Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How do you convince people god exists?

Options
1…1314161819…35

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    I'm just glad that I have lived to see the much-neglected 'cat kills human bad, therefore god' argument finally being presented. What a time to be alive!

    :D


  • Options
    #453
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    pauldla wrote: »
    I'm just glad that I have lived to see the much-neglected 'cat kills human bad, therefore god' argument finally being presented. What a time to be alive!

    :D

    of course in ancient Egypt this argument went 'cat kills bad human therefore is god'

    :P


  • Options
    #454
    storker
    Registered Users Posts: 5,644 ✭✭✭storker


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I wasn't making statements, I was asking questions and there's no harm in that - unless you think that religious belief is immune from being questioned?

    Well...this is more question than statement I'd say:
    That's rather... convenient, isn't it?
    Does your god require you to do "good works" or give to charity or do anything at all, or is it all one way? You get the good feels and don't have to really do anything?

    Also, if you've read any of my posts on the subject, you know very well that I'm far from being of the opinion that religious belief is immune to being questioned. But if that's the level at which you want to engage, I think I'll leave it at that.


  • Options
    #455
    storker
    Registered Users Posts: 5,644 ✭✭✭storker


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    of course in ancient Egypt this argument went 'cat kills bad human therefore is god'

    :P

    I live with my wife and two daughters and two cats. Don't talk to me about cats being treated like gods...


  • Options
    #456
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    The above authors try to put forward various arguments for the historicity of the Gospels. They are arguments, not conclusive proofs, therefore they do differ from each other. However, what is important is that they are all quite reasonable.

    From what I remember of reading him, I think Dunn's argument was that the evangelists described those events of Christ's life in which they were personally interested. That is why not all of them have extended narratives of Christ's infancy etc, but they might instead focus on how he fulfills the Old Testament (this was very important for Matthew, for example).

    But this is shifting the goalposts. You first said his argument was that they shouldn't be read as historical biographies, now it is that they should be read as complete historical biographies. Which is it?
    And what about how you said Dunn said they should be read as evangelistic, apologetic and teaching texts. Which is it? Does Dunn say they are historical biographies (partial or otherwise) or not?
    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    Well the large diversity of detail of the Gospel accounts would argue against this. John's prologue is very philosophical. Matthew and Luke are all about the parables.

    As I said, "It is possible that after the first gospel was written, the later ones used it as a reference and added to it". Same thing happens with comics, different versions of Spider-man may use the same basic ideas and go in different directions. Doesn't make them any more real.
    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    This would have been a massive deal. Read the account to see how uncomfortable John the Baptist is with baptising Christ. He is told to "suffer it for now". John was basically baptising God.

    Or, as I said, it is a plot hole in a made up story. Still fail to see how plot holes make a story more likely to be true.
    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    Again, this is not a proof but an argument. Nevertheless, I think it is a good one. As stated above, the apocryphal Gospel of Philip, which contains a gnostic understanding of Baptism and the Eucharist more appropriate to the second or third century, was rejected as inauthentic. It is a mechanism used to discern error.

    Just because you show that something doesn't contain anachronisms or anatopisms doesn't actually mean it is more likely to be true. It just means it isn't false because it contains anachronisms or anatopisms. Like Spider-man in New York. Or any half decent tv show or movie.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    (the existence of God itself can be reached by reason alone though).

    I would love to see this reasoning.
    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    This requires faith - an assent of the mind to what God reveals about Himself. Moreover, this faith is a gift from God to those who want it.

    Isn't it funny how most all religions say this and yet all expect people to arbitrarily come to the conclusion that their specific religion is the right one. Even funnier is that people who do this, tend to come to the conclusion that the religion they were raised in is the right one. Almost as if it's not really a case of chirstian god given faith, and more a case of childhood indoctrination.


  • Options
    #458
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jordan2077 wrote: »
    Ok so if you dont believe in God then what is good and bad, why dont we just make up good and bad for ourselves and do what we want? why do we let other things create what is good and bad for us?

    We do that already. All morality/ethics systems are made up, some based on religious declaration, some on social decisions. Following those systems is even a choice. You make up your own morality by picking and choosing which version of the bible you follow.


