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

Just a thought...

1…6791112…16

Comments

  • #242
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    whatsup? wrote: »
    So, we may have wrongly interpreted an evil murderous God as an all loving almighty? So we're worshiping the devil but got it wrong and treat him as good?
    Look every religious person of any sort of belief believes in a loving God. The Church presents a loving God, even Islam, Judaism and every other world religion have a "good guy" at the top, so your're argument makes no sense. if we treat our almighty as ultimately good and conduct ourselves based on his message of Love then we can't fare too wrong. Its universally accepted by persons of faith and supported by Christ, that a Loving God created us so we haven't got it wrong.

    I'm sorry, maybe I'm just not explaining myself very well. But what you're just saying there is that "We love a good god. How do we know he's good? Well he tells us that he's good." It's a completely circular argument. So if you discount your own personal bias and look at the actions portrayed of such a god, you plainly see that it is not a good god. The god of the old testament was an evil god. There is absolutely no debating that unless you insert your own bias or the bias of any other individual or group who has a vested interest in presenting their own god in the most favourable light. Since Jesus was supposedly the son of god and since, presumably, you believe in the concept of the trinity, you must also believe that the god of the old testament is your god too, not just some bygone remnant of an old jewish god. Even examined separately, there can be no argument that both versions of that god, both the father and the son, displayed at least a FEW extremely evil tendencies, although admittedly Jesus' actions weren't AS bad.

    You're also conflating statements of opinion and statements of fact. You say that every religion has a good guy at the top. That simply isn't a fact. That is a matter of opinion. The point that I'm trying to make there is that it can be interpreted it both ways and the only reason you are viewing it as a god of love is because you have a vested interest in doing so. You constantly repeat "oh well Jesus said he was a god of love" and yet you completely and utterly ignore any evidence that suggests otherwise because it doesn't mesh with your own ideas. That is called personal bias and it contributes no useful information as to whether your own personal point of view is true or not. And having said ALL of that, even if all of the actions attributed to any form of your god were all positive in nature, which I can absolutely 100% assure you they are not, it STILL wouldn't make any difference to the question about whether that god exists or not.

    whatsup? wrote: »
    Yes Jesus does wholeheartedly approve the Old Testament. The Catechism describes it as an "an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture" and it shouldn't be cast aside. The main part of your quote is "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" Jesus didn't abandon the Jewish God but fulfilled our understanding of him by teaching about his Love. Therefore all other mentions of God in the OT are now perfected with this Love.

    So what, Jesus appeared and suddenly all the evil stuff that god did in the old testament didn't happen anymore? You mean the old testament god never existed? Did he bring people back to life that he personally had killed or ordered others to kill? Do you actually deny that the god of the old testament was a pernicious entity, acting much like a petulant child? I don't see how anyone can put forward that idea with any sort of credibility or explanation that is rooted in reality.

    whatsup? wrote: »
    We're not supposed to follow the laws of the OT, firstly because they were laws enacted by dictatorships and obeyed in societies that are alien to the world today and also Jesus replaced these laws with his message so to follow the laws is to follow Christ.

    Except for the fact that Jesus TELLS you to obey them. He specifically instructs you to obey them. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about that concept. He, in his own words, instructs you to obey the laws of the old testament. But according to you, and indeed according to certain areas of the bible, he also preaches love. Does that not seem like contradictory instructions? Obey the old testament but don't obey it at the same time? What's happening here is again more of the same story as before. You and certain other christians disregard any evidence that does not suit your own personal point of view because it's simply too inconvenient or embarrassing to admit that far from being a convincing account of the existence of a deity or even from being an accurate representation of history, the bible is nothing more than a series of disjointed and contradictory fables that have been used over time by groups of individuals in an attempt to garner themselves more power. None of what has been presented in the bible or by any group of christian believers has any influence on what the truth of the matter with regards to gods existence is.


    whatsup? wrote: »
    Adam and Eve is generally regarded as fiction, even the last Pope more or less accepted evolution yet maintained the uniqueness of the human soul and attributed God as the creator of the soul. "this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers". and he described all the research on the matter as a "significant argument in favour of this theory" Adam and Eve is more a metaphor for how we are all, like Adam, so prone to sin regardless of our intentions. Jesus Came firstly to reveal the true face of God and to "fulfill" the ancient scriptures that were written about him. Also by revealing Gods Love he offers Heaven to those who Love him.

