If the Creation myth is wrong then what is left to believe in?

PDN

StudentDad wrote: »

For me this boils down to good old freedom of thought and expression.
If religious people woke up in the morning and said, 'right enough of this god nonsense.' What would happen? Religious bodies the world over would lose their grip on the minds of their 'flock.' Can't have that!

SD

And if atheist people woke up in the morning and said 'Right, enough of this godless nonsense'. What would happen? Certain totalitarian regimes would crumble, and Dawkins' source of income would dry up. Can't have that!

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

And if atheist people woke up in the morning and said 'Right, enough of this godless nonsense'. What would happen? Certain totalitarian regimes would crumble, and Dawkins' source of income would dry up. Can't have that!

Er, which is why regimes like China spend a lot of time and effort trampling on religious thought.

philologos

I don't think he understands sufficiently that one can be pretty much Christian without having religious institutions having a 'grip' on your mind. Especially if the Bible is freely available. Indeed, it is part of the democratisation of information.

murphthesmurf

I can't help but notice that most questions on religious beliefs are answered with further questions.

murphthesmurf

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure what conspiracy theories you are talking about. If you are being consistent then you must apply the "hearsay" charge to much of of history and judge it damnable. You wont do that, of course. Funny that you are happy to dismiss the NT but see no problem with using it (inaccurately as it happens) to refute Christianity. Do you not see a problem with your approach?.

You've never heard the conspiracy theory that there was a gospel of Jesus, and that the Vatican has kept it locked away for hundreds of yrs? The apparent reason is that it didn't require people to attend a church at all, and that people can worship in their own house etc. (I dont believe it, just heard of it).

Most of history is hearsay, I don't remember saying it wasn't. Anything read from history must always be taken with a pinch of salt, as you are reading someones account of events. The bible is such, it is a few of Jesus's followers accounts of the events that did or didn't happen.
I don't believe everything I read or hear, no matter who reads it or says it. I don't believe Stephen Hawkings and others are correct about the big bang, a few scientists are also starting to question it. I listen to the evidence from all sides and make up my mind. When one side has a huge amount of evidence the other has none, its quite an easy judgement, as it is with religion.

JimiTime

murphthesmurf wrote: »

You've never heard the conspiracy theory that there was a gospel of Jesus, and that the Vatican has kept it locked away for hundreds of yrs? The apparent reason is that it didn't require people to attend a church at all, and that people can worship in their own house etc. (I dont believe it, just heard of it).
.

That is contained in the gospel anyway. Its certainly no secret:)

PDN

murphthesmurf wrote: »

You've never heard the conspiracy theory that there was a gospel of Jesus, and that the Vatican has kept it locked away for hundreds of yrs? The apparent reason is that it didn't require people to attend a church at all, and that people can worship in their own house etc. (I dont believe it, just heard of it).

Er, none of the four Gospels we have in the Bible require people to attend a church. You can worship in your own house if you wish - you don't need some secret Gospel to tell you that.

himnextdoor

Jakkass wrote: »

Cheers. This is true. If you do not have works, you don't have faith. Works if you look at my quote from Ephesians are actually themselves God-ordained. If we don't have works, we never really had faith. They go hand in hand. This is why Jesus said "By their fruits you will know them" in Matthew chapter 7. We are not justified by works, but if we do not have them it isn't a genuine faith that we are living out.

Originally Posted by Ephesians 2:8-10
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

This suggests that there is no requirement of faith from us whatsoever: "through faith—and this not from yourselves,"; not your faith or mine.

"it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." It is simply a gift, not a reward, and no man can take credit for the bestowment of the gift.

"For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." is an indication of how we shall attain the kingdom of Heaven.

Romans 3.29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

If an atheist feeds the hungry, gives water to the thirsty, clothes the naked, gives shelter to the cold, has he not carried out the works of God?

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, one must determine the contradiction first if one is to allege such.

Romans 3.22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Galations 3.11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Galations 3.24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

If 'faith' means 'belief' then there is a contradiction.

Jakkass wrote: »

You claimed:

"As far as I understand it, there is nowhere in the Bible that states that Jehovah is the only God and there are plenty of examples, in the words of God himself in Genesis, that indicate there are other Gods in that 'realm'."

I've shown to you that there is. Its rather simple when one refers to 'gods' one is referring to the concept of God. If I speak about the 'gods' in the Greek panthenon I can do so without subscribing to the Greek concept of God. Indeed if you talk about God, you can do so without subscribing to the Judeo-Christian concept of God. It isn't all that difficult?

Originally Posted by Isaiah 45:5
I am the Lord, and there is no other,

besides me there is no God;

Caesar might have said, "I am the Emperor, and there is no other" or "Besides me there is no master". Alexander the Great may have made similar assertions as might have any number of meglomaniac dictators or war-mongering kings. Any bully might say such a thing to any victim. Such statements reinforce power; they are devices that inspire fear and demand obedience. Because of such devices, nations can be bullied into making war on their neighbours.

But of course, there are other kings, other emperors.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think Genesis 3:22 answers your question.

On the contrary, it raises it; men can become Gods!

Was God once a man?

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe He does. If we define what is right and wrong, why should I believe that you have moral authority over me when you claim that I am wrong? Indeed, if someone enjoys fieldshooting people on a Sunday afternoon who am I to tell him that this is objectively wrong? Isn't this just my opinion?