  • Options
    #459
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    Some people claim that they can feel God with them, around them - fair enough, this is something quite personal so you can never say that they do or they do not with complete certitude.

    And why would we? The claim that they FEEL there is a god in or around them is one I do not care to doubt. If that is how they feel, I am happy to take them at face value on that.

    If however you, or they, wished to imply that this feeling was in ANY way evidence that there actually IS a god.... then you would get a different response from me. They would at that point be talking nonsense.
    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    Going to quote something I posted in an earlier thread

    Would that be the "earlier" thread where your claims were subsequently roundly rebutted before you basically just ran off? Would that be the thread you mean? To summarise what happened in that thread, and also the rebuttals to the things you just quoted from that thread:

    1) Your claims about causation were found to hold too many assumptions, none of which you could validate
    2) You made claims about uncaused events which were unfounded.
    3) You tried badly to conflate things created with intent and function (like a table) with things that had no intent or function (like an acorn).
    4) You cited the oft cited mantra of theists everywhere about "something coming from nothing" without once showing there ever WAS nothing. So you merely assume "nothing" as the default, solely because it fits a narrative you hold.
    5) You claimed that something is "impossible" because it raises questions you can not answer. Something is not impossible just because the implications of it displease or confuse you.
    6) You falsely conflate existence with greatness, and thus pretend existence is necessitated by it.
    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    Jesus is either mad, bad or God; he cannot be simply a good man walking around and helping people because he never claimed to be this persona

    Firstly you do not know if such a man existed. But IF he did, you do not know what he claimed or did not claim about his persona. You only know the tiny bits of it you were told. He could have said or claimed anything in the intervening gaps.

    Secondly though a person does not have to claim to be good, to be good, you are pushing total nonsense there. You do not have to claim X, or claim to be X, to ACTUALLY be X. So whether such a man ever claimed it, or believed it of himself, says nothing about what he actually is.
    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    If what he was saying is true, then he is God.

    You really need to look up the phrase "circular argument". If he claimed to be god, and his claim was true, then he was god? Well duh. That is kinda what is meant by a "true claim". But claiming it, does not make it true. Hell claiming it does not even make it CREDIBLE let alone true.
    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    The third test used by Ehrman is called “the criterion of contextual credibility”. This means that historical texts have to “conform with historical and social contexts to which they relate” in order to be credible.

    The problem with that, is much fiction is written against the backdrop of real world events, people, geography, architecture, locations and more. It happens all the time. If the books of Jason Bourne were dug up 4000 years from now that pretty much everything it will be contextually credible with contemporary history and realities. It would not for one minute mean Jason Bourne existed.

    Your Ehrman is doing nothing more that forcing a square peg through the round hole. He is making moves that are true of just about everything, but focusing them in as if they are somehow specifically true about one thing he WANTS to be true.
    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    What I have shown with the above arguments is that belief in God is reasonable

    Was one or more of your posts removed? Because certainly none of the posts you have made on this thread so far have lend even a modicum of credence to the claim there is a god. I am not seeing one shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning within your posts that at all substantiate the idea that a non-human intelligent and intentional agent created our universe, or life within it.
    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    This requires faith - an assent of the mind to what God reveals about Himself.

    Oh how nice for you. You define "faith" your own way and you do so in a way that lauds praise on yourself and those who agree with you. People who accept your claims "on faith" are not just right, but they are "ascending their mind". Lovely. So basically rather than present any evidence at all for your ideas.... you merely define them in such a way as to massage the ego of those who simply fall over and buy what you are selling.

    Advertising companies have been using similar tactics for decades.


  • Options
    #460
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Jordan2077 wrote: »
    You don't have to convince people, there is no excuse for not believing in God for the evidence has been clearly displayed in all of creation.

    You have evidence? FINALLY! Theists have been coming in here for years saying there is lots of evidence and then not actually giving any of it.

    I feel you are going to change all that, and be the first! Go for it! I am agog!
    Jordan2077 wrote: »
    Ok so if you dont believe in God then what is good and bad, why dont we just make up good and bad for ourselves and do what we want?

    I would suggest that that IS what we do do. We make up concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, purity and evil.... then we label it with fancy terms like "morality" to make it sound special.

