nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wh1stler

philologos wrote: »

God is the one who determines what is moral and what is immoral. Ultimately it gets a little slippery the more and more people try to deny that much.

And judging by the 'moral progression' in the Bible, morality it subjective even to God.

Why say "Thou shalt not kill" and then say, "Kill all the Amalekites for me because I can't be bothered striking them down in the same way that I will strike down Bathsheba's son in order to punish David."?

He sets down a moral code and then compels the Israelites to break it.

No wonder Saul was confused.

philologos

I don't think there is a whole lot of "moral progression" in the Biblical text. Most of what is immoral in the Old Testament, is still immoral in the New Testament. The difference is how sin is dealt with in light of Jesus' death, resurrection and Jesus' coming return.

The command is "Thou shalt not murder". Murder is unlawful killing. God has the right to give life, and to take it away. David's son through an adulterous relationship was taken away precisely because it was the fruit of that adulterous relationship. Likewise, as God told Abraham the Amalekites and other nations in Caanan were punished for sin (Genesis 15:13-16) after 400 years of grace to turn the situation around.

Indeed, Jesus warns that God can take the life of any person at any stage (Luke 12 - see the Parable of the Rich Man).

Indeed, in Romans we're also told that sin usually warrants a penalty of death (Romans 1, Romans 6), but in light of Jesus we can have eternal life if we're willing to believe and trust in Him.

Oh, and even if morality is declared by God, and subject to Him (based on His knowledge of Creation). It is still objectively binding over humanity.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

"From ourselves" as Penn just wrote, is a problem. If it is "from ourselves". Who the heck are you to tell me that I am wrong to go fieldshooting humans on a Sunday lunchtime if that is why I feel is right to do? Why is your moral authority of any more weight than mine is?

Questions like these, make the "relative morality" expoused by many crash and burn. It's not a logical position in the slightest.

"From ourselves" is only one place where we get morality from. I also noted "From others" and "From society". Who am I to tell you shooting other people on a Sunday is wrong? No-one. Morality is somewhat subjective and my opinion is no greater than yours.

But from others and from society, what you are doing is wrong because what you're doing harms other people. That to me is what much of morality is based on. Don't do anything which harms or knowingly negatively affects other people. If I stole something from you, your person is not affected, but you are negatively affected because I took something that you owned which causes you a loss.

That's what most laws are based on. That's what most children are taught growing up. That's what most people decide for themselves. Don't do anything which negatively affects other people. No need for religion. Just simple logic.

That's more logical to me than following the morality set out in a 2000 year old book but not following all of the book because some of it is no longer relevant. Who decides that? Who decides what is no longer relevant from the Bible? If you can judge for yourself what is no longer relevant given how society has changed, then congratulations, your own morality supersedes the morality of your religion. You can judge morality for yourself, in conjunction with society's standards.

ISAW

Wh1stler wrote: »

And judging by the 'moral progression' in the Bible, morality it subjective even to God.

Why say "Thou shalt not kill" and then say, "Kill all the Amalekites for me because I can't be bothered striking them down."?

well more like "thou shalt not murder" and that prompts the question "what is murder? is killing the enemy in a war murder?"
when you start asking "what are the rules?" and have to get them written down you got into the probme,s of positive law as opposed to the spirit of natural law.

He sets down a moral code and then compels the Israelites to break it.

Well again more he is the source of moral code but the letter of a code isnt as important as the spirit of it. doing the right thing is what is wanted. and it isnt a question of "how do you know" and the cop out answer of "doing the right thing = God's will as a fundamental literal translation of the bible"

god would not ask people to do immoral things; That would mean god is unreasonable. therefore we have the following
1. God didnt ask it it was a human interpretation
2. The story can be interpreted in a different way just as a god in mythology being killed or eaten by another might symbolise change
3. the story is not literally dictated by God.
4. The bible isnt everything to do with christianity
5. Maybe God doesnt exist and the stories were all made up and retrofitted into history by a Judao christian group.

I dont think one has to jump immediately to 5 or that 5 is widely supported.

having stated all the above the Bible still doesnt have god directly or indirectly telling anyone to rape anyone else.

