Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

You seem to not understand that from God's point of view everything is physical.

Perhaps you mean Earthly. I don't consider hell to be an Earthly place (eg under the ground)



I understand all those concepts probably better than most. What you call my lack of ability to understand is in fact simply a lack of willingness to simply accept nonsensical answers because they contain the standard Christian apologetics buzz words. For example ISAW seems to think that merely throwing out the excuse that it is for free will (which seems to be the go to excuse) will be sufficient. It isn't.

Sometimes it seems that there is simply a big wheel that is spun anytime a difficult theological question is put forward on this forum and which every standard Christian apologetics excuse comes up (in this case free will) is trotted out as if it is reasonable and consistent.



I have always been crystal clear about my personal feelings on the idea of objective morality Imaopml, so I'm struggling to see why there would be genuine confusion on your part.

Perhaps if you focused more on trying to think and answer the questions put forward and less time trying to find build up a character assassination of me, this thread would move quicker.


No, I'm pretty sure I'm railing against Christianity. Specific points about Christianity Imaopml, points I'm more than happy to detail and points some of you are more than happy to ignore.

Apologies Zombrex. Assassinating your character was not what I wanted to put across at all, sorry if you read it that way. There wouldn't be a thread like this if people like yourself didn't contribute - and I personally think it's good to talk anyways.

Sure I know you spend a lot of time speaking about how and why you reject God, reject Christianity, and reject objective right and wrong etc. but it seems sometimes as if you gloss over perfectly good answers you are given, and indeed demand answers to things that Christians have specifically said they can't answer in their finer details, but you think they should do...

Then you seem to speak from God's perspective, like you can do that......and I don't know if you realise how absurd that sounds to a Christians ears? It seems absurd to assassinate Gods character, when you don't seem to be speaking in terms that a Christian understands God and revelation. It often reads like you are systematically destroying what you perceive to be God, and not necessarily understanding how a Christian would, so the argument goes round in circles, and you never quite make a hit - That's just my impression of how it reads. I don't know if you could take that as just a constructive opinion on the thread, it's only meant to be another opinion...nothing personal - you are a clever sort, I know that.:)

Andrewf20

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe for a second that most people are Biblically literate in a meaningful manner in Ireland and in most other Western countries.

You can't really be disillusioned with what you don't know about. That's why I put it down to institutional disillusionment. Something I by and large agree with.

....This is why I would encourage you to look into what God actually has revealed to us before bad mouthing it. You clearly don't understand what I've been saying, and indeed you clearly don't understand the Gospel as much as you claim to be disillusioned by it.

I tend to agree with you that alot of people would not research it as much as they could. But I think thats true for athiests and believers alike. Believers can and do become non believers and vice by this process (i.e further reading and investigation).

Personally I grew up in the Christian envoironment, heard numerous gospels over many years, I have done some personal reading of the bible and done a fair amount of online research. Ive listened to numerous debates between athiests and believers and heard their best case. One of the reasons I am on this forum is to learn more about this topic. The argument of religon has been raging for centuries for a reason. As I said in another post, it could take 1 act of God to nullify all discussion.

philologos wrote: »

Acknowledging God's existence is important. Moral or ethical acts have nothing to do with it.

Christianity does not say that good works get you to heaven. Moral or ethical acts have nothing to do with it.

But you said in post 3262, that theres nothing special about belief? Your recently comment above suggests that belief in God is more important than actively living a moral life, ethical, charitable, not stealing, killing and so on? I cant see any rationality in this. It doesnt seem fair that a moral, compassionate and charitable non believer would suffer the same faith as a dictatorial genocidal maniac.

philologos wrote: »

Rejection of God is a fundamental denial of how all things came to be as far as Christians are concerned.

Ultimately can you reverse what you believe in? - could you or anybody jump to the other side of the fence. Belief may not be a choice.

philologos

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I tend to agree with you that alot of people would not research it as much as they could. But I think thats true for athiests and believers alike. Believers can and do become non believers and vice by this process (i.e further reading and investigation).

People are for the most part ignorant of Christianity in modern Ireland, and right across Europe.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But you said in post 3262, that theres nothing special about belief? Your recently comment above suggests that belief in God is more important than actively living a moral life, ethical, charitable, not stealing, killing and so on? I cant see any rationality in this. It doesnt seem fair that a moral, compassionate and charitable non believer would suffer the same faith as a dictatorial genocidal maniac.