    But "morality" seems to be nothing more than the rules we as a species make for ourselves when we come together and try to form a working relationship. I have seen no reason as yet to think it anything more than that.
    Jordan2077 wrote: »
    If a cat kills a bird why is that not bad. But if a cat kills a human that is bad.

    If you say so. I do not say so. I do not see EITHER as "bad" in a moral or ethical sense. I see both as simply a cat mindlessly doing what a cat mindlessly does. If you replace "Cat" in your sentence with "a rock falling off a cliff". I see no more moral or ethical reason to call either "bad" there too.

    However if you mean "bad" as in "unfortunate or tragic" then there is a difference in play. The human is a more sentient agent and as such subjectively TO ME has more worth than the bird.
    Jordan2077 wrote: »
    What makes our life worth more than theirs?

    As above, sentience. I think higher levels of sentience are "worth" more than lower. By definition. Because the concept of "worth" itself comes from sentience in the first place. Without sentient minds things like "worth" "meaning" "value" "beauty" "matters" and so forth would seemingly not exist in our universe. Unless you are aware of a source for those things outside of sentient minds that you can substantiate, rather than simply invent?


  • Options
    #461
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    mlem123 wrote: »
    I'd argue that belief has nothing to do with proof. A belief is just something you believe in.

    You could argue it I am sure, but you would be speaking for yourself really. Speaking FOR ME.... I can only tell you that there is less of a distinction between the two in how my mind works.

    Mainly because I can not believe things without evidence. I can not stop myself from believing things if there is evidence. Both just happen for me. I am entirely unable to choose to flick that switch.

    Many theists tell me I just "choose" not to believe in a god, or that they "Choose" to believe one. I marvel at that myself. They clearly have a mental capability that has been denied me. I have often wondered how labile their credulity is in this regard.

    But for me the sentence "believe has nothing to do with proof" is a sentence to which I simply can not relate. YMMV.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    spacecoyote
    Registered Users Posts: 8,440 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    Jordan2077 wrote: »
    Ok so if you dont believe in God then what is good and bad, why dont we just make up good and bad for ourselves and do what we want? why do we let other things create what is good and bad for us?

    If a cat kills a bird why is that not bad. But if a cat kills a human that is bad.

    What makes our life worth more than theirs?

    Yet if any other creature or thing kills any other creature or thing it is not bad?

    I always find this line of argument quite depressing, and it actually makes me more fearful of religious people. In essence (and I know that I'm making a bit of a small leap here), it amounts to...if there is no all powerful punishment for "sin" to be scared of, then religious people would just go around killing, raping, robbing etc... because there is no ultimate consequence/hell.

    As opposed to atheists, who define their morals & sense of right or wrong, on the basis of society and how they believe you should treat your fellow man.


  • Options
    #463
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    spacecoyote wrote: »
    I always find this line of argument quite depressing, and it actually makes me more fearful of religious people. In essence (and I know that I'm making a bit of a small leap here), it amounts to...if there is no all powerful punishment for "sin" to be scared of, then religious people would just go around killing, raping, robbing etc... because there is no ultimate consequence/hell.

    As opposed to atheists, who define their morals & sense of right or wrong, on the basis of society and how they believe you should treat your fellow man.

    It's a terrifying line of thinking imo.
    Plus it allows for horrific act to be carried out 'because it's God's will', and therefore doing them will be rewarded in the hereafter.


  • Options
    #464
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,980 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Doing things because a voice in your head told you to is really not a good strategy.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #465
    Marhay70
    Registered Users Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    It's a terrifying line of thinking imo.
    Plus it allows for horrific act to be carried out 'because it's God's will', and therefore doing them will be rewarded in the hereafter.

    If you are to believe the Old Testament, not only did God forgive the Israelite heroes like Joshua, David etc for committing horrific acts of depravity, He actually encouraged it.


  • Options
    #466
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Marhay70 wrote: »
    If you are to believe the Old Testament, not only did God forgive the Israelite heroes like Joshua, David etc for committing horrific acts of depravity, He actually encouraged it.

    The Crusaders were absolved in advance for anything...bloody...or rapey...or whatever... they might happened to do while rescuing 'The Holy Land' from the people who lived there.


