some) Christians and Jews explain this way by saying that while yes it would be unjust if anyone else did it, this action cannot be un-just because God himself has decided to do it, and everything God does is, by definition, Just.

Which is fine, but how can you then say that God reveals himself to be Just.

One cannot reveal themselves as something while at the same time deciding what the standard is in the first place. That isn't revealing oneself as being anything.

You get stuck in a feed back loop of two sell supporting ideas.

Which leads to problems, particularly when people start to act on this cyclical reasoning.

Fanny Cradock

Mercy! I'm not reading that :eek:

Soul Winner

Sorry for the delay in replying. Was away for a while there. Ok where were we? Oh yeah.

Wicknight wrote: »

that doesn't really matter. A non-stamp collector may very well hate stamp collecting, and hate the very idea of anyone else collecting stamps. Or they may not.

How they feel about others collecting stamps is a seperate issue to whether or not they do.

What do atheists base their un-belief in God on? Have they proven Him to not exist? If so then where is the proof? I would really like to see it. I can understand why an atheist would cringe at the thought of somebody blindly accepting the fact that there is a God without proof enough to convince but it works both ways don’t you think? Where’s the proof that God does not exist? And if He truly does exist then He is not on trial, rather we are? If He truly does exist then He is the criteria for what is right and what is wrong? It doesn’t matter what we think and we cannot put Him on trial about it because we are not the criteria for truth in the first place.

Wicknight wrote: »

Lots of things. You will have to be more specific if you want me to go into detail.

Ok then let me be more specific. What do you value in life and why? And from whence comes this value system?

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I also cook

Do you say Grace before meals? Just kidding

Wicknight wrote: »

Certain. One of the things I do believe in is that ideas, all ideas, must be challenged to their very core on a regular basis, particularly when they concern ideas that shape how humans handle matters such as war and killing. And also that no idea is infallible, and that belief in infallible ideas is dangerous.

How so? If the what is believed in is infallible then it can only be dangerous to those who are threatened by it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Define "put others down"

If you are referring to PDN I didn't put him down because he had a different belief system to me. I "put him down" because he was making assertions in reply to the OP's original questions that simply did not stand up.

I don't accept this idea that one must pussy foot around beliefs lest we offend those who hold them. I respect PDN has a right to hold and express any idea he likes, but I don't accept that I must respect the idea itself.

BTW I'm pretty sure that PDN doesn't give two sugars about what I say to him or about him.

I think you and I are not very different at all in terms of how we believe we must approach subjects. If God exists then He is not afraid of truth.

Wicknight wrote: »

Because every religion (or at least the vast majority of religions) rejects every other religion's gods and godesses as either not being real, being the work of deceptive forces (such as the devil in Christianity) or being actually a confused version of their own god.

For example the majority of Christians don't believe in Thor, Zeus, Odion, Chiuta etc etc

There are litterally hundreds and hundreds of known gods that at one point have been worshipped by some humans some where, and probably far more that history has forgotten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

Granted but the three Abrahamic religions have a lot more in common than most people think but due to human nature we tend to focus on our differences more often than not. For instance Christians accept the Old Testament as God’s Word but it was fulfilled in Christ. The Jews accept that a Messiah is to come but that it is not Jesus, and Muslims respect Jesus as a great prophet but not God incarnate. Why I am a Christian is because I believe Christ was who He said He was. He either is who He said He is or He is nothing at all. That’s why the resurrection is crucial to Christianity. Paul says if Christ be not risen then our faith is vain. Once you can believe that He was raised from the dead as reported in the texts then that would give validity to the other claims He made about Himself, one of which is “I and the Father are one” and that “all authority in Heaven and earth is giving unto me”. But if He did not rise as reported then He is a fraud. How can one be sure? Just study the facts in evidence. Read the record. We cannot prove He did but we can prove that the disciples who preached it believed He did and that they were not hallucinating when they preached it. At some point there comes the leap of faith which says I believe it. Just like Jurors do in Jury duty. They are exposed to the facts in evidence and make their judgments based on those facts and the one on trial is adjudged guilty or not guilty based on their conclusions. In Christianity this is a lengthy endeavour and one that would take quite a lot of time but throughout history many great minds have taken the time to look and have come back convinced. The problem with most people today is they start out with the assumption that resurrections can’t happen and therefore didn’t happen so there is no point in investigating it because they can’t happen. Now that’s real cyclical reasoning if you ask me. If you can prove Christ didn’t rise from the grave then Christians are wrong to worship Him and Muslims are wrong to accept Him as a great prophet. We would be still waiting for the Messiah that the Jews are waiting for now. But if He did rise then Christians are right to worship Him and Muslims are wrong to only accept him as great prophet and the Jews are also wrong in rejecting Him outright as their own Messiah. As for the other religions of the world, well which one of their God’s claimed to rise from the grave and made the kinds of claims that Jesus made about Himself? Mohammad, Confucius, Buddha or any of the Old Testament prophets never made the claims Jesus made about Himself which is what sets Him apart. Like I said this is very lengthy and needs proper study but if is true then He is the centre of all reality and all things must be judged through Him and if it is false then He is nothing at all not even a good man never mind a great prophet.