So you think that shooting people is wrong solely because of the the fifth commandment?

I think it is wrong because natural selection determined that a moral compass increases the chances of survival. It's not a very nice thing to do and I think that most atheists would consider indiscriminate murder to be wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

From Clarke's commentary on the Bible. Makes a lot of sense:

"Thou shalt surely die - מות תמות moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die."

If Adam was immortal then what need had he for the fruit of the tree of everlasting life? He was removed from the garden in order to prevent him from achieving immortality and just to be sure, God put a guard on the tree as well.

I see no reason to suppose that Adam was not created mortal.

Jakkass wrote: »

We already have a God who cares for us. Why would we want to be a god ourselves, we would probably do a very shoddy job of it?

O ye of little faith.

philologos

himnextdoor wrote: »

Originally Posted by Ephesians 2:8-10
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

This suggests that there is no requirement of faith from us whatsoever: "through faith—and this not from yourselves,"; not your faith or mine.

"it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." It is simply a gift, not a reward, and no man can take credit for the bestowment of the gift.

Indeed, I don't take credit for it. Salvation is a gift much in the same way that faith is. Most Christians will have asked God in prayer to take an active role in their lives. Some of those people, myself included were surprised at the result as we had thought until then that prayer fell on deaf ears.

himnextdoor wrote: »

"For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." is an indication of how we shall attain the kingdom of Heaven.

By living for God, and submitting to His will?

himnextdoor wrote: »

Romans 3.29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

Gentiles meaning non-Jews.

himnextdoor wrote: »

If an atheist feeds the hungry, gives water to the thirsty, clothes the naked, gives shelter to the cold, has he not carried out the works of God?

To a limited extent in that they have participated in what is right according to Him. They have still disregarded Him however. Disregarding God is still not reaching His standard.

Romans 14:23 wrote:

But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Romans 3.22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Galations 3.11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Galations 3.24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

If 'faith' means 'belief' then there is a contradiction.

You're going to have to do a better job of explaining this although I appreciate your use of Scripture thus far.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Caesar might have said, "I am the Emperor, and there is no other" or "Besides me there is no master". Alexander the Great may have made similar assertions as might have any number of meglomaniac dictators or war-mongering kings. Any bully might say such a thing to any victim. Such statements reinforce power; they are devices that inspire fear and demand obedience. Because of such devices, nations can be bullied into making war on their neighbours.

But of course, there are other kings, other emperors.

Perhaps in the opinion of some in respect to God.

himnextdoor wrote: »

On the contrary, it raises it; men can become Gods!

Was God once a man?

Jesus was God in human flesh yes. But in contrast, we aren't god in any form human or otherwise.

himnextdoor wrote: »

So you think that shooting people is wrong solely because of the the fifth commandment?

I think murder is wrong due to the fact that it is stealing. It is taking what isn't yours. It is taking the life that God has given to someone away.

himnextdoor wrote: »

I think it is wrong because natural selection determined that a moral compass increases the chances of survival. It's not a very nice thing to do and I think that most atheists would consider indiscriminate murder to be wrong.

A very selfish aim. So your ethical system is based entirely around "survival". If you had to lie and steal to survive that would be right? If you had to kill another to survive would that be right? As I see it it is an awful basis of morality where we base our ethics on a system of if I scratch your back will you scratch mine. It's horribly inadequate, and it is why as a follower of Christ I can say that Christian ethics go far and beyond the selfish basis of "if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" type ethics.

himnextdoor wrote: »

If Adam was immortal then what need had he for the fruit of the tree of everlasting life? He was removed from the garden in order to prevent him from achieving immortality and just to be sure, God put a guard on the tree as well.

You might realise also in that passage that that is mentioned after they were banished from the garden. They are only not allowed to eat from the tree of life after they ate from the tree of good and evil, indeed the only tree they weren't to eat from

himnextdoor wrote:

And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

So yes, this would mean that they were immortal, either by themselves or by virtue of eating from the tree of life which was only prohibited after the fall.

himnextdoor wrote: »

I see no reason to suppose that Adam was not created mortal.

What reason do you have?

himnextdoor wrote: »

O ye of little faith.

Admittedly, I don't have the most faith in humanity no.

kelly1

Where's Amadeus gone?

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Where's Amadeus gone?

Rocking Falco?

StudentDad

PDN wrote: »

And if atheist people woke up in the morning and said 'Right, enough of this godless nonsense'. What would happen? Certain totalitarian regimes would crumble, and Dawkins' source of income would dry up. Can't have that!

Don't get me wrong. I've no problem with people having a belief in God. What I have a problem with is the literal interpretation of religious teaching and the application of such interpretation to the real world.

Following on from that is the notion that all other ideas are heresy and should be shunned. The key to solving this question is education. Balanced secular education that deals with reality. This allows people to form their own views.

I don't care if someone wants to believe the world is flat or the bible or any other religious document is the 'literal truth.' What irritates me is the notion that groups within society have the right to ram such notions down the throats of the rest of society.

SD

Fanny Cradock

That has nothing to do with this thread.

PDN

StudentDad wrote: »

I don't care if someone wants to believe the world is flat or the bible or any other religious document is the 'literal truth.' What irritates me is the notion that groups within society have the right to ram such notions down the throats of the rest of society.