Ultimately, God is the one who saves. We're all sinners, we're all guilty of sin that's irrespective as to if and when we do ethical things. Ultimately, if I murdered someone and got away with it, and then continued living a blameless life (if that were possible), I would still be guilty of murder. Much in the same way that we're all guilty of turning away from God and rejecting Him in varying ways. In doing what is clearly wrong, in refusing to listen to what He has to say.

I'm feeling that you're not feeling the logic because you're unwilling to accept that you've done wrong in your life as all other people have. There is no way we can put this right with God, that's why Jesus came into the world and stood in our place.

I believe that anyone even if they are a mass murderer or a rapist can change their lives through Jesus. Indeed there are a number of examples of this. However, people who are simply too prideful to acknowledge that they too have done wrong even if people regard that as smaller are ultimately in a more difficult situation. They refuse to acknowledge that they need forgiveness, many others who have been criminals have acknowledged this and their lives were changed forever through Jesus.

Ultimately all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). What are we going to do about it, are we going to repent and turn our lives around by accepting God's transformational love in our lives, or are we going to ignore God, and treat Him with contempt?

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Ultimately can you reverse what you believe in? - could you or anybody jump to the other side of the fence. Belief may not be a choice.

Yes, I did in 2007, but it was God who opened my eyes, and He can open your eyes, and any unbelievers eyes to His truth.

Wh1stler

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I tend to agree with you that alot of people would not research it as much as they could. But I think thats true for athiests and believers alike.

I have to disagree with this. Atheists research the Bible much more than Christians because they lack faith.

Faith obviates the need to look for support in the Bible.

philologos

Wh1stler wrote: »

I have to disagree with this. Atheists research the Bible much more than Christians because they lack faith.

Faith obviates the need to look for support in the Bible.

What do you have to back this up or is it mere conjecture?

tommy2bad

Wh1stler wrote: »

I have to disagree with this. Atheists research the Bible much more than Christians because they lack faith.

Faith obviates the need to look for support in the Bible.

But why? what has the bible to offer an atheist?
More to the point having researched the bible why do they still come up with lame accusations of contradictions.

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

But why? what has the bible to offer an atheist?
More to the point having researched the bible why do they still come up with lame accusations of contradictions.

It has as much to offer for an atheist as anyone else. The means of coming to a fulfilling relationship in God rather than running from Him.

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

It has as much to offer for an atheist as anyone else. The means of coming to a fulfilling relationship in God rather than running from Him.

I'd say the opposite in my case.

Actually reading the Bible many years ago is what totally put me off the idea, I eventually went on to read Holy books of various other Christian and non-Christian religions too.

Frankly, I'm amazed any rational human being doesn't notice the significant flaws that appear in them, or how they simply defy logic and simple reason.

And no, I'm not going to list all the flaws, I'm as tired as anyone else here of listing them.

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

Frankly, I'm amazed any rational human being doesn't notice the significant flaws that appear in them, or how they simply defy logic and simple reason.

And no, I'm not going to list all the flaws, I'm as tired as anyone else here of listing them.

I haven't seen any "significant flaws" really. I suspect it is because they aren't there. Most if not all of the so called "significant flaws" that have been posted by atheists on this forum have been refuted.

Logic and reason are just words that new-atheists are chucking around. Ultimately repeatedly stating that Christianity is irrational and illogical doesn't make it so.

Wh1stler

philologos wrote: »

Acknowledging God's existence is important. Moral or ethical acts have nothing to do with it. The point is that we've already done what is clearly wrong. We're already guilty. That's the reason why we need a Saviour. It doesn't particularly matter how many good works you happen to do. We're still in the same problem.

Christianity does not say that good works get you to heaven. Pretty much every other world religion does, Christianity unequivocally says that isn't the case:

This is why I would encourage you to look into what God actually has revealed to us before bad mouthing it. It's kind of like doing a book review without knowing the substance of the text.

Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

But:

Matthew 25:41-46
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
44 “Then they also will answer Him,URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2025&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-24053d"][COLOR=#0000ff]d[/COLOR][/URL saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

According to Jesus, faith is not enough.

Moral acts do seem to count for something.

philologos wrote: »

I think that he may be mistaken, but I'm not going to condemn anyone. I would encourage them simply to look more into the Bible.