  • Options
    #467
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,718 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The Crusaders were absolved in advance for anything...bloody...or rapey...or whatever... they might happened to do while rescuing 'The Holy Land' from the people who lived there.

    Not just the rescuing the Holy Land but also smiting heretics in Europe too as the Cathars and Bogomils found out.


  • Options
    #468
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    smacl wrote: »
    Not just the rescuing the Holy Land but also smiting heretics in Europe too as the Cathars and Bogomils found out.

    Absolutely. Sure you have to be covered while on your journey to and from (the Lord's) work. Stands to reason that.


  • Options
    #469
    Marhay70
    Registered Users Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The Crusaders were absolved in advance for anything...bloody...or rapey...or whatever... they might happened to do while rescuing 'The Holy Land' from the people who lived there.

    That was by mere mortals though, the Biblical events were first hand. Wasn't any fun to be a Hittite or a Caananite or an Amorite among many, when the big guy got pissed off.
    Deuteronomy is a lively read, murder, rape, enslavement, child abuse, cannibalism, you name it, the loving God was happy to give it his enthusiastic approval.


  • Options
    #470
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Marhay70 wrote: »
    That was by mere mortals though, the Biblical events were first hand. Wasn't any fun to be a Hittite or a Caananite or an Amorite among many, when the big guy got pissed off.
    Deuteronomy is a lively read, murder, rape, enslavement, child abuse, cannibalism, you name it, the loving God was happy to give it his enthusiastic approval.

    Oh I have read that particular book many times.
    I am of the opinion that in it the big guy gets the credit for an awful lot of things that happened - X city falls - God did that because 'punishment', blood thirsty victory - God won that, and what occurred during/after is also 'God'.
    It's like saying Lindisfarne was raided because Odin was angry.
    Ireland was conquered because we lost faith in the Dagda.
    India got independence because Kali was on their side.


  • Options
    #471
    Marhay70
    Registered Users Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Oh I have read that particular book many times.
    I am of the opinion that in it the big guy gets the credit for an awful lot of things that happened - X city falls - God did that because 'punishment', blood thirsty victory - God won that, and what occurred during/after is also 'God'.
    It's like saying Lindisfarne was raided because Odin was angry.
    Ireland was conquered because we lost faith in the Dagda.
    India got independence because Kali was on their side.

    Not forgetting God's own Pauline conversion between Genesis and Matthew.
    Is this an admission by God that He was wrong? This hardly fits the picture of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity but having shoved the veracity of the OT down the throats of its members for two thousand years the recent efforts of the major Christian sects to distance themselves from it are at best, disingenuous if not laughable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    8kczg9v0swrydm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 119 ✭✭8kczg9v0swrydm


    spacecoyote wrote: »
    As opposed to atheists, who define their morals & sense of right or wrong, on the basis of society and how they believe you should treat your fellow man.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    It's a terrifying line of thinking imo.
    Plus it allows for horrific act to be carried out 'because it's God's will', and therefore doing them will be rewarded in the hereafter.

    Hi spacecoyote and Bannasidhe

    The single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world has been atheistic Communism/Socialism, all pretty much in the space of a century. We are talking 100 million people and counting (mostly because of China). Not even Hitler could rival that. Deaths through the Inquisition or during Crusades compared to that - you must be 'avin' a laf m8'.

    Source: The Black Book of Communism

    Now the Crusades, that famous Christian-baiting club. Most serious historians would agree that they were defensive wars. The Byzantine Emperor begged for Christian knights to save his realm from Muslim aggression. At the time, most of the population of Palestine were Christian, as they have been for hundreds of years before. Any massacres should, of course, be condemned, but as for the war itself, there is more to it than the oft-touted line of 'Christian imperialism'.

    Here is an interesting take on the Crusades.
    Marhay70 wrote: »
    If you are to believe the Old Testament, not only did God forgive the Israelite heroes like Joshua, David etc for committing horrific acts of depravity, He actually encouraged it.

    It is true that during the Israelite exodus pagan nations were put to the sword. This is something many Christians find puzzling. Why did a good God allow this, right? It is a big deal but just concluding that 'God is boo-boo' without engaging with the Scriptures and historical research is, well, far from perfect.