    And yet, evolution was denied by the church for a very long time indeed. And because they denied evolution, there was no need to regard the story of Adam and Eve as being false because there was no direct contradictory evidence that was as powerful as evolution. But now that evolution has indeed been proven time and again to be true, the church has to adapt its teachings to avoid embarrassment and shame, firstly indicating that so called eternal laws and beliefs are really a lot more mutable than any religious organisation would want you to believe, and secondly showing the true nature of the beast as nothing more than a group of individuals who would lie and deceive their followers in order to not lose their hold on what little power they have left.

    whatsup? wrote: »
    Of course it would be great of God appeared and proved his existence to the whole world and I don't know why he doesn't. Waiting around for concrete proof is a waste of time as there is none to suit either argument that God exists or does not, but claiming there is no God because he doesn't actually come and meet us is futile. Faith is needed and it ain't easy believing either but that what the faith is, believing in a God without concrete evidence. the whole issue of free will comes up too, if God forced us to worship him then would that be fair either? The choice to believe or not sums up the nature of God, he is there if you want him but if you don't, then fine. God gave us the choice to believe so I suppose that's why he doesn't pop in for tea now and again to remind us that he is the real deal. It's a massive theological question as to why God doesn't force us to worship him. The church teaches that God created man and whether to believe or not is 'left in the hand of his own counsel,'. We chose to believe and if not then 'our own prerogative but to assume there in no God because the capacity to believe this concept exists is incorrect.

    Doesn't force us to worship him? Are you serious? "Worship me or go to an eternal hell of torment." That seems like serious coercion if you ask me. It's all well and good to say that we have free will but it's not really free will if you're instructed to do something and if you don't do it, you're going to be punished.


  • #243
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    Improbable wrote: »
    Matthew 15:3-4

    But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

    This is about honoring parents with respect and love and those who don't will ultimately pay the price, call it divine judgement or karma or whatever. All religions place some form of judgement on those who go against the will of God. Judgement that usually sees them pay the price for their crimes..if this substitutes an "evil God" in your case then that's your view but just because he judges us based on our actions in this life doesn't make him any less loving.
    Improbable wrote: »
    Matthew 24:50-51

    The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    Just a prophecy of the second coming of Christ where we will be judged. It says the Lord will "cut him asunder" so i know how an evil God can be perceived from this.

    Catholicism teaches that we must do good otherwise we will pay the price but how can an evil God be perceived from this? Are you saying we should be allowed to do evil and get away with it? At least religion is proposing that a good and just life is the best form of life and that in doing so we will be rewarded in heaven. the only person who would have difficulty with a good God condemning the wicked is the wicked themselves so i'm sure you have nothing to worry about there..
    Improbable wrote: »
    Mark 6:10-11

    And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

    Personally I interpret that as referring to people who ignore God's way and do evil rather than people who don't believe at all. It says whoever does not "receive you" will be punished and that you should leave the house and "shake the dust off your feet". Those who ignore God will be treated more harshly than Sodom and Gomorrah was in the OT.
    Improbable wrote: »
    Corinthians 3:17

    If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

    I'm not sure myself on that. There are many ways of interpreting scripture correctly if you are interested in pursuing it. My limited knowledge is probably of little benefit to you i think.
    Improbable wrote: »
    Yes, such evidence of love right there...


    If you are saying that just because God condemns the evil then he himself is evil, then i disagree. As humans we look down upon and despise those who commit evil and do awful wrong, yet that doesn't make us evil. When we read about situations whereby God will destroy those who go against his plan its very much open to interpretation of what you think his plan is. Following Catholicism means doing good or otherwise you will be punished. Surly that's a good message to preach.

    Improbable wrote: »
    But you HAVE to believe in the story of Adam and Eve. Their acts are the basis of original sin are they not? And isn't the appearance of Jesus required because god wanted to create a new covenant with man that would allow future generations from Adam and Eve to not be destined to go to hell?

    I mentioned Adam and eve in my other post and even the last Pope pretty much accepted evolution and so rendered the Adam and Eve tale as fiction, which of course it is. Jesus came to save us from our own sin which we are capable of performing because all humans before us have sinned (Adam being an example of the very first human who committed the "original sin"). We sin because we have the free will to sin.
    Improbable wrote: »
    And please don't just say "that's the old testament". Without that, there would be no reason for Jesus' existence at all. You can quote "love of god" over and over again but it doesn't really mean anything and it doesn't override the fact that the bible is a terrible place to look for morals and love. Both the old and new testament.