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't have to mention the pilots at all.

It has to make it clear, by reasonable standards, that suicide in the persuit of indiscriminately killing the enemy is immoral. And it has to not be blatantly contradicted by another passage some where else.

It is the contradiction that gets the Bible into its most trouble. In my opinion it is far too long and far too convoluted to be used as a serious moral guide (there is a thread about this in the Atheists forum)

What I would say to people is when it comes to perceived contradictions in the Bible then to side with what it makes absolutely clear until the perceived contradiction is resolved. You could argue that the biggest contradictions in the Bible are the Old and New Testaments themselves. Which is why the Old Testament had to be fulfilled before the New Testament could take off. Does that mean we cannot learn from the Old Testament? Of course not. That would be like saying just because somebody died we cannot learn from their life’s contributions.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well without knowing more of the context of this example, I would say yes. He is setting out to upset you on purpose. Like I said I don't know why he is doing this, but he is doing that, and it is not something I would teach my kids.

If I understand your point it is that God would not concern himself with such a tivial matter or morality, but it can still be considered right or wrong.

But at the same time I'm not sure jumping on a bed quite equates to flying a plane into a battleship.

If that would concern God, what would get God's attention?

What would get God’s attention? What a great question. It is abundantly clear throughout scripture that the God as revealed therein responds to Faith. Faith being defined as acting on God’s Word of Promise. All other activity is sin whether it be morally and ethically acceptable from our point of view or not. Without Faith it is impossible to please God. God wants trust in His Word and nothing else matters to Him in terms of how we relate to Him only Faith in what He says. If you are unclear about something then just hang on in Faith and God will clear it up for you in time. Just stick to what is absolutely clear.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it depends on how far you take it.

If everyone loved everyone else then no one would ever strike another person as an enemy, so Jesus' commandment to turn the other cheek would be redundent.

Exactly, what a wonderful world that would be.

Wicknight wrote: »

On the other hand if enemies still existed in the world, and people turned the other cheek we would probably all be enslaved by now under what ever facist regime that appeared first.

Some people take that instruction very seriously, such as some Quakers who believe that violence is never an option not matter what is actually happening, even going so far as to refuse to pay tax on military and defense spending.

A world where everyone is a Quaker might be wonderful, but a world where 50% of the population is a Quaker and the other half are Nazis would be so great.

Totally agree.

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course the Quakers may argue that it isn't this world that matters in the long run.

The issue with a lot of the nice things in the New Testament (the Old Testament is just horrible, so we will skip that) that Jesus taught is that they are simply far too abstract and wishy washy, as summed up brillantly by the TV series "Sunday Heros"

Most of the sayings of Jesus are not as wishy washy as you may think, only those that are gleaned out by traditions of men and put on the pedestal of not causing controversy. But Jesus said some pretty harsh things to. Things this generation finds very hard to take. For example: “If you forsake not all that you have and take up your cross and follow me then you cannot be my disciple”. Nothing wishy washy about that. Just a declaration. No basis given to it except that He says it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Love your enemy as your neighbour sound nice, but does it actually mean anything in a tangable way as a guide to life that we wouldn't have figured out anyway?

You could argue that way for all the morals in all religions if that is the case. The fact is that we didn’t figure it out by ourselves. It was handed down from a person who claimed He and God were one.