SD

And it irritates me immensely when anyone does that, religious or atheist.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

And it irritates me immensely when anyone does that, religious or atheist.

And, to be fair, a good proportion of 'atheists' are in the business of treating religionists as wooly-minded fools; it's less for the purpose of intelligent discussion and more about trying to 'prove' that religionists are are easily-led idiots. As far as I'm concerned, they are neither atheist nor other and are best described as 'rude' and 'disrespectful' since they lack faith in even their own words.

Bigotry isn't exclusive to religion.

An atheist may say, however, "How is it that you succumb so easily to the words from a book; a book that is fascinating but one that can be read in so many ways; how can you stand by an interpretation without (sometimes) even being prepared to acknowledge the implications, possibly dire ones, of an alternative, equally valid interpretation?"

Why can an atheist not legitimately postulate that since people find faith, Christian or non-Christian, in so many ways that it seems to speak more to human behaviour than a 'One God' or alternatively, that this evidences many, possibly competing Gods?

Why won't religionists accept the possibility that their God put atheists on earth precisely to make people question their faith; to ask themselves, "Am I following my faith or am I simply following the herd?"?

himnextdoor

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, I don't take credit for it. Salvation is a gift much in the same way that faith is. Most Christians will have asked God in prayer to take an active role in their lives. Some of those people, myself included were surprised at the result as we had thought until then that prayer fell on deaf ears.

Of course, I'm not questioning your personal experiences but how can you 'know' that the God who answered your prayers was the Christian God?

People of Hindu faith sometimes have prayers answered too as do some Buddhists etc.

Jakkass wrote: »

By living for God, and submitting to His will?

Same deal; all religion profess such a sentiment.

Jakkass wrote: »

Gentiles meaning non-Jews.

And heathens, and pagans. God of all people.

Therefore God is Buddha, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and all the rest at once. If there is only one God then He answers prayers from all faiths.

And if He answers prayers from all faiths then why should you suppose that only Christians should go to heaven?

Otherwise, who is it who answers the prayers directed to the Gods who are not named Yahweh?

Jakkass wrote: »

To a limited extent in that they have participated in what is right according to Him. They have still disregarded Him however. Disregarding God is still not reaching His standard.

Surely a 'good' atheist would be more welcome in heaven than an 'evil' Christian. I think that we have already seen that disregarding Christian doctrine is not the same as disregarding God and that the word 'faith' as used by Jesus can be interpreted as 'God's works' in that 'doing God's works demonstrates faith'.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're going to have to do a better job of explaining this although I appreciate your use of Scripture thus far.

I suppose I'm saying that the Bible is a bit like Google; you can always find what you are looking for.

I remember once reading out a horoscope to a friend who was a staunch believer in astrology; I asked her what sign she was, she told me Taurus and I proceeded to read out the horoscope for Leo. She identified with it entirely and claimed that this 'proved' astrology. When I told her what I'd done she realised that she was hearing what she wanted to hear and has since saved a fortune on tarot-card readers, mediums, etc.

I am aware that 'faith' in something tends to cause, or allow, one to suspend ones analytical processes and, for me, that knowledge fuctions as an alarm bell; I'll ask myself, 'am I hearing only what I want to hear?' and I will play devil's advocate to my own interests.

It seems to me that people will sign contracts without reading or considering them properly; the courts are filled with people who have committed that sin and I wonder, could Satan profit from this human weakness?

After consideration I conclude that Satan could take advantage of this human weakness. The devil is subtle; is it unthinkable that Satan might have 'started a club', a church, provided a book filled with pithy stories, recruited men who seek power in order to gather in the souls which are as lambs to the slaughter?

Could evil be that sophisticated?

Jakkass wrote: »

Perhaps in the opinion of some in respect to God.

I chose the passages I did with care being, as they are, distinct from other passages that refer to other gods which are designated 'false gods' or 'gods made by the hands of men' or 'false idols' etc.

You will accept that 'There is no other God besides me' could be, if there is an unscrupulous hand behind the Bible, an assertion of authority and not necessarily a fact?

Jakkass wrote: »

A very selfish aim. So your ethical system is based entirely around "survival". If you had to lie and steal to survive that would be right? If you had to kill another to survive would that be right? As I see it it is an awful basis of morality where we base our ethics on a system of if I scratch your back will you scratch mine. It's horribly inadequate, and it is why as a follower of Christ I can say that Christian ethics go far and beyond the selfish basis of "if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" type ethics.

Not mine, everyones.

And plenty of Christians have lied, stolen and murdered; and not for survival.

Jakkass wrote: »

You might realise also in that passage that that is mentioned after they were banished from the garden. They are only not allowed to eat from the tree of life after they ate from the tree of good and evil, indeed the only tree they weren't to eat from

I do of course.

I also realise that the perfect creator created Adam, Eve, the serpent and the tree; that God was 'testing' Adam and that Adam failed the test.

Why would an omniscient God need to 'test' anything? Adam was doomed to fail the test; designed to fail the test. It was a setup!

If God really didn't want Adam to eat of the tree of good and evil why didn't He put the flaming sword around it? Surely God knew that Adam would eat of the tree.