ISAW

Penn wrote: »

"From ourselves" is only one place where we get morality from. I also noted "From others" and "From society". Who am I to tell you shooting other people on a Sunday is wrong? No-one. Morality is somewhat subjective and my opinion is no greater than yours.

what do you men "somewhat" Is it or isnt it?
Do you mean it is sometimes objuctive too? If so we are in agreement.

But from others and from society,

what do you mean "from society" . If you are going to reiify objective morals in "society" why is it so unreasonable to accept those that deify objective morality?

you are aware that "from society" is basically akin to secular natural law?

what you are doing is wrong because what you're doing harms other people. That to me is what much of morality is based on.

i would argue that it is insuffieient e.g. not acting isnt doing harm but could be morally wrong but let us take "causing harm"
How do yu judge what "caused harm" using a subjective scale ather than an objective one?

Don't do anything which harms or knowingly negatively affects other people.

that would be an absolute objective moral principle of yours would it? One that should in principle apply to everyone everywhere?
not very subjective now are we?

That's what most laws are based on. That's what most children are taught growing up. That's what most people decide for themselves.

and therein lies the contradiction!

Most laws are based on natural law jurisprudence which existed before the laws were written.
this is entirely at variance with the idea of people making it up themselves as thy go along.

but let me be clear . It isnt a false dichotomy Im proposing. I accept society intrprets old ideas in new ways but that does not negate the spirit of natural law or the existance of unenumerated rights.

Don't do anything which negatively affects other people. No need for religion. Just simple logic.

Logic itself isnt sufficient.
Bu i didnt argue anything about religion just some natural law or objective absolute standards like rape always being wrong.

That's more logical to me than following the morality set out in a 2000 year old book

As Jesus and Paul apparently pointed out about a 4000 year old book 2000 years ago.
see below on next comment.

but not following all of the book because some of it is no longer relevant. Who decides that? Who decides what is no longer relevant from the Bible?

Aha! good question; As father jack would say "that would be an ecumenical matter"
And you have happened on the ecclesiastical polity!
Apostolic succession, Magesterium and all that mularky.

It was widely discussed . In fact as I just pointed out it is mentioned by Jesus and Paul f Tarsus in the bible itself.
Romans 5:13
Romans 7:8

so back to "why follow a 2000 year old book?"
the argument goes:
First of all, the Law strengthened sin against in order that we would realize our inability to keep the law. ( James 2:10, Romans 3:19-20, Galatians 3:10-11, Galatians 3:21-22 ) When we realize this, then we hopefully will realize our need for a Savior. ( Romans 3:21, Galatians 3:13 ) When we understand that Jesus is able to save us from the curse of the law then hopefully we will also understand that he saved us from the sin nature as well. ( Romans 6:6-7, Galatians 3: 13 ) Lastly he provided for us the righteousness that the Law describes as our new nature so that we would no longer struggle under the burden of sin or the law. ( Romans 3:22, Romans 6:18, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 4:24 ) Understanding all of this will allow you to be free in Christ Jesus. ( John 8:36, II Corinthians 3:17 )
http://www.jcblog.net/romans/7/285-romans-78-apart-from-the-law-sin-is-dead?tmpl=component&print=1

but not only that you have a HUGE tome of discussion for several centuries after.
the anti Nicean fathers for example
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
then the post Nicean ones.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/post-nicene/
the code of Justinian etc.
http://orias.berkeley.edu/summer2004/summer2004JustinianCode.htm

all can be see as prerequisites for Western Jurisprudence and are enfussed with natural law.

If you can judge for yourself what is no longer relevant given how society has changed, then congratulations, your own morality supersedes the morality of your religion. You can judge morality for yourself, in conjunction with society's standards.

see above.

tommy2bad

ISAW wrote: »

well more like "thou shalt not murder" and that prompts the question "what is murder? is killing the enemy in a war murder?"
when you start asking "what are the rules?" and have to get them written down you got into the probme,s of positive law as opposed to the spirit of natural law.