Wicknight wrote: »

I am very weary of sound bite morality that proports to be profound but actually ends up saying very little.

People are left to their own devices to figure out how to apply these sound bites to actual real world situations, which makes them rather pointless since people just end up doing what they probably would have done anyway.

Except now they believe God agrees with them, which does cause trouble.

A few examples would be nice.

Wicknight wrote: »

Firstly, God is omniscient. At no point in his existance, as infiniate as it is, did he not know that that was what was going to happen. God is ultimately responsible for the creation of everything. He therefore ultimately has control over how everything is and will be. The idea that a creation of his could annoy him is illogical. Except now they believe God agrees with them, which does cause trouble.

If we accept scripture as the source for claiming that the God revealed therein is omniscient then we must also accept from the same source God getting peed off with people. “Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.” Psalm 95:10-11 Just because we cannot understand something does not make it non-understandable. Where do we get the idea that we have the adequate equipment to understand all things? Paul says we see through a glass darkly but then face to face. If this is true then it puts to rest the idea that on this side of eternity we can understand everything there is to understand both in the physical and spiritual (if there is one) universes. Which is maybe why God calls for Faith instead of perfect understanding. If the roof was about to fall on your head and I only had time to shout “get out of the house quick” then to avoid certain death it would be a good idea to just do what I said instead understanding the reason why. I’ll tell you when you’re safely out of the house. If there is an eternity our there then we have all the time necessary to get the answers to the all the questions we have. But for now it is all about faith in the Word even if the Word does not give us all the answers to our questions on this side of the door.

Wicknight wrote: »

Secondly the idea that a deity gets "peed off" is rather ridiculous. Being annoyed is a human trait, and not one that I would imagine a perfect being has

Well it does say that God created us in His image doesn’t it? Maybe you’re thinking is backwards. Maybe we have this trait because He had it first and then made us in His image so now we have it. You are arguing from a purely humanistic point of view which is well and good if there really is no God but we must establish that there is no God first in order to proceed to the next step and centre all reality in how we view it.

Wicknight wrote: »

No, at least not when it comes to what they claim to have authority over, that being speaking about the nature of the universe and existence.

If I had a euro for every claim a religion has made about reality that has turned out to be completely wrong I would give Bill Gates a run for his money.

The ultimately problem with religion, any religion, is that it pretends to know what it doesn't actually know.

The same can be said about atheists. They do not know that there is no God. They assume it to be so based on observations they have made in the visible world and universe. Nobody has ever seen an atom and yet we know that all matter is made up of them. We can’t see radiation yet if exposed to it long enough it can change our very cell structure. Just because something is not visible to our very limited sight capacity doesn’t mean it does not exist.

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is cyclical reasoning because your religion also teaches that God decides what is Just in the first place.

Like I said earlier, if He is then what He says is just is just. He’s not taking votes on it.

Wicknight wrote: »

God doesn't reveal himself to be just by our standards of morality. Our standards of morality say that a army should not enter a town and kill all men and children in the town and then take the virgin women as wives for the soldiers. There is not a single situtation where that would be considered just under any circumstance in any of the modern societies on Earth.

God commands the Hebrews to do this in the Old Testament a number of times.

So then, there’s what we view as right and what He views as right. But who’s gonna win in the end? I agree going into villages and killing and raping and plundering is not what I would call being just unless you were acting on the Word of One who is the criteria for what is just and unjust.

Wicknight wrote: »

(Some) Christians and Jews explain this way by saying that while yes it would be unjust if anyone else did it, this action cannot be un-just because God himself has decided to do it, and everything God does is, by definition, Just.

Now you’re getting it!

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is fine, but how can you then say that God reveals himself to be Just.

Just by who’s standards though? Ours or His? I can’t stress it enough. If God is then He is the criteria for what is just and un-just. You don’t have to accept it but it is still true if He exists.

Wicknight wrote: »

One cannot reveal themselves as something while at the same time deciding what the standard is in the first place. That isn't revealing oneself as being anything.

You get stuck in a feed back loop of two sell supporting ideas.

Which leads to problems, particularly when people start to act on this cyclical reasoning.

