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.
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.
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.
philologos wrote: » Rejection of God is a fundamental denial of how all things came to be as far as Christians are concerned.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 2:8-10For 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.
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.
philologos ; Ultimately repeatedly stating that Christianity is irrational and illogical doesn't make it so.
philologos wrote: » What do you have to back this up or is it mere conjecture?
tommy2bad wrote: » But why? what has the bible to offer an atheist?
tommy2bad wrote: » More to the point having researched the bible why do they still come up with lame accusations of contradictions.
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...
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.
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.
philologos wrote: » I haven't seen any "significant flaws" really.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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 wrote: » 'Refute' is not a synonym for 'ignore'.
Zombrex wrote: » How did the different human languages on Earth develop?Genesis 111 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:
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.
Wh1stler wrote: » The bolded part cannot be interpreted as anything other than a call for the utter destruction of the Amalekites.
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.
Didn't God notice all the Amalekites that were sneaking away?
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.
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?
Perhaps you believe that modern day Palestinians deserve a similar fate to the Amalekites and the Canaanites?
Now, is it wrong to hack children to death? Yes or no!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