Well again more he is the source of moral code but the letter of a code isnt as important as the spirit of it. doing the right thing is what is wanted. and it isnt a question of "how do you know" and the cop out answer of "doing the right thing = God's will as a fundamental literal translation of the bible"

god would not ask people to do immoral things; That would mean god is unreasonable. therefore we have the following
1. God didnt ask it it was a human interpretation
2. The story can be interpreted in a different way just as a god in mythology being killed or eaten by another might symbolise change
3. the story is not literally dictated by God.
4. The bible isnt everything to do with christianity
5. Maybe God doesnt exist and the stories were all made up and retrofitted into history by a Judao christian group.

I dont think one has to jump immediately to 5 or that 5 is widely supported.

having stated all the above the Bible still doesnt have god directly or indirectly telling anyone to rape anyone else.

You have an obsession with rape ISAW, it's not healthy

Now from bullet 1 to 5, nice try but all of the options are flawed as they all reject the text of the bible. Once you start rewriting the central text its a slippery slope from 1 to 5.
Yet their is another option, two gods! one just and loving and one wrathful and jealous. Or more accurately two visions of God because we cant know God only glimpse Him and when in some situations, we see one face and in other situations we see a different face.

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more on the basis of what I said a few pages ago.

God is the one who determines what is moral and what is immoral. Ultimately it gets a little slippery the more and more people try to deny that much. I.E that morality is relative and so on.

"From ourselves" as Penn just wrote, is a problem. If it is "from ourselves". Who the heck are you to tell me that I am wrong to go fieldshooting humans on a Sunday lunchtime if that is why I feel is right to do? Why is your moral authority of any more weight than mine is?

Questions like these, make the "relative morality" expoused by many crash and burn. It's not a logical position in the slightest.

Morality is a duty, it is our responsibility, one could easily say that it is imposed.

You say God determines what is moral but seem to accept that its moral because He said so. I agree God determines what is moral but not because He said so, because He is moral, we are moral too after all we are made in His image. Morality is not a duty, its our nature, a fallen nature that needs support to be fully human and fully moral.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

"From ourselves" as Penn just wrote, is a problem. If it is "from ourselves". Who the heck are you to tell me that I am wrong to go fieldshooting humans on a Sunday lunchtime if that is why I feel is right to do? Why is your moral authority of any more weight than mine is?

This nonsense again.

You could ask "Who is God". All the Christians would reply But he is the creator of the universe, he decided what is right or wrong and thus he has the authority to tell you that what you are doing is wrong.

And so you say you don't accept that, just because he created you doesn't mean he gets to tell you what to do and you pick up your shoot gun and go out shooting humans on Sunday. The Christians sigh and say well at least we know we are right, as the bodies start piling up.

The reality is that it is meaningless to say someone else is wrong unless a) they agree with you are can be convinced b) you are prepared to physically stop them. You would have to justify why God has any more weight and then hope the person agrees with you.

It would be as pointless for me to say I don't think you should be shooting those humans as it would be for me to say God doesn't think you should be shooting those humans if you don't agree or don't care.

All appeals to the authority of God do is make believers feel better they don't have to justify their own moral beliefs.

Morbert

philologos wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more on the basis of what I said a few pages ago.

God is the one who determines what is moral and what is immoral. Ultimately it gets a little slippery the more and more people try to deny that much. I.E that morality is relative and so on.

"From ourselves" as Penn just wrote, is a problem. If it is "from ourselves". Who the heck are you to tell me that I am wrong to go fieldshooting humans on a Sunday lunchtime if that is why I feel is right to do? Why is your moral authority of any more weight than mine is?

Questions like these, make the "relative morality" expoused by many crash and burn. It's not a logical position in the slightest.

Morality is a duty, it is our responsibility, one could easily say that it is imposed.

The issues of what it means to say morality is not a natural law is in no way an argument for the existence of God. The axiological argument is a non-sequitur.

Secondly, you say moral relativism (I presume you mean descriptive moral relativism or moral nihilism; nobody here is a normative moral relativist) is not a logical position. You probably mean not a comfortable position. It is entirely logically consistent, even if you do not like what it says about morality.

philologos

Penn wrote: »

"From ourselves" is only one place where we get morality from. I also noted "From others" and "From society". Who am I to tell you shooting other people on a Sunday is wrong? No-one. Morality is somewhat subjective and my opinion is no greater than yours.