    Most of us know what it is like to teach a child. You have to go step-by-step, slowly, incrementally. You cannot start teaching computer science to a five year old. He or she just would not have the capacity to receive, comprehend and live out the information given. Start small, think big.

    What did the world look like at the time of the Exodus? We have widespread slavery, massacres and destruction. Infants were regularly exposed to die if they were female or defective. People were sacrificed to cruel pagan 'gods' who demanded blood in return for a good harvest etc (something akin to what the Aztecs were doing centuries later).

    God chose one nation, the tribe of Abraham, to teach them what it means to be human and what it means to live in harmony with Him. He couldn't bring them from 0 to 100, the education would take centuries. The sad thing is that even with the little He demanded from them, the Jews continuously rebelled and disobeyed. Israel is described as a 'harlot' in the OT - they continued to go back to the feral ways of the peoples and nations around them.

    The Jews took out the tribes in modern day Palestine (the Canaanites) because:

    a) that was the nature of war in these troubled times - they would not have known, and not accepted, any different;
    b) if the Canaanites stayed behind, they would have infected the Jews with their customs - as in fact happened, when remnants of the Canaanites were allowed to remain;
    c) the Canaanites were known for child sacrifice, and this fact appears in sources besides the Bible. Their land was taken from them as punishment - 'No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you.' (Deuteronomy 9:4);
    d) God gave the Canaanites 400 years to repent. There is a curious line in Genesis where Abraham wants to posses the Promised Land immediately. He is prevented by God, because ‘the sin of the Amorites (one of the Canaanite tribes) has not yet reached its full measure’ (Genesis 15:16). Now that's patience;
    e) Moreover, historians claim that the entry of the Israelites into the Promised Land led to a massive flight of the Canaanite population. If they largely fled, this would mean that only the remnants were killed.

    To progress the story, the pedagogical law of the OT was replaced by Christ in the NT. Even then the people were hardly ready to accept what He had to say. We still wince at giving our cloak to a man who has none, at loving a neighbour as much as ourselves, at turning the other cheek and at keeping all lustful thoughts out of our heart.

    It is also worth mentioning that ideas of equality, dignity, care and support for the weak, and a systematic renunciation of self for others are essentially Christian. Our society would be worse for the lack of them.


  • Options
    #473
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,718 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    The single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world has been atheistic Communism/Socialism, all pretty much in the space of a century. We are talking 100 million people and counting (mostly because of China). Not even Hitler could rival that. Deaths through the Inquisition or during Crusades compared to that - you must be 'avin' a laf m8'.

    Source: The Black Book of Communism

    You might want to check the veracity of the information in that particular book, given that even two of it's main contributors consider the figures exaggerated. More importantly perhaps, the vast majority of those who died were killed indirectly as a result of famine rather than directly by a communist state. This leads to the following observation by Noam Chomsky (source)
    Social critic Noam Chomsky has criticized the book and its reception as one-sided by outlining economist Amartya Sen's research on hunger. While India's democratic institutions prevented famines, its excess of mortality over China—potentially attributable to the latter's more equal distribution of medical and other resources—was nonetheless close to 4 million per year for non-famine years. Chomsky argued that "supposing we now apply the methodology of the Black Book" to India, "the democratic capitalist 'experiment' has caused more deaths than in the entire history of [...] Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, and tens of millions more since, in India alone".

    I'd suggest if you want to compare figures, e.g. against the genocide in the Albigensian Crusade you really need to compare number of people directly killed as a function of the total population at that point in time.

    That aside, bringing up the evils of communism as a counter to the human slaughter carried out in the crusades is a very obvious red herring. One group committing atrocities is hardly excusable on the basis that other groups may have also done so.


  • Options
    #474
    Marhay70
    Registered Users Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    Hi spacecoyote and Bannasidhe

    the Crusades.



    It is true that during the Israelite exodus pagan nations were put to the sword. This is something many Christians find puzzling. Why did a good God allow this, right? It is a big deal but just concluding that 'God is boo-boo' without engaging with the Scriptures and historical research is, well, far from perfect.

    Most of us know what it is like to teach a child. You have to go step-by-step, slowly, incrementally. You cannot start teaching computer science to a five year old. He or she just would not have the capacity to receive, comprehend and live out the information given. Start small, think big.

