Would you prefer if there was a god?

psychward

No. Nobody and nothing should have that much power. Religious people hold onto their view of God because it is a view which they perceive as beneficial to them or else they perceive punishment for not holding such a view, a fear akin to Stockholm Syndrome which clouds their ability to think clearly.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Good is what God declares it is as far as I'm concerned. If we disobey Him, He has the right to judge us as He has done so before. However, in the current day He has withheld such judgement from us. The Gospel's pretty clear, for the penalty for our sin we deserve death and condemnation:

Now notice how you can't actually answer simple yes or no questions despite having a clear, strict moral code.

You know these things are evil things to do, but you don't want to say that because then you must admit that God can declare evil things to be good, or then offering increasingly silly and round about ways to justify these evil acts.

Ignoring it and quoting irrelevant scripture is not a response to this problem.
If you can't address it say so, cause that's my point.

philologos wrote: »

I've explained Abraham time and time again. It wasn't just to see if He would, it was to make a clear stand against the practice. Nations around Israel practiced that, and God made a defiant stand against it by showing Abraham that He would never desire such a sacrifice. Indeed, He Himself would save us through Jesus.

Well that was nice of him to clear that up after all of those earlier passages fully endorsing sacrifices.
But the thing is the bible clearly states that God wished to test Abraham. http://bible.cc/genesis/22-1.htmhttp://bible.cc/genesis/22-12.htm
But we can ignore that fact if you prefer.

Now, why exactly did he need to demonstrate that child sacrifice is bad by emotionally torturing some guy who according the bible was a good and obedient servant to God.
You know that forcing a guy to choose between his faith and family is a terrible thing to do to a person. And you know that forcing a person to murder their child (or any other person) is inexcusably evil. Similarly, I'm sure you can see that a child seeing their parent about to murder them would be indescribably traumatic.
If not, say so, otherwise I will just assume that you are normal person.

And why did God have to do it this way? Why couldn't he just declare it like he supposedly did with so many other laws?
(And this is of course leaving aside the futility of God doing this evil deed to make a stand against evil deeds when there was no one around to see.)

What did Abraham or Issac do to deserve such horrible emotional torture?

philologos wrote: »

Is judging creation righteously evil? - No. It's entirely just.

So what about the bits that weren't evil, like children and civilians?
Why did they deserve to die?
And can you not see the problem with the fact that you have to now justify killing children?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Good is what God declares it is as far as I'm concerned.

That is handy for you given that whatever "he" declares it to be is whatever YOU declare it to be... given we have no evidence that this god exists let alone data upon which to evaluate what it's opinions on morality are or are not.

So it really is from your mouth, to gods, to us. One can now dictate anything one likes and just claim god said it not you.

Isn't religion great for you.

Newaglish

robindch wrote: »

trying to shove a fish up a horse's ass, tail first

Ewww

robindch

philologos wrote: »

It assumes from the get go that good is independent from God.

The point of the dilemma is very precisely the opposite.

It is asking the question whether "good" is independent of one or more deity-figures (and following that though to a conclusion), or if it is not independent of deity-figures (and following that though to a conclusion).

It is asking a question.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

The point of the dilemma is very precisely the opposite.

It is asking the question whether "good" is independent of one or more deity-figures (and following that though to a conclusion), or if it is not independent of deity-figures (and following that though to a conclusion).

It is asking a question.

well we already have a conclusive answer don't we, "it isn't because i feel that's logical"

Penn

philologos wrote: »

Good is what God declares it is as far as I'm concerned. If we disobey Him, He has the right to judge us as He has done so before. However, in the current day He has withheld such judgement from us.

And that's not odd to you? All these appearances of God showing his judgement all conveniently stopped after the Bible was written when more people would realise they might notice something like that?

Penn

Penn wrote: »

And that's not odd to you? All these appearances of God showing his judgement all conveniently stopped after the Bible was written when more people would realise they might notice something like that?

mysterious ways. might makes right.

i'm going to go off and be a supreme dictator now, because apparently that gives me moral justification to do anything i like

Northclare

Good man wolf, best of luck and let us know how you get on.