There's been some other posts I've found strange such as ISAW saying that fundamentalists are the only people who take the Bible seriously. Or rather if you do take the Bible seriously you're a fundamentalist. Most Reformed churches put the Biblical text above the church, and to say that it has authority over it. Does that mean that everyone is a fundamentalist for doing this?

At this point, I'd even accept that title if it means that I take God's word seriously, but this is for the Protestant / Catholic megathread methinks.

If you are convicted in your Christianity then do you not have a duty to put Christians with a different point of view right?

Is ISAW not hungry, thirsty, naked, sick and in prison? Shouldn't you feed him, give him water, clothe him and visit him in order to avoid the fiery lake?

tommy2bad

philologos ;
Ultimately repeatedly stating that Christianity is irrational and illogical doesn't make it so.

But it is irrational and illogical, just because it has an internal logic doesn't mean it rational in regard to reality. Why do Christians insist on trying to prove how logical faith is when the beauty and transcendence of it is the fact that it flies in the face of reason.

Wh1stler

philologos wrote: »

What do you have to back this up or is it mere conjecture?

The Bible is the best source of ammunition against organised religion.

Read back through the thread; dozens upon dozen of valid points have been made by atheists using text lifted straight from the Bible and these points are either ignored or twisted in non-sequitors.

You yourself claimed that faith is enough but then what do you make of the parable of the talents? Or the foolish virgins? There was no lack of faith there; it was a matter of good works.

I expect you to ignore this of course and then I will say that this post adequately backs up what I have said about the atheists knowledge of the Bible surpasses that of most Christians.

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

But why? what has the bible to offer an atheist?

It validates the atheist position.

tommy2bad wrote: »

More to the point having researched the bible why do they still come up with lame accusations of contradictions.

They are not accusations, they are observations.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Sure I know you spend a lot of time speaking about how and why you reject God, reject Christianity, and reject objective right and wrong etc. but it seems sometimes as if you gloss over perfectly good answers you are given, and indeed demand answers to things that Christians have specifically said they can't answer in their finer details, but you think they should do...

I don't agree I do the former and I agree I do the latter. Or to put it another way I don't gloss over anything, I will examine and push any answer I'm given to bring it to breaking point to see if is actually an answer or just apologetics fluff, which unfortunately the vast majority of these answers are.

lmaopml wrote: »

Then you seem to speak from God's perspective, like you can do that......and I don't know if you realise how absurd that sounds to a Christians ears? It seems absurd to assassinate Gods character, when you don't seem to be speaking in terms that a Christian understands God and revelation.

That is precisely the point. The point is to challenge the Christian assumptions that all this is rational and make sense, because when a spot light is shone on a lot of this stuff it turns out it isn't.

In my experience a lot of Christians (who are not alone in this) assume far to easily that because their religion has a long history and a lot of followers that there are rational sensible answer to these questions, so they themselves don't have to bother thinking about it. Just focus on how much God loves you and how great it is to be love. Don't worry about the actual theology, other people have, they say it is fine.

Wh1stler

philologos wrote: »

I haven't seen any "significant flaws" really. I suspect it is because they aren't there. Most if not all of the so called "significant flaws" that have been posted by atheists on this forum have been refuted.

'Refute' is not a synonym for 'ignore'.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

But why? what has the bible to offer an atheist?

An understanding of what crazy thing Christians are going to start demanding next :P

tommy2bad wrote: »

More to the point having researched the bible why do they still come up with lame accusations of contradictions.

In fairness it is mostly the Jews who come up with the contradictions (see as the Old Testament is their book). Atheists tend to think the whole thing is a bit of a mess.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I haven't seen any "significant flaws" really.

How did the different human languages on Earth develop?

Genesis 11
1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.
...
8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

It is very easy to see no significant flaws in the Bible when you simply slap any old interpretation on them when you do see them to make them go away.:rolleyes:

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

But it is irrational and illogical, just because it has an internal logic doesn't mean it rational in regard to reality. Why do Christians insist on trying to prove how logical faith is when the beauty and transcendence of it is the fact that it flies in the face of reason.

And we are endowed with rationality and logic which God intended for us to ignore?

Would a wise God be happy that billions of people hand over His precious souls to the first holy-man who instructs us to ignore our brains?

And why do you think religion targets innocent evil children for indoctrination? Because logic and reason is not developed in children. Children will believe anything without resorting to logic and reason.