    What did the world look like at the time of the Exodus? We have widespread slavery, massacres and destruction. Infants were regularly exposed to die if they were female or defective. People were sacrificed to cruel pagan 'gods' who demanded blood in return for a good harvest etc (something akin to what the Aztecs were doing centuries later).

    God chose one nation, the tribe of Abraham, to teach them what it means to be human and what it means to live in harmony with Him. He couldn't bring them from 0 to 100, the education would take centuries. The sad thing is that even with the little He demanded from them, the Jews continuously rebelled and disobeyed. Israel is described as a 'harlot' in the OT - they continued to go back to the feral ways of the peoples and nations around them.

    The Jews took out the tribes in modern day Palestine (the Canaanites) because:

    a) that was the nature of war in these troubled times - they would not have known, and not accepted, any different;
    b) if the Canaanites stayed behind, they would have infected the Jews with their customs - as in fact happened, when remnants of the Canaanites were allowed to remain;
    c) the Canaanites were known for child sacrifice, and this fact appears in sources besides the Bible. Their land was taken from them as punishment - 'No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you.' (Deuteronomy 9:4);
    d) God gave the Canaanites 400 years to repent. There is a curious line in Genesis where Abraham wants to posses the Promised Land immediately. He is prevented by God, because ‘the sin of the Amorites (one of the Canaanite tribes) has not yet reached its full measure’ (Genesis 15:16). Now that's patience;
    e) Moreover, historians claim that the entry of the Israelites into the Promised Land led to a massive flight of the Canaanite population. If they largely fled, this would mean that only the remnants were killed.

    To progress the story, the pedagogical law of the OT was replaced by Christ in the NT. Even then the people were hardly ready to accept what He had to say. We still wince at giving our cloak to a man who has none, at loving a neighbour as much as ourselves, at turning the other cheek and at keeping all lustful thoughts out of our heart.

    It is also worth mentioning that ideas of equality, dignity, care and support for the weak, and a systematic renunciation of self for others are essentially Christian. Our society would be worse for the lack of them.

    So, in effect, what you are saying is that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent deity was unable to control his creation except by mass murder, then after 4000 years he decides to have another go trying a different method and fails miserably again. Not exactly a good reference for the job.
    Without referencing numerous passages from the OT, which I really couldn't be bothered doing, I can tell you that, not only did God endorse the many barbaric acts carried out by the Israelites but actually designed a lot of them.
    Incidences of slavery, rape, child abuse, cannibalism , human sacrifice etc, were all OK in his book.
    Now, as I have said on numerous occasions I have no problem with whatever belief system anybody chooses to follow as long as they keep it out of my life but I find it difficult to accept the whitewashing act that many religious perform on the God of the OT, belief in which was often a matter of life and death for our forebears.


  • Options
    #475
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,997 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    ...............

    It is also worth mentioning that ideas of equality, dignity, care and support for the weak, and a systematic renunciation of self for others are essentially Christian. Our society would be worse for the lack of them.




    Reformed Judaism, Buddhism, Islam etc don't have some or all of those things you mention?


  • Options
    #476
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    Hi spacecoyote and Bannasidhe

    The single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world has been [whataboutery]

    So god gets a pass for all of his 110% unnecessary killing because some groups of humans may have killed more?
    Isn't god supposed to be better than us? Doesn't god preach an objective morality? Doesn't your relativistic reasoning go against that objective morality?
    Also, if you want to be accurate, the single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world is malaria (that's in absolute numbers, in percentages it could be argued that it was Cain who when he killed Able killed 25% of the population of the earth :P).



    And since you are back, any chance you could respond to my posts here and here?


  • Options
    #477
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Ty Straight Villa wrote: »
    Hi spacecoyote and Bannasidhe

    The single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world has been atheistic Communism/Socialism, all pretty much in the space of a century. We are talking 100 million people and counting (mostly because of China). Not even Hitler could rival that. Deaths through the Inquisition or during Crusades compared to that - you must be 'avin' a laf m8'.


    Now the Crusades, that famous Christian-baiting club. Most serious historians would agree that they were defensive wars. .

    Interesting.

    Comparing belief in God to a totalitarian political ideology (well, to two - socialists always get lumped in with communists - which is like lumping Christians in with Muslims, they both believe in the same god after all).
    I'm not sure your whatabout says what you wanted it to say.