The tree of life; it is difficult to ascertain whether or not to eat once from the tree of life imparts immortality or whether or not Adam would have had to eat forever from the tree of life in order to be immortal. It is clear however, that God didn't want Adam to live forever and He wanted to punish him.

My read on this is that God perceived that Adam could become a threat. This makes sense; suppose Lucifer was a previous project, like Adam, but ate of the tree of life and became immortal before he ate of the tree of good and evil and then challenged the power of God. There may have been others.

Jakkass wrote: »

So yes, this would mean that they were immortal, either by themselves or by virtue of eating from the tree of life which was only prohibited after the fall.

But there is no mention of him being immortal and there is no mention of God taking away his immortality.

Jakkass wrote: »

What reason do you have?

God tells Adam he will surely die on the day he eats of the tree of good and evil; how can Adam die if he is immortal?

And why put it that way? Why not say; "if you eat of the tree you will lose your immortality" or "if you eat of that tree I'll be very annoyed with you" or "don't eat of the tree, it's poisonous?

Jakkass wrote: »

Admittedly, I don't have the most faith in humanity no.

Well, God may love my soul but no more than I do.

antiskeptic

himnextdoor wrote: »

An atheist may say, however, "How is it that you succumb so easily to the words from a book; a book that is fascinating but one that can be read in so many ways; how can you stand by an interpretation without (sometimes) even being prepared to acknowledge the implications, possibly dire ones, of an alternative, equally valid interpretation?"

What equally valid interpretation are we talking about? Take the example of Roman Catholicisms position on salvation, where salvation is seen as the product of good works, the product of your good behaviour and conformance to the Law. If you toe the line then you'll be saved/spared long purification in purgatory.

That isn't an equally valid interpretation because it's an interpretation that is based on a few flimsy proof-verses in a body of text which indicates salvation not by works.

-

Then there is the view that the bible is a string of books written by a bunch of barely literate sheepherders in the Middle East. A string of books that has been added to and edited to, to within an inch of it's life.

The view is weakened by the very intricacy and interwovenness of a story of fall and redemption which begins in Genesis 1:1 and ends neatly and tidily at the end of Revelation. To suppose any number of people managed to conspire over a timeframe involving many hundreds of years, to weave so intricate a tale requires greater leaps of faith than are involved in the Christian faith. An attempt to decipher eg: the book of Romans, will see the student having to dismantle down to the point of individual words - such is the care with which Paul builds his structured argument. What sophistication! What fine resolution!

And we should suppose the ramblings of L.Ron Hubbard should in some way dilute this intricacy merely because those ramblings exist?

-

The bible stands there for all to examine. The conclusion one draws about it is a matter, finally, for oneself - for oneself is the one who will have to live with any consequences that might follow from one's own judgement about what constitutes "an equally valid interpretation". As it stands, the average atheists (on boards.ie) crass dismissal of the bible testifies more to an adherance to their own faith-based worldview than it does, honest consideration.

Why can an atheist not legitimately postulate that since people find faith, Christian or non-Christian, in so many ways that it seems to speak more to human behaviour than a 'One God' or alternatively, that this evidences many, possibly competing Gods?

The bible speaks from cover to cover about mans desire for independence from God - one aspect of that enabling being his creation of false gods to put in God's place. It is no surprise to the bible that there are so many competing gods. No surprise that it speaks of human behaviour.

The 'theory' expounded by the bible is found to be supported by countless and repeated observation of mankind through the ages. Why wouldn't I have confidence in it? Perhaps you see mankind advancing onwards and upwards? I see mankind and going round in the same old circles - as the bible says, there really is nothing new with man under the sun.

antiskeptic

himnextdoor wrote:

I also realise that the perfect creator created Adam, Eve, the serpent and the tree; that God was 'testing' Adam and that Adam failed the test.

Minor but important point. The serpent created himself - in the sense of being the one who chose to rebel. In so rebelling, he was corrupted and became evil and ugly.

God created him beautiful.

Why would an omniscient God need to 'test' anything? Adam was doomed to fail the test; designed to fail the test. It was a setup!

That would depend a little on how God knows all things. If he knows by observation (and, occupying all points in time via omnipresence he is at all points in time to be able to observe everything as it happens) then there would be a need to test. No test then no choice made and so no choice to observe. And so no knowledge of what Adam would do.

If God really didn't want Adam to eat of the tree of good and evil why didn't He put the flaming sword around it? Surely God knew that Adam would eat of the tree.

From the above, not necessarily so - if the above is the correct model of omniscience to be applied. If God's overarching desire was to provide Adam with a choice then his preferring Adam not eating is secondary to that primary goal.

You can't provide choice without options to chose from.

himnextdoor

antiskeptic wrote: »

What equally valid interpretation are we talking about? Take the example of Roman Catholicisms position on salvation, where salvation is seen as the product of good works, the product of your good behaviour and conformance to the Law. If you toe the line then you'll be saved/spared long purification in purgatory.

That isn't an equally valid interpretation because it's an interpretation that is based on a few flimsy proof-verses in a body of text which indicates salvation not by works.

-

Then there is the view that the bible is a string of books written by a bunch of barely literate sheepherders in the Middle East. A string of books that has been added to and edited to, to within an inch of it's life.