Your great craic and it won't be long before your back into the debate again

kylith

philologos wrote: »

Good is what God declares it is as far as I'm concerned. If we disobey Him, He has the right to judge us as He has done so before. However, in the current day He has withheld such judgement from us. The Gospel's pretty clear, for the penalty for our sin we deserve death and condemnation:

I'm always concerned about religionists who wonder how come atheists have morals when we don't believe they come from a higher power. I'm now downright terrified of religionists who apparently would have no problem with outright murder if they think their god says it's ok, even if it has up to now been outlawed by their religious code.

I may never have a good nights' sleep again.

seamus

kylith wrote: »

I'm now downright terrified of religionists who apparently would have no problem with outright murder if they think their god says it's ok, even if it has up to now been outlawed by their religious code.

Considering that estimates say that between 0.5% and 2% of criminals are Atheists, while between 10 and 20% of the general population of western countries is atheist, then it basically says that your average religious person it at least ten times more likely to be a criminal than an atheist.

Perhaps we need religion to keep these psychos at bay and we should treat all religious people with serious amounts of suspicion.

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

well we already have a conclusive answer don't we, "it isn't because i feel that's logical"

Yes, we've an answer to the first part, but the logic isn't followed through.

If what constitutes "good" is mandated arbitrarily by a deity (and there are plenty of examples of arbitrary and savage deistic behavior in the bible), then "good" is a fully arbitrary concept which can be redefined at the drop of a deistic hat and what kind of confidence can that provide? Next, if the deity does not exist as described, then where does "good" come from? What about the implication that believers in other religions are morally bankrupt and incapable of doing "good", or are they believing in the right deity, but thinking its something else? What about people in the other religion who believe the same thing.

And so on. It's the tipping point for some interesting questions.

Dades

Northclare wrote: »

Good man wolf, best of luck and let us know how you get on.

Pssst. Bluewolf is a she-wolf.

Northclare

Sh

kylith

robindch wrote: »

Yes, we've an answer to the first part, but the logic isn't followed through.

If what constitutes "good" is mandated arbitrarily by a deity (and there are plenty of examples of arbitrary and savage deistic behavior in the bible), then "good" is a fully arbitrary concept which can be redefined at the drop of a deistic hat and what kind of confidence can that provide? Next, if the deity does not exist as described, then where does "good" come from? What about the implication that believers in other religions are morally bankrupt and incapable of doing "good", or are they believing in the right deity, but thinking its something else? What about people in the other religion who believe the same thing.

And so on. It's the tipping point for some interesting questions.

And they say they don't trust us because we accept that morality is fluid. At least ours isn't so fluid that a man in a dress and fancy hat can decree it changed on a whim.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

At least ours isn't so fluid [...]

The weird thing is that you can point out the multiple levels of interpretation and subjectivity involved, the Euthyphro dilemma and its implications, the the obvious fact that christians can agree upon almost nothing amongst themselves, at least at the 100% confidence level, the utterly different (and mostly terrible) societies that have resulted from putting religious "rules" into practice, etc, etc and still religious people insist that their deity speaks with a single voice and can be understood with total, unambiguous clarity.

It's so other-denying that it often seems to border on the autistic to me.

Northclare

Would it be easier for Believers and Atheists to integrate their contradictions rather than be in collision with their contradictions

it would be easier to make sense

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

You know these things are evil things to do, but you don't want to say that because then you must admit that God can declare evil things to be good, or then offering increasingly silly and round about ways to justify these evil acts.

Not at all. God's just. I've been explicitly clear about this. God is right and just in every single thing that He does.

King Mob wrote: »

Ignoring it and quoting irrelevant scripture is not a response to this problem.
If you can't address it say so, cause that's my point.

Your objection is based on the Bible. So, if you don't want "irrelevant Scripture" being brought up, don't discuss it, or the Christian concept of God. If we do want to discuss the Bible, that means I have to bring up the Bible.

King Mob wrote: »

IWell that was nice of him to clear that up after all of those earlier passages fully endorsing sacrifices.
But the thing is the bible clearly states that God wished to test Abraham. http://bible.cc/genesis/22-1.htmhttp://bible.cc/genesis/22-12.htm
But we can ignore that fact if you prefer.