Whenever I hear atheists arguing for "relative morality" as if it is something hugely convincing, I just feel really disappointed that they've come from that POV in a debate. It is the weakest argument against Christianity I've seen argued on boards.ie.

"From ourselves" is weak because it means whatever I like is "good" and whatever I don't like is "evil". However, good and evil have damn little to do with what you like to do to someone. If for arguments sake I enjoyed beating someone up for a living, that doesn't mean that it is right, or good even if I may enjoy it.

"From society" is equally weak. It makes every single ethical decision an ad-populum decision. Just because a majority thinks that something is right, doesn't mean that it is so. Just think back to the last century and tell me you think that's sound logic.

Who are you to tell me that's wrong? - You're a person who can appeal to an objective standard which clearly determines that it is wrong. That's who you are. You are a person within Creation, with a conscience so as to better know what God has decreed.

Penn wrote: »

But from others and from society, what you are doing is wrong because what you're doing harms other people. That to me is what much of morality is based on. Don't do anything which harms or knowingly negatively affects other people. If I stole something from you, your person is not affected, but you are negatively affected because I took something that you owned which causes you a loss.

"Harm" or "negatively affects" are also subjective concepts relating to the human individual.

Penn wrote: »

That's what most laws are based on. That's what most children are taught growing up. That's what most people decide for themselves. Don't do anything which negatively affects other people. No need for religion. Just simple logic.

Laws != morality.

Ethical behaviour is about doing more than what is legal. What is legal actually can facilitate immorality.

Penn wrote: »

That's more logical to me than following the morality set out in a 2000 year old book but not following all of the book because some of it is no longer relevant. Who decides that? Who decides what is no longer relevant from the Bible? If you can judge for yourself what is no longer relevant given how society has changed, then congratulations, your own morality supersedes the morality of your religion. You can judge morality for yourself, in conjunction with society's standards.

It's not logical at all, because there is no objective way of claiming that something is indeed right rather than wrong. What is right can be whatever you please, what is wrong can be whatever you please. In the real world, this isn't how people regard morality no matter how ardently they might want to think it is, or indeed persuade others it is.

It is hugely unconvincing because it isn't how humans work.

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

You have an obsession with rape ISAW, it's not healthy

I picked an example which most people might believe "always wrong". We are talking about relative morals. I resent the implcation that I obsess abut rape.

Now from bullet 1 to 5, nice try but all of the options are flawed as they all reject the text of the bible.

You have been told already.
Christianity isnt all abut the bible. the bible is a book which Christians use fior guidance yes but to literally consider it in a fundamentalist way isnt Christianity.

Christians dont believe the earth is 6000 years old because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.
They do believe that the spirit of the idea of not doing wrong is encompassed in the bible.
they dont believe like jews it is all about following the law. Only on the general sense of "doing the right thing"
They also dont believe that the sole source of what is morally right is the bible or that the Bible is saying something that must be acceptable today because it is in the Bible.

for example I do not think any christian would think that a city of people should be destroyed by fire if there was a load of homosexual rapist in it.

Once you start rewriting the central text its a slippery slope from 1 to 5.
Yet their is another option, two gods! one just and loving and one wrathful and jealous. Or more accurately two visions of God because we cant know God only glimpse Him and when in some situations, we see one face and in other situations we see a different face.

indeed but christiaqns dont believe in two gods or a callous god or a watchmaker god.

tommy2bad

ISAW wrote: »

I picked an example which most people might believe "always wrong". We are talking about relative morals. I resent the implcation that I obsess abut rape.

Apologies, it was a joke, note the smily,:rolleyes:

You have been told already.
Christianity isnt all abut the bible. the bible is a book which Christians use fior guidance yes but to literally consider it in a fundamentalist way isnt Christianity.
Isn't your brand of christianity or mine but it is a brand.
Christians dont believe the earth is 6000 years old because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.
They do believe that the spirit of the idea of not doing wrong is encompassed in the bible.
they dont believe like jews it is all about following the law. Only on the general sense of "doing the right thing"
They also dont believe that the sole source of what is morally right is the bible or that the Bible is saying something that must be acceptable today because it is in the Bible.

for example I do not think any christian would think that a city of people should be destroyed by fire if there was a load of homosexual rapist in it.
I duno, read the daily mail and you might think differently,

indeed but christiaqns dont believe in two gods or a callous god or a watchmaker god.