The problem for religion is that it can't be based on logic and reason otherwise it would be a discipline much like science; something to learn rather than something to have pushed down your throat.

philologos

Wh1stler wrote: »

You yourself claimed that faith is enough but then what do you make of the parable of the talents? Or the foolish virgins? There was no lack of faith there; it was a matter of good works.

If we look to it it's rather easy to explain in light of Ephesians 2.

Good works arise out of a genuine conviction in Jesus. Therefore the good works are merely the living evidence of true faith in Jesus. There's plenty of evidence to suggest this. If you look to Matthew 7.

Wh1stler wrote: »

I expect you to ignore this of course and then I will say that this post adequately backs up what I have said about the atheists knowledge of the Bible surpasses that of most Christians.

You're wrong. I have a genuine interest to respond to you provided that you're willing to show the same respect that I am showing you. This isn't about me or even being right, it's about whether or not you are more right than God. As a Christian, I simply can't agree, there's plenty of reason to hold to Christianity as far as I see it as well.

Matthew 7:15-22 for example demonstrates this quite well. It's quite easy to hold this view in light of Ephesians 2:8-10.

Likewise, Mark 7 shows that the human heart is inclined towards evil, and indeed Jesus in Mark 10:17-30 also demonstrates that it is impossible for man to be saved through good works. Indeed the culmination of this passage arises when Jesus says the following:

And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”

Justification itself does not come through works. Good works come as a result of a living response to Jesus:

1 John 4:7-12 wrote:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

The basis of Christian behaviour is a living response to Jesus. Dying to sin and coming to new life in Him. Something which Jesus very clearly taught (John 3).

I don't see the huge difficulty over saying that good works naturally arise through a genuine conviction in Jesus as a result of new life in the believer from a Biblical level:

Galatians 2:20-21 wrote:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

I'm more than happy to do this with you, but in order to continue let's try to do it without condescension.

tommy2bad: I don't agree insofar as I think that God's presence is the very reason why existence itself makes sense. Remove God, and life slowly becomes an absurdity or it falls into a state of deep confusion and as far as I can tell, this is what we see in the world around us to a large extent.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

But it is irrational and illogical, just because it has an internal logic doesn't mean it rational in regard to reality. Why do Christians insist on trying to prove how logical faith is when the beauty and transcendence of it is the fact that it flies in the face of reason.

I can understand why belief in God may seem to some people like saying 'leave your brain behind you at the gate', and many like to think they stumbled across this over the course of two minutes of google power - but that's not the case, unless one believes that all truth is only found through naturalism, and there is no underlying condition man finds himself in - scratch the surface of a fairly religious belief in naturalism and you would be surprised at how you may have to leave your brain at the door of it too - This is the quandary, the beginning of a journey.

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't agree I do the former and I agree I do the latter. Or to put it another way I don't gloss over anything, I will examine and push any answer I'm given to bring it to breaking point to see if is actually an answer or just apologetics fluff, which unfortunately the vast majority of these answers are.

You fail to realise that what you call 'apologetics fluff' - was your answer, nice way to communicate there Zombrex, maybe you could come down off that big pedastal sometime. Sorry if it's not to your satisfaction, but heck I'm pretty sure the thread wouldn't be so long if your supreme logic and understanding of God and humanity and your replies couldn't be called somewhat 'fluffy' too, no? Calling something 'fluffy' doesn't make it so, that's why people engage with you sometimes....

That is precisely the point. The point is to challenge the Christian assumptions that all this is rational and make sense, because when a spot light is shone on a lot of this stuff it turns out it isn't.

It's a pity that when shining a light on 'this stuff' that you, who seems to be fairly smart sort of fellow, resort to back slapping mockers that couldn't hold a candle. Way to get people to see your 'rational' - which I might add, is still short of describing God how Christians understand.

In my experience a lot of Christians (who are not alone in this) assume far to easily that because their religion has a long history and a lot of followers that there are rational sensible answer to these questions, so they themselves don't have to bother thinking about it. Just focus on how much God loves you and how great it is to be love. Don't worry about the actual theology, other people have, they say it is fine.

You should of all people know that Christians on this forum have listened and answered you for years - you still think you are the most rational person on the pretty irrational Christianity forum..lol...such an ego, and fail to recognise that you did not earn your way to understanding Scripture - only twisting it.