Where have I denied that that was God's intention? You do know that actions can serve multiple purposes. Yes, it was to test Abraham. Yes it also served another purpose in demonstrating very clearly to the Israelites that what the neighbouring nations around them were doing was repugnant.

King Mob wrote: »

Now, why exactly did he need to demonstrate that child sacrifice is bad by emotionally torturing some guy who according the bible was a good and obedient servant to God.
You know that forcing a guy to choose between his faith and family is a terrible thing to do to a person. And you know that forcing a person to murder their child (or any other person) is inexcusably evil. Similarly, I'm sure you can see that a child seeing their parent about to murder them would be indescribably traumatic.
If not, say so, otherwise I will just assume that you are normal person.

As I've picked up in the other thread. God had promised Abraham explicitly in Genesis 15 and in Genesis 17 that Isaac and his ancestors would become a great nation and that they would be God's people. Abraham already had the assurance that Isaac's descendants would be God's people.

I don't believe it is evil at all. I believe that it was entirely just for God to show Abraham and all future generations that He would never desire human sacrifice, and I think it was wholly just for God to test Abraham's convictions in Him as the source of all truth.

King Mob wrote: »

And why did God have to do it this way? Why couldn't he just declare it like he supposedly did with so many other laws?
(And this is of course leaving aside the futility of God doing this evil deed to make a stand against evil deeds when there was no one around to see.)

The created saying to the Creator that they are wrong. There's something surprisingly arrogant about that notion in my mind.

King Mob wrote: »

What did Abraham or Issac do to deserve such horrible emotional torture?

I've explained this above. I think it was entirely justified for God to test Abraham in this way, and I think it was entirely justified for God to stand clear from other nations on this issue. This to me demonstrates God's goodness in that He Himself would rescue us from our sin.

King Mob wrote: »

So what about the bits that weren't evil, like children and civilians?
Why did they deserve to die?
And can you not see the problem with the fact that you have to now justify killing children?

We all deserve to die as a result of our sin (Romans 1:32). Jesus Christ came into the world to rescue us from that sin by His death and His resurrection. We have always had that decision to make regarding our lives, to accept Him or to reject Him.

As for my life, I view it as God's gift. I recognise that at any moment He could take it from me (Luke 12:13-21), as a Christian I also have to understand the possibility that at any point Jesus could return irrespective of how others may regard that.

Penn wrote: »

And that's not odd to you? All these appearances of God showing his judgement all conveniently stopped after the Bible was written when more people would realise they might notice something like that?

The Scriptures (2 Peter 3 for example) tell me that there will be people like you saying things like this very clearly. It anticipates it infact. Right now though, I believe that the earth is in tribulation as Jesus described it. It has been in this state since Jesus left, and it will be in this state until Jesus returns to judge.

Sure I could say that it is wrong on the account of there not having been judgement yet. I could say that if the case for Jesus' life, death and resurrection were not so compelling, or indeed if it were reasonable that all of this could be without a Creator which is something I find wholly unconvincing. It doesn't make much sense as far as I see it.

kylith wrote: »

I'm always concerned about religionists who wonder how come atheists have morals when we don't believe they come from a higher power. I'm now downright terrified of religionists who apparently would have no problem with outright murder if they think their god says it's ok, even if it has up to now been outlawed by their religious code.

I may never have a good nights' sleep again.

I don't know why this point even arose in respect to my post. If you want to cackle up all kinds of suspicions against believers feel free to do so. I have one major aim in life, that is to live and to speak for Jesus clearly and to ensure that people know what He did to rescue us from condemnation. The last thing as a Christian that would be on my agenda would be death. If Jesus died to save me, how could I insist that you die? That doesn't make very much sense does it?

My point is that Jesus has made a way for you to know, love and exist with your Creator for all eternity. You can reject that, but it will be to your detriment according to the Gospel. This is about good news, not bad news.

Not all will receive it as such unfortunately.

Sarky

At least you didn't say there was logic involved this time. It's a start.

philologos

God's word makes good logical sense from beginning to end. I simply believe that atheism is profoundly wrong on the basis of what Christianity argues. I don't expect you to see that, because you and others refuse to consider it. I have one aim for the most part on boards.ie, that is to present the Gospel clearly. If people continue to reject Jesus after that then I can only hope that they will think about it at a later stage in life.