    'Serious' historian - I find that generally means 'person who says things about history that conform to my world view'.

    Here is what William of Tyre had to say:
    It was indeed the righteous judgment of God which ordained that those who had profaned the sanctuary of the Lord by their superstitious rites and had caused it to be an alien place to His faithful people should expiate their sin by death and, by pouring out their own blood, purify the sacred precincts.


    It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused horror in all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished, in addition to those who lay slain everywhere throughout the city in the streets and squares, the number of whom was estimated as no less.

    The rest of the soldiers roved through the city in search of wretched survivors who might be hiding in the narrow portals and byways to escape death. These were dragged out into public view and slain like sheep. Some formed into bands and broke into houses where they laid violent hands on heads of families, on their wives children, and their entire households. These victims were either put to the sword or dashed headlong to the ground from some elevated place so that they perished miserably. Each marauder claimed as his own in perpetuity the particular house which he had entered, together with all it contained. For before the capture of the city the pilgrims had agreed that, after it had been taken by force, whatever each man might win for himself should be his forever by right of possession, without molestation. Consequently the pilgrims searched the city most carefully and boldly killed the citizens. They penetrated into the most retired and out-of-the-way places and broke open the most private apartments of the foe. At the entrance of each house, as it was taken the victor hung up his shield and his arms, as a sign to all who approached not to pause there but to pass by that place as already in possession of another.
    http://www.historymuse.net/readings/WilliamofTyreCAPTUREOFJERUSALEM.htm

    William might not have been a 'serious' historian - but he was a participant.
    20,000 men, women, and children. Slaughtered as 'just punishment' and their killers absolved of all sins before they even set foot in Jerusalem.

    The Communists never promised anyone eternal paradise for committing slaughter.


  • Options
    #478
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,980 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    William of Tyre - was he a cross-ply or a radial? :p

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c23MFIKiVdE


    Ironically they used one of the very best handling cars of the 1960s (BMC ADO16 - Morris/Austin 1100/1300) with front wheel drive as in illustration of what could kill you! They were obviously whacking on the handbrake in that video. The equivalent Ford or Vauxhall could easily send you through a ditch backwards with good tyres and relatively moderate provocation. But anyway...


    Amazing that what was an obvious [REDACTED] thread at the start has gone on so long.

    In the innocent part of my mind the question would be WHY would you convince people god exists?

    The cynical part provides the answer - wealth, power, chicks/kids (delete as appropriate) :eek:

    MOD
    Have deleted as appropriate in spirit of the charter which states
    Posters are not allowed to refer to each other, directly or indirectly, as "liars", "trolls", "bigots", "bullies", "soap-boxers" or any other terms which impute antisocial motives to other posters. In the normal run of discussion, posters should avoid disputed terms without agreeing on what precisely the terms might mean, and should definitions be agreed, these terms should be used sparingly and only to bring the discussion forward. An example of such a disputed term is "murder" in the context of abortion.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #479
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,980 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Now radials tracked the desired path more closely, and lasted longer, but were more expensive initially = Protestant

    Cross-plys tended to wander a bit, wore out more quickly but were cheaper = Catholic! :pac:

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #480
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,980 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    In the innocent part of my mind the question would be WHY would you convince people god exists?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti5AkLup1mI

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Evolution etc.

    Why do people believe in god.


    I am not saying whether i do or not. That's not the argument.

    Logically one should not.

    So why do people?

    Logically?

    If God exists and makes himself known to someone then logically they should believe in God.

    The usual issue revolves around the nature of admissible evidence. If you believe in a philosophy which says that the only evidence on which you ought base conclusions need be empirical, then logically you will wonder about people who base their conclusions on other evidence.

    This philosophy (about the exclusivity and primacy of empirical evidence) cannot, of course be evidenced empirically.

    Making the belief that follows from it somewhat hollow and circular in its reasoning.


    Rather than wonder why people believe in God, you should wonder about why you believe as you do, if you believe empirical evidence supreme and exclusive as a way of drawing conclusions.

    Very often attack (of another's way) is seen as the best form of defence for ones own problematic way.


Advertisement