Not now but one time! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
So it a loving God who orders the total destruction of a tribe including their children and animals? Or a mixed message that went horribly wrong?

Penn

philologos wrote: »

It is hugely unconvincing because it isn't how humans work.

So instead, you think humans work by a supernatural deity implanting morality in our soul when we're born and allowing us to learn about morality from a 2000 year old book, some of which can be ignored because it's no longer relevant but that it's mostly up to you to decide which parts are and aren't relevant?

Let me ask you a question: Why don't you kill people? Is it only because it's against your religion? Is it only because you don't think God wants you to? If that's the only thing stopping you from killing people, please stay out of this thread because if someone made a good enough argument that made you no longer believe in God, I dread to imagine the killing rampage you'd go on.

Or if you know yourself that killing is wrong, a) why do you credit God with giving you that rather than it being mostly influenced by parents (who teach us right from wrong when we are children and set an example for us) and society (which sets laws, human rights etc and that while morality etc is subjective and different for each person, sets out a much better framework for how to treat others and constantly adapts and changes with the times rather than the 2,000 year old Bible), and b) why do you think people who don't believe in God don't kill people?

marienbad

Penn wrote: »

So instead, you think humans work by a supernatural deity implanting morality in our soul when we're born and allowing us to learn about morality from a 2000 year old book, some of which can be ignored because it's no longer relevant but that it's mostly up to you to decide which parts are and aren't relevant?

Let me ask you a question: Why don't you kill people? Is it only because it's against your religion? Is it only because you don't think God wants you to? If that's the only thing stopping you from killing people, please stay out of this thread because if someone made a good enough argument that made you no longer believe in God, I dread to imagine the killing rampage you'd go on.

Or if you know yourself that killing is wrong, a) why do you credit God with giving you that rather than it being mostly influenced by parents (who teach us right from wrong when we are children and set an example for us) and society (which sets laws, human rights etc and that while morality etc is subjective and different for each person, sets out a much better framework for how to treat others and constantly adapts and changes with the times rather than the 2,000 year old Bible), and b) why do you think people who don't believe in God don't kill people?

And by the way that same family friends and society will then declare war and sent you off to killl people , no matter if it is a just war or not and you go and killl and come back a hero and wear you medals with pride and society will honour you and you will slot back into your role and kill no more.

And armies on both sides may worship the same god and believe he inspires them, but alas it is not so.

Family friends society decide your morals concience, right and wrong, laws whatever, religion as a part of society plays a part of course. But no natural justice, divine law handed down from o high.

Just the aggregate of individual opinion making up that society.

PDN

Penn wrote: »

So instead, you think humans work by a supernatural deity implanting morality in our soul when we're born and allowing us to learn about morality from a 2000 year old book, some of which can be ignored because it's no longer relevant but that it's mostly up to you to decide which parts are and aren't relevant?

If you want to engage in actual discussion, rather than cheap rhetorical shots, then it would be better to engage with what Christians actually believe rather than create absurd parodies.

Cossax

PDN wrote: »

If you want to engage in actual discussion, rather than cheap rhetorical shots, then it would be better to engage with what Christians actually believe rather than create absurd parodies.

1) Where's the cheap shot?
2) What's absurd about it?

ISAW

Cossax wrote: »

1) Where's the cheap shot?
2) What's absurd about it?

the "memetics" appeal

Or if you know yourself that killing is wrong, a) why do you credit God with giving you that rather than it being mostly influenced by parents (who teach us right from wrong when we are children and set an example for us) and society (which sets laws, human rights etc and that while morality etc is subjective and different for each person, sets out a much better framework for how to treat others and constantly adapts and changes with the times rather than the 2,000 year old Bible), and b) why do you think people who don't believe in God don't kill people?

1. Christianity would claim non chriistians can get the message and lead moral lives.
they are not all damned and this was discussed.

2. what is the source of human judgement and values? are you saying society is a consequence of a random shuffle of genes or that similar rules govern societal values and judgements and traits being passed on to later generations as those that govern genetics?