I acknowledge the Gospel because simply put, on looking around me, and on looking to what arguments back Christianity up, I have no other choice apart from to acknowledge the truth.

we considered it and then decided it was nonsense

i wish you'd stop posting across the fora about how we obviously havent considered it just because we don't agree

robindch

philologos wrote: »

God's word makes good logical sense from beginning to end.

If you ignore whatever you want because you "feel it's nonsensical", you should expect that the little remaining will appear to make "good logical sense".

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. God's just. I've been explicitly clear about this. God is right and just in every single thing that He does.

Even if you realise that such actions are evil.
So when God does evil things they become good.

philologos wrote: »

Your objection is based on the Bible. So, if you don't want "irrelevant Scripture" being brought up, don't discuss it, or the Christian concept of God. If we do want to discuss the Bible, that means I have to bring up the Bible.

That passage you posted had no baring on any of the points I made.
You can use the bible if you like, but a red herring is a red herring whatever the source.

philologos wrote: »

Where have I denied that that was God's intention? You do know that actions can serve multiple purposes. Yes, it was to test Abraham. Yes it also served another purpose in demonstrating very clearly to the Israelites that what the neighbouring nations around them were doing was repugnant.

philologos wrote: »

I've explained Abraham time and time again. It wasn't just to see if He would, it was to make a clear stand against the practice.

The bible says that it was to test Abraham, to see if he would offer up his son.
Nowhere in that passage does it mention that child sacrifice is wrong or now forbidden.

Furthermore, since God had deemed it to be evil, did it momentarily become not evil when God ordered Abraham to do it? Or was it still wrong and God was ordering Abraham to do it anyway?

philologos wrote: »

As I've picked up in the other thread. God had promised Abraham explicitly in Genesis 15 and in Genesis 17 that Isaac and his ancestors would become a great nation and that they would be God's people. Abraham already had the assurance that Isaac's descendants would be God's people.

I don't believe it is evil at all. I believe that it was entirely just for God to show Abraham and all future generations that He would never desire human sacrifice, and I think it was wholly just for God to test Abraham's convictions in Him as the source of all truth.

Neither of these points answer mine.
You are worse than JC when it comes to answering direct questions.

If God is all knowing why did he have to do the test in the first place when he knew the outcome?
If he was doing the test, why then did tell Abraham that the test would be nullified, thus defeating the purpose of the test? How could it be a test of whether or not Abraham would offer up his son if Abraham knew that he wouldn't actually lose his son?
And why did God stop Abraham? Why not just let him murder his own son then magic him back to life like Abraham believed would happen? Because God didn't want to inflict any unnecessary pain perhaps?

philologos wrote: »

The created saying to the Creator that they are wrong. There's something surprisingly arrogant about that notion in my mind.

Because the action is wrong, and it is clearly so.

So again a simple question:
Is a human forcing another human to kill their own child for any reason an evil act or not.

And assuming you are not insane, the answer is that it is very evil.

But when God does it, an evil act is good. Which leads to the dilemma

philologos wrote: »

I've explained this above. I think it was entirely justified for God to test Abraham in this way, and I think it was entirely justified for God to stand clear from other nations on this issue. This to me demonstrates God's goodness in that He Himself would rescue us from our sin.

Cept that none of that is in the story or makes a lick of sense.
Nor does it explain why he had to do it like that and not in a non-painful way like he did in many other proclimations.
Nor does it explain how silly that statement is when the story claims that noone was around to actually see it happen...

philologos wrote: »

We all deserve to die as a result of our sin (Romans 1:32). Jesus Christ came into the world to rescue us from that sin by His death and His resurrection. We have always had that decision to make regarding our lives, to accept Him or to reject Him.

As for my life, I view it as God's gift. I recognise that at any moment He could take it from me (Luke 12:13-21), as a Christian I also have to understand the possibility that at any point Jesus could return irrespective of how others may regard that.

Avoiding the questions again.
I specifically asked you what sin did the children God killed commit?