It's as plain to me as the nose on my face that this is a persuit you encourage, but you must know more than that about people who post here, so many people have given their time over to explaining historicity, context, people, language, place, etc. etc. etc. all fairly 'rational' things, yet you insist on ignoring them.

Wh1stler wrote: »

'Refute' is not a synonym for 'ignore'.

If you read the whole thread you would see 'ignore' is not what happened at all, but then something tells me you haven't bothered doing that - you google and think that you are informed when it takes many scholars many years to explore Scripture, you seem to be able to do it in a day, and you don't think people see that for what it is? Well, that's irrational - but go ahead of course

Zombrex wrote: »

How did the different human languages on Earth develop?

Genesis 11
1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.
...
8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

It is very easy to see no significant flaws in the Bible when you simply slap any old interpretation on them when you do see them to make them go away.:rolleyes:

Sigh..... :rolleyes:

Zombrex disappointed in you that you pull out some old moth eaten hairy arguements out of your back pocket. You seem to want to impose literalist thinking on Scripture becuase it suits your grand purpose in life. You could pull Scripture apart and debate from here to eternity about it, but that doesn't mean that you are speaking with Christians, no really you are speaking 'at' them, and apparently to the crowd.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Sigh..... :rolleyes:

Zombrex disappointed in you that you pull out some old moth eaten hairy arguements out of your back pocket. You seem to want to impose literalist thinking on Scripture becuase it suits your grand purpose in life. You could pull Scripture apart and debate from here to eternity about it, but that doesn't mean that you are speaking with Christians, no really you are speaking 'at' them, and apparently to the crowd.

I agree with you of course that it isn't taken literally by most Christians since that would be almost impossible to justify knowing what we know about history.

But then that is the whole point. It is easy to make any serious problems with the Bible disappear if you are prepared to simply pull the "not literal" card when even such problems occur, irrespective of how nonsensical that card is.

I have some grudging respect for the Creationists in this regard, they at least know that these stories are meant as literal historical narrative, and thus to reject them as such is to reject the foundations of the Abrahamic religion. I just wish they would actually reject the Abrahamic religion, but one step at a time

ISAW

Wh1stler wrote: »

The bolded part cannot be interpreted as anything other than a call for the utter destruction of the Amalekites.

Wrong becaus it says "blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." not "kill them all"

God called for the utter destruction of the Amalekites and Saul claimed he had carried out that order except for sparing Agag and a few choice animals that were to be sacrificed. Nowhere does Samuel, or God, indicate that other Amalekites fled and were not destroyed.

Well if every reference to them was removed yçu wouldnt find evidence of them would you? still doesnt mean they werre all killed . Just that they were removed from history.

Didn't God notice all the Amalekites that were sneaking away?

If he did he wasnt going to tell the Hebrews to mention it in history.

Also, I wonder why Moses didn't report in Exodus what Samuel claims to have happened to the Jews that came out of Egypt. Bearing in mind that the Jews were there to dispossess the inhabitants of the land (an invasion) it doesn't seem unreasonable that Amalek should attack them.

The Israelites were returning hoçme to Israel after captivity in egypt.
Moses was around much earlier.

Perhaps you think that the Amalekites and the Canaanites should have simply vacated their homes, their cities, their way of life just because Moses says 'Get out'? Perhaps you think they should have gone to Egypt where labourers had become scarce?

i dont pretend to have a solution to Catholics being kept out of jobs and houses in northern irelanbd either but leaving things as they were didnt help. ditto for Cyprus.

Perhaps you believe that modern day Palestinians deserve a similar fate to the Amalekites and the Canaanites?

Perhaps you agreed witha Protestant run stormont or theat Greek cypriots should remain excluded from Turkish cyprus?

Now, is it wrong to hack children to death? Yes or no!

Rape is always wrong and especially of a child.
It is not justified in the bible.
slavery an killing are justified to some degree.
I dont think mass genocide is ever right and i have problems with that if that is the liuteral truth. I dont believe it is really. But Im not a Biblical fundamentalist anyway. Most Christians arent either. i apm not claiming to be Christian by the way. My presonal views or beliefs have nothing to d with an objective position. Im just trying to reflect what i think is the mainstream christian view.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

I agree with you of course that it isn't taken literally by most Christians since that would be almost impossible to justify knowing what we know about history.