The view is weakened by the very intricacy and interwovenness of a story of fall and redemption which begins in Genesis 1:1 and ends neatly and tidily at the end of Revelation. To suppose any number of people managed to conspire over a timeframe involving many hundreds of years, to weave so intricate a tale requires greater leaps of faith than are involved in the Christian faith. An attempt to decipher eg: the book of Romans, will see the student having to dismantle down to the point of individual words - such is the care with which Paul builds his structured argument. What sophistication! What fine resolution!

And we should suppose the ramblings of L.Ron Hubbard should in some way dilute this intricacy merely because those ramblings exist?

-

The bible stands there for all to examine. The conclusion one draws about it is a matter, finally, for oneself - for oneself is the one who will have to live with any consequences that might follow from one's own judgement about what constitutes "an equally valid interpretation". As it stands, the average atheists (on boards.ie) crass dismissal of the bible testifies more to an adherance to their own faith-based worldview than it does, honest consideration.

The bible speaks from cover to cover about mans desire for independence from God - one aspect of that enabling being his creation of false gods to put in God's place. It is no surprise to the bible that there are so many competing gods. No surprise that it speaks of human behaviour.

The 'theory' expounded by the bible is found to be supported by countless and repeated observation of mankind through the ages. Why wouldn't I have confidence in it? Perhaps you see mankind advancing onwards and upwards? I see mankind and going round in the same old circles - as the bible says, there really is nothing new with man under the sun.

How about this; according to the 'straight-talking' bible God is a murderer (He killed the first-born Egyptians); God is angry and vengeful (fall of man); He is jealous (I am a jealous God); He has committed adultery (Immaculate Conception); He is greedy (wants all the worship); He has lied or at least mis-represented (He told Adam he would die the day he ate of the tree of good and evil); God is a warmonger (The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.); He is hateful towards those who do not believe (He persuaded the Israelites to slaughter nations of non-believers)?

If you were to replace the word 'God' with the word 'Satan' then the Bible would make a lot more sense at an intellectual level.

How do you reconcile a virtuous religion with a God who is guilty of most of the seven deadly sins and who breaks His own commandments?

Take the wheels off your goal-posts and read what is written. The fall of man is the fault of God; man was His creation; the weaknesses in man were created by God. To put the blame on man is equivalent to Van Gogh blaming the Mona Lisa painting for any mistakes in the work.

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

How about this; according to the 'straight-talking' bible God is a murderer (He killed the first-born Egyptians); God is angry and vengeful (fall of man); He is jealous (I am a jealous God); He has committed adultery (Immaculate Conception); He is greedy (wants all the worship); He has lied or at least mis-represented (He told Adam he would die the day he ate of the tree of good and evil); God is a warmonger (The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.); He is hateful towards those who do not believe (He persuaded the Israelites to slaughter nations of non-believers)?

And I'm guessing noting anyone says will change your mind.

himnextdoor

antiskeptic wrote: »

Minor but important point. The serpent created himself - in the sense of being the one who chose to rebel. In so rebelling, he was corrupted and became evil and ugly.

God created him beautiful.

The serpent was guilty of being honest with Eve.

How would the serpent have knowledge of good and evil? Was he being tested too?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That would depend a little on how God knows all things. If he knows by observation (and, occupying all points in time via omnipresence he is at all points in time to be able to observe everything as it happens) then there would be a need to test. No test then no choice made and so no choice to observe. And so no knowledge of what Adam would do.

So God is unable to deduce; where does that leave God's plan?

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And I'm guessing noting anyone says will change your mind.

Well, you can't know that until someone actually says something.

It seems to me that religionists are 'directed' to their interpretation of the Bible by preachers who tell them what it means whereas non-religionists arrive at their impressions by reading it.

JimiTime

himnextdoor wrote: »

How about this; according to the 'straight-talking' bible God is a murderer

Thats impossible, for God is the giver of life. Its owner. My sons life is neither my sons nor mine, but Gods. God by definition, cannot be a murderer.

God is angry and vengeful (fall of man);

When appropriate, yes he is. Its good to know too. Also, the aftermath of the fall of man was an example of his great mercy.

He is jealous (I am a jealous God);

Yes he is. Just like I want my wife not to go after other men, God does not want his people going after other gods.

He has committed adultery (Immaculate Conception)

Double ignorance points here. Firstly, commite adultery? I mean, really? Like really really? i would not attempt to refute such idiocy. Secondly, google 'Immaculate conception'. if you can be bothered to rid yourself of that little bit of doctrinal ignorance.

He is greedy (wants all the worship);

I don't want to share my wife, does that make me greedy?

He has lied or at least mis-represented (He told Adam he would die the day he ate of the tree of good and evil)

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Is Adam alive today?

God is a warmonger (The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.); He is hateful towards those who do not believe (He persuaded the Israelites to slaughter nations of non-believers)?

And he will destroy the iniquities of this world again, and millions, if not billions, will be consumed by his wrath again. A truly wonderful thing. Imagine, a being who doesn't need to worry about arguements, semantics, legal loopholes etc. He will actually just know if you are wicked or not, or deserving of life and judge you accordingly. No politics, no doubt, just absolute truth, wisdom, knowledge AND mercy for those, like saved Christians, who deserve the death due for their iniquity, but have accepted the wonderful gift of salvation. God be truly praised.

If you were to replace the word 'God' with the word 'Satan' then the Bible would make a lot more sense at an intellectual level.

i don't think you are in any position to make pronouncements about what is intellectual tbh.