I take it you are referring to God here. Why can’t He reveal himself to be something and at the same time decide what the standard is? For one He didn’t do this but I fail to see why He can’t. He revealed himself to Abraham long before he gave the law (standard) to Moses. Paul describes the law in the New Testament as a schoolmaster to drive us to Christ. Let's say you want to show an ugly person (forgive the analogy) who's never seen themsleves but thinks they're beautiful that they are in fact ugly? The best thing to do is show them a mirror. Same with the law. Anyone looking in the mirror of the law will soon see that they do not live up to it and may cry out, who shall deliver me? Christianity claims that this deliverance was provided in Christ who died to take that standard away. He became the standard and died freeing us form its consequences. This is purely and act of Grace on God’s part but its how we respond to this act that is in question now, not how we perform under the old standard the law.

So getting back to the pilots. If faith is what God is after then flying planes into warships or not flying planes into warships is not what's at issue. God has established a new covenant with man now. The Faith (trust) covenant. What's in question now is did they have faith in God's Word of Promise? Maybe those who brought Bibles on board their planes did not do so in order to rationalise their actions but rather to grab a promise of God which will help them to do what they feel they must do, whether voluntary or ordered by higher command. Who knows for sure whether their last words before crashing their plains wasn't "Lord be merciful to me a sinner" or "Though I walk to trough the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear not evil for thou art with me"? God has Established that you will be judged by your faith or by your works. If you accept the sacrifice provided in Christ then it is by your faith if you do not accept this Grace then it will by your works. And if you fall short even one jot of the perfect standard of the law then you will be condemned. Is there anyone here that believes that these pilots ever fell short of God’s law before they embarked on their kamikaze missions? If they are condemned under the law it will not be because they flew planes into warships it will be because they rejected the Grace provided in Christ for their already fallen short conditions. But only God and they know so who are we to judge them. We should worry more about our own salvation.

Conar

Soul Winner wrote: »

What do atheists base their un-belief in God on? Have they proven Him to not exist? If so then where is the proof? I would really like to see it. I can understand why an atheist would cringe at the thought of somebody blindly accepting the fact that there is a God without proof enough to convince but it works both ways don’t you think?

Do you believe in fairies?
If no, then where is your proof?
I can understand why a fairy skeptic would cringe at the thought of somebody blindly accepting the fact that there are fairies without proof enough to convince, but it works both ways don't you think?

Soul Winner

Conar wrote: »

Do you believe in fairies?
If no, then where is your proof?:p

No I don't believe in fairies. What are fairies? Why do I need proof that I don’t believe in fairies? Assuming there are fairies what has that got to do with anything? What are the consequences (if any) for disbelieving in them? Can you define one and give me a basis for a belief in them and I will probably have second thoughts on the subject.

Conar wrote: »

I can understand why a fairy skeptic would cringe at the thought of somebody blindly accepting the fact that there are fairies without proof enough to convince, but it works both ways don't you think?

I guess so but what is your point?

Conar

Soul Winner wrote: »

No I don't believe in fairies. What are fairies? Why do I need proof that I don’t believe in fairies? Assuming there are fairies what has that got to do with anything? What are the consequences (if any) for disbelieving in them? Can you define one and give me a basis for a belief in them and I will probably have second thoughts on the subject.



I guess so but what is your point?

Sorry I'm in work and have hardly any time for posting.
I simply turned your God question into a fairy question.
Why would anyone need to have proof that something exists.
Surely the norm would be to prove that something actually does exist.

If the fairy question seems obsurd to you then surely your question in relation to Gods existence must be equally silly?

BrianCalgary

Not necessarily. The Atheist stating that the onus of proof is on Christians to prove God, is the greatest cop-out, in my opinion of our time.

There are so many people that experience the living God in their daily lives. We have seen the living God in the life of Jesus.

I had an Atheist once in a crowd state emphatically 'there is no God'. I asked him to show us his proof that drew him to that conclusion. He said to me, 'prove there is'. I explained that I never said there was, so I have nothing to prove.

He was dumbfounded an stumbled and stuttered as the crowd then looked to him to prove his statement. He couldn't.

So over to you Conar. Is there a god?

robindch

Lousy reasoning there, I'm afraid, Brian. You've just "proved" the existence of the Muslim god too. And the existence of Thor, Zeus, Jupiter and the Flying Spaghetti Monster too.