But then that is the whole point. It is easy to make any serious problems with the Bible disappear if you are prepared to simply pull the "not literal" card when even such problems occur, irrespective of how nonsensical that card is.

I have some grudging respect for the Creationists in this regard, they at least know that these stories are meant as literal historical narrative, and thus to reject them as such is to reject the foundations of the Abrahamic religion. I just wish they would actually reject the Abrahamic religion, but one step at a time

Cheers.

Basically, you would like to see Scripture represented by people who read it as a history of the world and a scientific treatise on same - which it is not.

Well, I already know that's what you would like.....at least you are honest about that. It's not exactly very noble though is it? It's kind of like the play ground bully picking on the weakest link.

What you don't like, is that there are scholars from all backgrounds, indeed even from the atheist position, who understand and read Scripture, and present arguements that in very many cases make a person actually wonder at themselves, preconceptions, misconceptions, and their own motives and what drives them?

I think it's easier to reload the same gun though Zombrex, but it can become a little tiresome too - not to mention obvious.

Andrewf20

Wh1stler wrote: »

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I tend to agree with you that alot of people would not research it as much as they could. But I think thats true for athiests and believers alike.

I have to disagree with this. Atheists research the Bible much more than Christians because they lack faith.

Faith obviates the need to look for support in the Bible.

I dont mean to generalise but from the non believers i know, they wouldnt actively analyse the scriptures in detail as philogos was implying. They dont feel religon is of any major significance or interest to them to go digging and therefore are not actively searching for argument or answers.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

Cheers.

Basically, you would like to see Scripture represented by people who read it as a history of the world and a scientific treatise on same - which it is not.

Well, I already know that's what you would like.....at least you are honest about that. It's not exactly very noble though is it? It's kind of like the play ground bully picking on the weakest link.

What you don't like, is that there are scholars from all backgrounds, indeed even from the atheist position, who understand and read Scripture, and present arguements that in very many cases make a person actually wonder at themselves, preconceptions, misconceptions, and their own motives and what drives them?

I think it's easier to reload the same gun though Zombrex, but it can become a little tiresome too - not to mention obvious.

I think the point that Zombrez is making Impaoml is that you want to have your cake and eat it in that when it suits, the claim is that religion is completely rational , then when it suits the texts are allegorical , next it is literal.

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

I think the point that Zombrez is making Impaoml is that you want to have your cake and eat it in that when it suits, the claim is that religion is completely rational , then when it suits the texts are allegorical , next it is literal.

No, you miss the point entirely Marien. There is a 'cake' and I'm not the one eating it - and never claimed to do anything other than understand others or try to....I have decided many things in my lifetime, but not that life is a cardboard cut out -

This thread has a life of its own because the posters talk past each other - You could explore Scripture, indeed have argued about 'rape' and God condoning same, but have failed to understand that Scripture is both historical about the people of God and their failings and also about how God interacts, to address them and their failings, which we still have - Scripture is full up with sinners, not saints, in the narrative sense, but one must be able to read it properly too -

You present how you see belief in the Christian God as belief in a terrible thing, but fail to actually read responses. That's not due to lack of them..just a lack of acknowledging them.

If you are not satisfied, and think that Christians have failed to speak to you personally, than that's our fault for sure, and I'm sorry if you think that we are not listening, or don't answer you properly - it would be really nice to speak with others rather than at them.

But when Zombrex mentions he would prefer to read the bible in a literal only sense and this lends credence to a refutation he makes, then surely common sense says that an agenda is underlying there...perhaps it's easier to go along with it when one is of the same opinion, still it doesn't do anything for those of us who see it for what it is, it says exactly nothing.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

No, you miss the point entirely Marien. There is a 'cake' and I'm not the one eating it - and never claimed to do anything other than understand others or try to....I have decided many things in my lifetime, but not that life is a cardboard cut out -

This thread has a life of its own because the posters talk past each other - You could explore Scripture, indeed have argued about 'rape' and God condoning same, but have failed to understand that Scripture is both historical about the people of God and their failings and also about how God interacts, to address them and their failings, which we still have - Scripture is full up with sinners, not saints, in the narrative sense, but one must be able to read it properly too -

You present how you see belief in the Christian God as belief in a terrible thing, but fail to actually read responses. That's not due to lack of them..just a lack of acknowledging them.