    But the Love of God taught by Jesus does over ride everything else, it fulfills the scriptures.

    Basically we are created by God out of love and if we go against his plan we will be punished. Of course what is his plan? I see it as living a good life as best you can. the idea that "the wicked will be destroyed" shouldn't give way for an evil God. We will all be judged, according to scripture, based on our actions so if you live well there is nothing to worry about..it's only the "wicked" that have need for caution, those who do evil will pay the price...and is there anything wrong with that?


  • #244
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    Improbable wrote: »
    I'm sorry, maybe I'm just not explaining myself very well. But what you're just saying there is that "We love a good god. How do we know he's good? Well he tells us that he's good." It's a completely circular argument. So if you discount your own personal bias and look at the actions portrayed of such a god, you plainly see that it is not a good god. The god of the old testament was an evil god. There is absolutely no debating that unless you insert your own bias or the bias of any other individual or group who has a vested interest in presenting their own god in the most favourable light. Since Jesus was supposedly the son of god and since, presumably, you believe in the concept of the trinity, you must also believe that the god of the old testament is your god too, not just some bygone remnant of an old jewish god. Even examined separately, there can be no argument that both versions of that god, both the father and the son, displayed at least a FEW extremely evil tendencies, although admittedly Jesus' actions weren't AS bad.

    You're also conflating statements of opinion and statements of fact. You say that every religion has a good guy at the top. That simply isn't a fact. That is a matter of opinion. The point that I'm trying to make there is that it can be interpreted it both ways and the only reason you are viewing it as a god of love is because you have a vested interest in doing so. You constantly repeat "oh well Jesus said he was a god of love" and yet you completely and utterly ignore any evidence that suggests otherwise because it doesn't mesh with your own ideas. That is called personal bias and it contributes no useful information as to whether your own personal point of view is true or not. And having said ALL of that, even if all of the actions attributed to any form of your god were all positive in nature, which I can absolutely 100% assure you they are not, it STILL wouldn't make any difference to the question about whether that god exists or not.




    So what, Jesus appeared and suddenly all the evil stuff that god did in the old testament didn't happen anymore? You mean the old testament god never existed? Did he bring people back to life that he personally had killed or ordered others to kill? Do you actually deny that the god of the old testament was a pernicious entity, acting much like a petulant child? I don't see how anyone can put forward that idea with any sort of credibility or explanation that is rooted in reality.




    Except for the fact that Jesus TELLS you to obey them. He specifically instructs you to obey them. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about that concept. He, in his own words, instructs you to obey the laws of the old testament. But according to you, and indeed according to certain areas of the bible, he also preaches love. Does that not seem like contradictory instructions? Obey the old testament but don't obey it at the same time? What's happening here is again more of the same story as before. You and certain other christians disregard any evidence that does not suit your own personal point of view because it's simply too inconvenient or embarrassing to admit that far from being a convincing account of the existence of a deity or even from being an accurate representation of history, the bible is nothing more than a series of disjointed and contradictory fables that have been used over time by groups of individuals in an attempt to garner themselves more power. None of what has been presented in the bible or by any group of christian believers has any influence on what the truth of the matter with regards to gods existence is.





    And yet, evolution was denied by the church for a very long time indeed. And because they denied evolution, there was no need to regard the story of Adam and Eve as being false because there was no direct contradictory evidence that was as powerful as evolution. But now that evolution has indeed been proven time and again to be true, the church has to adapt its teachings to avoid embarrassment and shame, firstly indicating that so called eternal laws and beliefs are really a lot more mutable than any religious organisation would want you to believe, and secondly showing the true nature of the beast as nothing more than a group of individuals who would lie and deceive their followers in order to not lose their hold on what little power they have left.




    Doesn't force us to worship him? Are you serious? "Worship me or go to an eternal hell of torment." That seems like serious coercion if you ask me. It's all well and good to say that we have free will but it's not really free will if you're instructed to do something and if you don't do it, you're going to be punished.