Take the wheels off your goal-posts and read what is written. The fall of man is the fault of God; man was His creation;

Funnily enough, that was Adams excuse too.

the weaknesses in man were created by God.

I consider free will to be the greatest of gifts. Through it, we are beings who can love. You seem to think that being a goat would have been a better design. I personally like the ability to love, and am delighted that God chose to give it. Of course, like Adam, there will be those who will blame God for their decisions.

To put the blame on man is equivalent to Van Gogh blaming the Mona Lisa painting for any mistakes in the work.

Another example how you really are not in a position to make pronouncements on what is intellectual.

antiskeptic

himnextdoor wrote: »

How about this; according to the 'straight-talking' bible God is a murderer (He killed the first-born Egyptians);

Murder is defined as an unlawful killing. Against which standard are you going to measure God to determine an unlawful killing? Certainly not his own. And certainly not ours given there being no precedence in human law.

God is angry and vengeful (fall of man);

God keeps his word. Negative consequences were promised as attaching to a particular choice. Negative consequences were delivered upon when that choice was made.

He is jealous (I am a jealous God);

A man can be jealous of his regiments honour. Not all jealousy is of the green-eyed monster type. Jealousy can be a positive thing.

He has committed adultery (Immaculate Conception);

Please.

He is greedy (wants all the worship);

But is prepared to let people go their own way and worship other things. Until the day they die and beyond in fact.

He has lied or at least mis-represented (He told Adam he would die the day he ate of the tree of good and evil);

Adam did die. It's just not the close your eyes and draw your last breath kind of death. The pertinant point is Adam understanding that death was a negative thing, a prohibition. Understanding that enabled his choosing.

God is a warmonger (The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.);

He makes war on wickedness in all it's forms alright. Fair dues.

He is hateful towards those who do not believe (He persuaded the Israelites to slaughter nations of non-believers)?

Yet died on a cross for them. Discuss.

If you were to replace the word 'God' with the word 'Satan' then the Bible would make a lot more sense at an intellectual level.

You're not fooling anyone with an iota of sense in their head that this take of yours forms an anyway accurate assessment. I sincerely doubt you even believe it yourself. You would accept that if God exists you're certainly not going to fool him with it.

So project forward. Imagine yourself offering this as a 'defence'. Imagine standing there at judgement holding up that fig leaf whilst he says "but I died for you on a cross".

What would you now say to support the view that he is hateful towards those who don't believe? You owe it to yourself to add concrete to the mix of your defence.

himnextdoor

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats impossible, for God is the giver of life. Its owner. My sons life is neither my sons nor mine, but Gods. God by definition, cannot be a murderer.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Murder is defined as an unlawful killing. Against which standard are you going to measure God to determine an unlawful killing? Certainly not his own. And certainly not ours given there being no precedence in human law.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.

By definition, God murdered children.

Then there's incitement to kill; according to the Bible, God set the Israelites upon His enemies whose crime, in the case of the Edomites, was to seek independence. At least that's what Nathan told David. By sheer coicidence, God's enemies were the same nations that were Nathan's enemies. This is one of the few times where the 'voices in my head' defence has worked. And some of the other times that defence has worked are also in the Bible.

How does an undamaged human brain accept this as evidence in support of the existence of God?

JimiTime wrote: »

When appropriate, yes he is. Its good to know too. Also, the aftermath of the fall of man was an example of his great mercy.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God keeps his word. Negative consequences were promised as attaching to a particular choice. Negative consequences were delivered upon when that choice was made.

And anger is one of the deadly sins.

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes he is. Just like I want my wife not to go after other men, God does not want his people going after other gods.

antiskeptic wrote: »

A man can be jealous of his regiments honour. Not all jealousy is of the green-eyed monster type. Jealousy can be a positive thing.

jeal·ous (jls)
adj. 1. Fearful or wary of being supplanted; apprehensive of losing affection or position.
2. a. Resentful or bitter in rivalry; envious: jealous of the success of others.
b. Inclined to suspect rivalry.

3. Having to do with or arising from feelings of envy, apprehension, or bitterness: jealous thoughts.
4. Vigilant in guarding something: We are jealous of our good name.
5. Intolerant of disloyalty or infidelity; autocratic: a jealous God.


See, now you have a problem; if there were no other men then you wouldn't have any reason to be jealous about your wife. If there are no other Gods then what is God jealous about?

And again, jealousy is a deadly sin.

JimiTime wrote: »

Double ignorance points here. Firstly, commite adultery? I mean, really? Like really really? i would not attempt to refute such idiocy. Secondly, google 'Immaculate conception'. if you can be bothered to rid yourself of that little bit of doctrinal ignorance.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Please.

adultery [əˈdʌltərɪ]
n pl -teries (Law) voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man or woman and a partner other than the legal spouse.


From: http://www.gotquestions.org/Joseph-and-Mary.html

In Bible times, Jewish marriage customs regarding a couple’s engagement were far different and much more stringent than those we are familiar with today, especially in the West. Marriages were arranged by the parents of the bride and groom and often without even consulting them. A contract was prepared in which the groom’s parents paid a bride price. Such a contract was immediately deemed binding with the couple considered married even though the actual ceremony and consummation of the marriage would not occur for as long as a year afterwards.