3. cant yo see that Christianity is not a literal following of a 4000 year old Bible?
It is the following of the spirit og the 1700 year old parts of that bible but encompassing the traditions and truth s in the 4000 year old bits. but in addition ther is 1700 years of developments in theology and jurisprudence based on that. Just as science isnt the fundamentalist following of 2000 year old Greek science (except that the logic and reason encompassed in it is still there)?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

It's not logical at all, because there is no objective way of claiming that something is indeed right rather than wrong. What is right can be whatever you please, what is wrong can be whatever you please. In the real world, this isn't how people regard morality no matter how ardently they might want to think it is, or indeed persuade others it is.

It is hugely unconvincing because it isn't how humans work.

You missed the point.

There is no objective way of claiming that a religion is right or wrong (and no Phil before you object I'm sorry there isn't).

Which means the religion you pick, and thus the objective moral standard you believe is the correct one, is entirely subjective based on how you picked your religion and which claim of an objective moral standard makes sense to you personally.

As Penn points out in order to have high confidence you picked correctly you yourself would have to already know as well or better than any god what the objective moral standard is.

Otherwise your pick will simply reflect your own personal subjective beliefs (which unsurprisingly is what actually happens when psychologists study what people actually do pick).

Or to put it another way, because the choice is entirely subjective you yourself would have to already have the objective moral standard engrained in you in order to pick correctly.

tommy2bad

Zombrex;
Or to put it another way, because the choice is entirely subjective you yourself would have to already have the objective moral standard engrained in you in order to pick correctly.

Which is what I believe is true, we see the same characteristics valued in different cultures again and again. Whether this is because we are made in Gods image or because we are made in the image of each other, the end result is the same.
No help in proving or disproving God at all.
Another thing, are we talking about morality at all here? isn't it more about values?
Life and the value we put on it, personal freedom, social responsibility, etc.
Values are cultural, no matter how much we debate the right and wrong of rape as it's come up, its the cultural definition thats defines rape. We think rape in marriage is wrong but a hundred years ago it would be inconceivable to anyone then.
Wife beating isn't concidered wrong is some cultures and even in our own wasnt seen as wrong up to not so long ago "Here's a good stick, to beat the lovely lady." quoted from The Quite man.

PDN

Cossax wrote: »

1) Where's the cheap shot?
2) What's absurd about it?

It is such a distortion of the orthodox Christian position that it can only be attributed to gross ignorance or to deliberate misrepresentation.

Historic Christianity sees the entire Bible as being inspired by God, but is Christocentric. In other words, the teachings of Jesus (either in his own words as recorded in the Gospels or as passed on by His apostles in the rest of the New Testament) are the key to interpreting and understanding the Old Testament.

The principles by which Christians determine which parts of the Bible are binding on people today and which are not are based on this New Testament revelation. You might not agree with them (particularly if you are not a Christian) but no honest person who has studied theology in any kind of depth would claim that are arbitrary. The New Testament has much to say about the relationship of the Old Testament law to the Christian believer, and how the coming of Christ has changed things.

Christians still sometimes disagree with each other over the details (as happens in any field of knowledge or belief where humans are involved and judgement calls need to be made) but they are in broad agreement as to the hermeneutical principles they are following.

No historic Christian tradition teaches that any of the Bible can just be ignored. They do, using clear and logical hermeneutical principles, agree with the New Testament that certain portions of the Old Testament are of historic and informative value in helping us understand how God dealt with the Jewish people many centuries ago, but do not apply to Christian believers following the coming of Christ. (For example, we understand that God permitted the Hebrews to practice justice according to "an eye for an eye" - which was an improvement on the surrounding cultures - but we also believe that Christ has commanded us to forgive our enemies).

So to say about the Bible "some of which can be ignored because it's no longer relevant but that it's mostly up to you to decide which parts are and aren't relevant?" is blatantly untrue. That is what I pointed out (as a poster rather than as a mod).

Andrewf20

After reading pages of this endless debating, with all this confusion and argument, I wish God (if he exists) would do something tangible to convince us once and for all the he is real, especially if he wants to save us. Why cant he do that.

Sorry, just a thought thats re-popped into my head.