What possible thing could a child do to deserve death?
And again this highlights the complete and utter contradiction of your "moral code": you have to give an answer to this question...

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I acknowledge the Gospel because simply put, on looking around me, and on looking to what arguments back Christianity up, I have no other choice apart from to acknowledge the truth.

So which part of this includes ignoring uncomfortable questions you can't answer and theories you cannot nor want to understand?

philologos

bluewolf: The thing is I have done so on multiple occasions over the past 5 or so years. I'm at least happy insofar as at least you've all had the chance to hear the Gospel.

King Mob: I simply work as most people do. I look around me and assess what makes sense and what doesn't. What has history behind it and what doesn't. What corresponds to reality and what doesn't. I find that Christianity does these things. If others want to disagree, they are free and open to post their objections. I don't know everything and neither do you, but there hits a point that you and I have to decide what we make of this universe and of its Creator and I've done that on the basis of what seems logical and reasonable to me. Atheism simply doesn't.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

bluewolf: The thing is I have done so on multiple occasions over the past 5 or so years.

You have in your rear. All you have done for the last years is post nonsense on a thread and then when confronted you have run for the hills, laid low for a couple of hours, then started posting the same nonsense in another thread.

You have not once, ever, backed up a single position you have espoused. Yet you keep saying that yours is "more reasonable" and makes "more sense" and that atheist is just "plain wrong". If any of this were true you would be able to at least adumbrate the reasoning behind your position but it has been made very clear in the past that when you ever try it does not go well at all.

philologos wrote: »

If others want to disagree, they are free and open to post their objections.

Yea right. At which point you will either run away from the thread, or start pretending to have put the person on ignore who disagreed with you.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I look around me and assess what makes sense and what doesn't.[...] What corresponds to reality and what doesn't.

No you don't. Even in this thread alone, you've admitted that you ignore what you want to ignore based on nothing more than "feeling".

That's a good way to run a religion, but you shouldn't expect that your feelings dictate reality, nor should you expect anybody else to believe you.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

God's word makes good logical sense from beginning to end.

You think it makes logical sense that homosexuals have to spend their entire lives without engaging in romantic relationships with the person they are deeply in love with?

You think it makes logical sense that for minor disobedience carried out over a finite amount of time (ie sin on Earth that for most people never goes beyond lying and being disrespectful) a human can face eternal suffering?

I suspect there are lots of things in the Bible that don't make logical sense to you Phil, but what does make sense to you is the notion that that there is a God who loves you is the authority on what is right and wrong (cause heaven forbid we have to justify our own moral beliefs) and that if you follow him you will live forever.

Once people accept that (and heck why wouldn't you it is so nice and pleasing) well then it is easy to justify following all the nonsense in the Bible because after all who are you to question the almighty creator of the universe who is going to give you so much for your devotion.

joseph brand

Zombrex wrote: »

You think it makes logical sense that homosexuals have to spend their entire lives without engaging in romantic relationships with the person they are deeply in love with?

You think it makes logical sense that for minor disobedience carried out over a finite amount of time (ie sin on Earth that for most people never goes beyond lying and being disrespectful) a human can face eternal suffering?

I suspect there are lots of things in the Bible that don't make logical sense to you Phil, but what does make sense to you is the notion that that there is a God who loves you is the authority on what is right and wrong (cause heaven forbid we have to justify our own moral beliefs) and that if you follow him you will live forever.

Once people accept that (and heck why wouldn't you it is so nice and pleasing) well then it is easy to justify following all the nonsense in the Bible because after all who are you to question the almighty creator of the universe who is going to give you so much for your devotion.

god loves ME.
He talks to ME.
He cares about ME.
He watches over ME.
He waits for ME in heaven.
He wants ME to live forever.

Perhaps religion appeals to the greed in people. ME, ME, ME! Followers will happily pay money for a good seat in 'heaven'.

(donations of 10,000 and 20,000 not uncommon to Christina Gallagher's church, as one example)

How anyone can believe that god didn't create homosexuals, Atheists and anyone else they don't like, is beyond me.

@philologos: If you follow 'logic' and 'reason', why not dump the fairy tales and give science a try.