And this from

http://www.cptryon.org/compassion/mary/mother04.html under Annuciation:


[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Mary said to the angel, [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]'How can this come about, since I am a virgin?'[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"'The Holy Spirit will come upon you,' the angel answered, 'and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow. And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God. Know this too: your kinswoman Elizabeth has, in her old age, herself conceived a son, and she whom people called barren is now in her sixth month, for nothing is impossible to God.' [/FONT]

and

"The angel's message struck like lightning, changing everthing for her. Immense joy filled the young girl's soul when she conceived the child by the power of the Holy Spirit. But when the angel left, Mary was alone."

If you believe in magic, you can accept this as evidence to support the existence of God. To me, however, it is evidence of something else.

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't want to share my wife, does that make me greedy?

No, it makes you possessive, something else that God is.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But is prepared to let people go their own way and worship other things. Until the day they die and beyond in fact.

Which is the day He can convince Nathan to persuade David to slaughter them.

JimiTime wrote: »

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Is Adam alive today?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Adam did die. It's just not the close your eyes and draw your last breath kind of death. The pertinant point is Adam understanding that death was a negative thing, a prohibition. Understanding that enabled his choosing.

Compare:

Genesis 2.17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

with:

Genesis 3.4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

and consider:

Genesis 3.22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Now, God and the serpent agree that 'their eyes have been opened' and that 'the man has become as one of us' but they disagree that death will come 'in the day thereof'; whose testimony is the most reliable.

JimiTime wrote: »

And he will destroy the iniquities of this world again, and millions, if not billions, will be consumed by his wrath again. A truly wonderful thing. Imagine, a being who doesn't need to worry about arguements, semantics, legal loopholes etc. He will actually just know if you are wicked or not, or deserving of life and judge you accordingly. No politics, no doubt, just absolute truth, wisdom, knowledge AND mercy for those, like saved Christians, who deserve the death due for their iniquity, but have accepted the wonderful gift of salvation. God be truly praised.

antiskeptic wrote: »

He makes war on wickedness in all it's forms alright. Fair dues.

Rediculous. God is simply trying, and failing, to subvert nature. Iniquity is just a fancy word for natural.

JimiTime wrote: »

i don't think you are in any position to make pronouncements about what is intellectual tbh.

Ah, the religionists' default argument, old faithful, the 'You don't agree with me therefore you are stupid' argument.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet died on a cross for them. Discuss.

Who died? I thought the whole point is that he didn't die.

Remove the magic though and you are left with a story of political intrigue. It wasn't the first time an upstart was murdered for his views and it wasn't the last.

JimiTime wrote: »

Funnily enough, that was Adams excuse too.

Well, to my mind, the rape, murder, enslavement of humans, all of human suffering, according to the Bible, is the result of God's possessiveness and jealousy and seems to me to be an over-reaction to Adam's misdemeanour; he ate a piece of fruit.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're not fooling anyone with an iota of sense in their head that this take of yours forms an anyway accurate assessment. I sincerely doubt you even believe it yourself. You would accept that if God exists you're certainly not going to fool him with it.

So project forward. Imagine yourself offering this as a 'defence'. Imagine standing there at judgement holding up that fig leaf whilst he says "but I died for you on a cross".

What would you now say to support the view that he is hateful towards those who don't believe? You owe it to yourself to add concrete to the mix of your defence.

I do not claim to be the one who is fooling you, I'm just trying to suggest that perhaps you should consider who is.

In my defence, if God is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful then it stands to reason that the world is exactly as God wishes it to be and on the face of it, looking at the world, evil is prevailing.

Waiting for God's rapture is a copout; evil reigns where good men do nothing.

You owe it to your soul to be a little more circumspect about what you accept as 'truth'.

JimiTime wrote: »

I consider free will to be the greatest of gifts. Through it, we are beings who can love. You seem to think that being a goat would have been a better design. I personally like the ability to love, and am delighted that God chose to give it. Of course, like Adam, there will be those who will blame God for their decisions.

Yes, free will and God doesn't interfere with the progress of man, does He?

Oh! But He does; the Bible could be viewed as a record of God's interference with the human-race. I just don't see the improvements.

JimiTime wrote: »

Another example how you really are not in a position to make pronouncements on what is intellectual.

Funnily enough, I expected this to be your platform of choice for objecting to what I have said, ie., Van Gogh didn't paint the Mona Lisa therefore God exists.

Of course I do not stand by the interpretation that I have outlined but rather I wanted to show that the Bible can say whatever you want it to say, like a dictionary, or Google, or even a horoscope.

I simply provided a valid interpretation of a collection of stories that I have read.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That would depend a little on how God knows all things. If he knows by observation (and, occupying all points in time via omnipresence he is at all points in time to be able to observe everything as it happens) then there would be a need to test. No test then no choice made and so no choice to observe. And so no knowledge of what Adam would do.

I kinda like this, God is Schroedinger and the universe is his cat. Cool. :cool:

An open eye may not see everything but a closed eye will see nothing.

JimiTime

himnextdoor wrote: »

mur·der (mûrdr)
n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.

By definition, God murdered children.