HamletOrHecuba

Andrewf20 wrote: »

After reading pages of this endless debating, with all this confusion and argument, I wish God (if he exists) would do something tangible to convince us once and for all the he is real, especially if he wants to save us. Why cant he do that.

Sorry, just a thought thats re-popped into my head.

He has.

Do you want to be saved though?

Andrewf20

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

He has.

Not a convincing answer, as this thread or the debates world wide, would not be in existence if that were the case.

HamletOrHecuba

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Not a convincing answer, as this thread or the debates world wide, would not be in existence if that were the case.

I believe Christ's resurrection from the dead is extremely tangible.

I also believe the transformation through whole societies leaving aside the lives of the saints that it has wrought is also very tangible.

But....

"Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

Luke 16:27-31.

PDN

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Not a convincing answer, as this thread or the debates world wide, would not be in existence if that were the case.

So the existence of a debate therefore proves that no-one side has provided a convincing answer?

Try applying the same half-assed 'logic' to other scenarios.

Do you think the Creationism thread, and debates worldwide, thereby demonstrate that evolution has not been convincingly demonstrated? Heck, some people still argue for geocentrism - so I guess heliocentrism hasn't been convincingly demonstrated either?

Andrewf20

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

I believe Christ's resurrection from the dead is extremely tangible.

I also believe the transformation through whole societies leaving aside the lives of the saints that it has wrought is also very tangible.

But....

"Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

Luke 16:27-31.

But thats you, Im talking about athieists and non-Christians.

HamletOrHecuba

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Not a convincing answer, as this thread or the debates world wide, would not be in existence if that were the case.

We all have a vested interest sadly in not acknowledging that God exists and our reason is very agile.

HamletOrHecuba

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But thats you, Im talking about athieists and non-Christians.

Logically it could be argued that Islam makes more sense; but I dont see how its possible to get around the resurrection of Christ.

Andrewf20

PDN wrote: »

So the existence of a debate therefore proves that no-one side has provided a convincing answer?

Try applying the same half-assed 'logic' to other scenarios.

Do you think the Creationism thread, and debates worldwide, thereby demonstrate that evolution has not been convincingly demonstrated? Heck, some people still argue for geocentrism - so I guess heliocentrism hasn't been convincingly demonstrated either?

But this isnt any debate. With the proposed repurcussions (i.e. hell) of non belief, why cant there be 1 act of God that convinces us all that he is real? If God truely wants to save us, why cant he do that?

HamletOrHecuba

The Christian believes in Hell and fears its fire--not earthly fire, as clever unbelief would have it, but fire infinitely more painful because, like the bodies with which men shall rise on the Last Day, it shall be spiritual and unending. The world reproaches the Christian for believing in such an unpleasant reality; but it is neither perversity nor "sadism" that leads him to do so, but rather faith and experience. Only he, perhaps, can fully believe in Hell who fully believes in Heaven and life in God; for only he who has some idea of that life can have any notion of what its absence will mean.

For most men today "life" is a small thing, a fleeting thing of small affirmation and small denial, veiled in comforting illusions and the hopeful prospect of ultimate nothingness; such men will know nothing of Hell until they live in it. But God loves even such men too much to allow them simply to "forget" Him and "pass away" into nothingness, out of His Presence which alone is life to men; He offers, even to those in Hell, His Love which is torment to those who have not prepared themselves in this life to receive it. Many, we know, are tested and purified in those flames and made fit by them to dwell in the Kingdom of Heaven; but others, with the demons for whom Hell was made, must dwell there eternally.

There is no need, even today when men seem to have become too weak to face the truth, to soften the realities of the next life; to those--be they Nihilists or more moderate humanists--who presume to fathom the Will of the Living God, and to judge Him for His "cruelty," one may answer with an unequivocal assertion of something in which most of them profess to believe: the dignity of man. God has called us, not to the modern "heaven" of repose and sleep, but to the full and deifying glory of the sons of God; and if we, whom our God thinks worthy to receive it, reject this call,--then better for us the flames of Hell, the torment of that last and awful proof of man's high calling and of God's unquenchable Love for men, than the nothingness to which men of small faith, and the Nihilism of our age, aspire. Nothing less than Hell is worthy of man, if he be not worthy of Heaven.

Fr Seraphim Rose. 1963.