If you are not satisfied, and think that Christians have failed to speak to you personally, than that's our fault for sure, and I'm sorry if you think that we are not listening, or don't answer you properly - it would be really nice to speak with others rather than at them.

But when Zombrex mentions he would prefer to read the bible in a literal only sense and this lends credence to a refutation he makes, then surely common sense says that an agenda is underlying there...perhaps it's easier to go along with it when one is of the same opinion, still it doesn't do anything for those of us who see it for what it is, it says exactly nothing.

I do find this post a bit mystifying Imaopml, I was raised a christian and steeped in christian studies and would consider myself as well able and qualified to read the bible as the next person . I can assure you it is no more difficult than Joyce or Dante or Proust.

I hav'nt failed to understand anything in the passages discussed, I have just come to a different conclusion than you have . I would even contend that having lost any faith but still being interested in the Book as a book I may have an advantage you don't- objectivity, as your understanding is predestined by virtue of your belief.

You read the bible because you believe and not or rarely the other way round, which is usually the correct way for any critical analysis.

Whatever about people talking past each other- surely you must accept that there are troubling passages in the Bible , but for whatever reason , maybe the adversarial nature of this forum, or the notion that atheists are a lost cause and are here just to mock, none of this is every accepted .

A lot of the time when troubling questions are raised it is just sidetracked or an ad hominem or ignored alltogether.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Cheers.

Basically, you would like to see Scripture represented by people who read it as a history of the world and a scientific treatise on same - which it is not.

I would like Christians to stop pretending anything that is trouble some for their religion must be re-interpreted as not literal even if there is no support from the text that the passages are supposed to be taken non-literally. Particularly when they then turn around and say no one has so far been able to find problems with the history recounted in the Bible.

There are plenty of passages in the Bible that are not meant to be taken literally, but this is clear from the language and prose. There are plenty of passages that are meant to be taken literally, and again this is clear from the language and prose.

For example few if any Christians argue the recounting of the discovery of the missing body of Jesus is supposed to be taken as anything other than a literal historical retelling.

It is disingenuous to roll out the non-literal card when one encounters a passage in the Bible that is recounting historical events that we know based on current historical understanding, did not happen.

lmaopml wrote: »

What you don't like, is that there are scholars from all backgrounds, indeed even from the atheist position, who understand and read Scripture, and present arguements that in very many cases make a person actually wonder at themselves, preconceptions, misconceptions, and their own motives and what drives them?

A perfect example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. It is highly disingenuous to suggest that by saying the story of Babel is supposed to be read as historical I'm saying the entire Bible must also be read as literal. It is easy to argue that the entire Bible is not meant to be taken completely literally, it contains metaphor parable analogy poem etc etc. It is (apparently) much harder to argue that this specific story isn't meant to be taken literally. So instead you invent an argument I didn't make and argue against that.

You must know that you are trying to straw man my argument Imaopml to make it appear the argument is unreasonable without actually tacking the true argument.

How you can do this and remain a believer is frankly beyond me, what does it say about the rationality of Christian belief is such tactics are required to defend it?

Wh1stler

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I dont mean to generalise but from the non believers i know, they wouldnt actively analyse the scriptures in detail as philogos was implying. They dont feel religon is of any major significance or interest to them to go digging and therefore are not actively searching for argument or answers.

I can only speak for myself of course but I would not refute a claim without giving it due consideration. I am willing to concede lost points.

Furthermore, I would be wary of giving bad advice especially when it comes to the mortal soul. I would never give advice to someone to serve my own agenda.

If what you said is correct about not actively searching for argument or answers then this discussion would have ended long ago with the atheist position discredited altogether. And that's the point; some of the arguments put forth by atheists here have been compelling enough to be entertained by some believers.

If we were arguing from ignorance then we could be dismissed out of hand. But we're not.

Take King David, for example; he committed adultery with Bathsheba, killed her husband and as a result of that, God struck down an innocent child with a sickness that he suffered for seven days before dying.

Who are the Israelites to impose a moral standard that they themselves cannot attain?

Solomon and Saul too disobeyed the word of God too.

Why should such men be venerated? Why should their God be praised?

To me, they are all reasonable candidates for hell.

philologos

All men disobey God. Indeed very often God chooses men whom we would regard as the least capable for His work. If one reads the first accounts of Moses' life in Scripture one would wonder how He ever emerged as the leader that He did. (Exodus 3 - 4). The answer seems to be only by God's power.