Then there's incitement to kill; according to the Bible, God set the Israelites upon His enemies whose crime, in the case of the Edomites, was to seek independence. At least that's what Nathan told David. By sheer coicidence, God's enemies were the same nations that were Nathan's enemies. This is one of the few times where the 'voices in my head' defence has worked. And some of the other times that defence has worked are also in the Bible.

How does an undamaged human brain accept this as evidence in support of the existence of God?






And anger is one of the deadly sins.





jeal·ous (jls)
adj. 1. Fearful or wary of being supplanted; apprehensive of losing affection or position.
2. a. Resentful or bitter in rivalry; envious: jealous of the success of others.
b. Inclined to suspect rivalry.

3. Having to do with or arising from feelings of envy, apprehension, or bitterness: jealous thoughts.
4. Vigilant in guarding something: We are jealous of our good name.
5. Intolerant of disloyalty or infidelity; autocratic: a jealous God.


See, now you have a problem; if there were no other men then you wouldn't have any reason to be jealous about your wife. If there are no other Gods then what is God jealous about?

And again, jealousy is a deadly sin.





adultery [əˈdʌltərɪ]
n pl -teries (Law) voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man or woman and a partner other than the legal spouse.


From: http://www.gotquestions.org/Joseph-and-Mary.html

In Bible times, Jewish marriage customs regarding a couple’s engagement were far different and much more stringent than those we are familiar with today, especially in the West. Marriages were arranged by the parents of the bride and groom and often without even consulting them. A contract was prepared in which the groom’s parents paid a bride price. Such a contract was immediately deemed binding with the couple considered married even though the actual ceremony and consummation of the marriage would not occur for as long as a year afterwards.

And this from

http://www.cptryon.org/compassion/mary/mother04.html under Annuciation:


[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Mary said to the angel, [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]'How can this come about, since I am a virgin?'[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"'The Holy Spirit will come upon you,' the angel answered, 'and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow. And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God. Know this too: your kinswoman Elizabeth has, in her old age, herself conceived a son, and she whom people called barren is now in her sixth month, for nothing is impossible to God.' [/FONT]

and

"The angel's message struck like lightning, changing everthing for her. Immense joy filled the young girl's soul when she conceived the child by the power of the Holy Spirit. But when the angel left, Mary was alone."

If you believe in magic, you can accept this as evidence to support the existence of God. To me, however, it is evidence of something else.



No, it makes you possessive, something else that God is.



Which is the day He can convince Nathan to persuade David to slaughter them.





Compare:

Genesis 2.17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

with:

Genesis 3.4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

and consider:

Genesis 3.22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Now, God and the serpent agree that 'their eyes have been opened' and that 'the man has become as one of us' but they disagree that death will come 'in the day thereof'; whose testimony is the most reliable.





Rediculous. God is simply trying, and failing, to subvert nature. Iniquity is just a fancy word for natural.



Ah, the religionists' default argument, old faithful, the 'You don't agree with me therefore you are stupid' argument.



Who died? I thought the whole point is that he didn't die.

Remove the magic though and you are left with a story of political intrigue. It wasn't the first time an upstart was murdered for his views and it wasn't the last.



Well, to my mind, the rape, murder, enslavement of humans, all of human suffering, according to the Bible, is the result of God's possessiveness and jealousy and seems to me to be an over-reaction to Adam's misdemeanour; he ate a piece of fruit.



I do not claim to be the one who is fooling you, I'm just trying to suggest that perhaps you should consider who is.

In my defence, if God is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful then it stands to reason that the world is exactly as God wishes it to be and on the face of it, looking at the world, evil is prevailing.

Waiting for God's rapture is a copout; evil reigns where good men do nothing.

You owe it to your soul to be a little more circumspect about what you accept as 'truth'.



Yes, free will and God doesn't interfere with the progress of man, does He?

Oh! But He does; the Bible could be viewed as a record of God's interference with the human-race. I just don't see the improvements.



Funnily enough, I expected this to be your platform of choice for objecting to what I have said, ie., Van Gogh didn't paint the Mona Lisa therefore God exists.

Of course I do not stand by the interpretation that I have outlined but rather I wanted to show that the Bible can say whatever you want it to say, like a dictionary, or Google, or even a horoscope.

I simply provided a valid interpretation of a collection of stories that I have read.



I kinda like this, God is Schroedinger and the universe is his cat. Cool. :cool:

An open eye may not see everything but a closed eye will see nothing.

There isn't a face-palm big enough. I obviously just can't live up to your intellect.*


*May contain traces of sarcasm

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

There isn't a face-palm big enough. I obviously just can't live up to your intellect.*


*May contain traces of sarcasm

himnextdoor - you may want to look up 'Immaculate Conception' in a dictionary.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

himnextdoor - you may want to look up 'Immaculate Conception' in a dictionary.

I did. Can you finish this sentence; human sacrifice is to murder what Immaculate Conception is to ....?

And since you are so fond of the dictionary, why don't you look up the word 'gullible'?

himnextdoor

JimiTime wrote: »

There isn't a face-palm big enough. I obviously just can't live up to your intellect.*


*May contain traces of sarcasm

Hm, you make a convincing argument.*

*May contain traces of sarcasm.

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

I did. Can you finish this sentence; human sacrifice is to murder what Immaculate Conception is to ....?

And since you are so fond of the dictionary, why don't you look up the word 'gullible'?

No, I can't finish that sentence, can you?