    I'm not going to dissect each and every line. Basically you accuse me saying that I have chosen that God is Good when he is infact evil and that my own personal "bias" has caused me to do this, yet you the one who constantly assumes that the God of the Bible is a complete murderer, is that not rooted in bias and a refusal to look at the text in its entirety? Jesus preached the opposite of what you claim yet you disregard that and constantly refer to the slaughters in the OT for supporting your view. Examine the whole text.

    I have (as has the Church) accepted a God of Love based on Christ and the events of the Gospels yet I do that while examining the whole Bible, each and every line realizing that the OT is a commentary of a peoples view of God, mixed with customs, traditions and an ancient belief that every God from the Romans, Greeks and Pagan Lords were evil, while the Gospels on which everything is based presents a God of love. Everything in the Bible ends in the Gospels. Accounts of slaughters which I admit make for awkward reading do not represent the God we have today.


  • #245
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    whatsup? wrote: »
    This is about honoring parents with respect and love and those who don't will ultimately pay the price, call it divine judgement or karma or whatever. All religions place some form of judgement on those who go against the will of God. Judgement that usually sees them pay the price for their crimes..if this substitutes an "evil God" in your case then that's your view but just because he judges us based on our actions in this life doesn't make him any less loving.

    No, it says that if you curse your parents, that you should die. The bible doesn't get any more clear than that. There is absolutely no room for interpretation there.

    whatsup? wrote: »
    Just a prophecy of the second coming of Christ where we will be judged. It says the Lord will "cut him asunder" so i know how an evil God can be perceived from this.

    Er, no it isn't. It doesn't have anything to do with that... It's a conversation about a master and a slave. Not the master and slave relationship between man and god, but actual flesh and blood people. Perhaps you should have studied it a bit more carefully...

    whatsup? wrote: »
    Personally I interpret that as referring to people who ignore God's way and do evil rather than people who don't believe at all. It says whoever does not "receive you" will be punished and that you should leave the house and "shake the dust off your feet". Those who ignore God will be treated more harshly than Sodom and Gomorrah was in the OT.

    So in your interpretation, anyone who doesn't do exactly as god commands is evil... I see... This is in your view more evidence of a loving god I suppose...

    whatsup? wrote: »
    I'm not sure myself on that. There are many ways of interpreting scripture correctly if you are interested in pursuing it. My limited knowledge is probably of little benefit to you i think.

    Oh I'm pretty sure that's not needed. It seems pretty straight forward. Defile the temple, god will kill you. How can you seriously interpret such plain words in ANY other way? Unless of course your aim is to deliberately portray god in a positive light.

    whatsup? wrote: »
    If you are saying that just because God condemns the evil then he himself is evil, then i disagree. As humans we look down upon and despise those who commit evil and do awful wrong, yet that doesn't make us evil. When we read about situations whereby God will destroy those who go against his plan its very much open to interpretation of what you think his plan is. Following Catholicism means doing good or otherwise you will be punished. Surly that's a good message to preach.

    This is just a complete non sequitur. In the passages I've linked, he's not condemning people who have committed evil crimes... And certainly not crimes that justify death and eternal punishment. Unless of course he's an evil entity.

    Following the catholic church means doing good? I suppose the crusades were a good thing too then? And the inquisitions. And denying that condoms prevent STI's. They were all good things and good teachings.

    whatsup? wrote: »
    I'm not going to dissect each and every line. Basically you accuse me saying that I have chosen that God is Good when he is infact evil and that my own personal "bias" has caused me to do this, yet you the one who constantly assumes that the God of the Bible is a complete murderer, is that not rooted in bias and a refusal to look at the text in its entirety? Jesus preached the opposite of what you claim yet you disregard that and constantly refer to the slaughters in the OT for supporting your view. Examine the whole text.

    No, it is not rooted in bias. I am merely pointing out his actions according to the bible. As I have pointed out to you numerous times, the fact that jesus came along and presented a different view of god does not negate the actions of god before that. It doesn't make it so that they never happened. As a matter of fact, I am the only one out of the two of us who IS looking at the bible as a whole. I am not denying that there were positive aspects to what jesus said. But there is also no denying that there were aspects of his character that were less than savoury such as condoning slavery and declaring that children who curse their parents should die. You are the one who is denying the god of the old testament by brushing it away saying that your covenant is with jesus and not the old god of the old testament. But they are one and the same according to the concept of the trinity. So you are in point of fact the one who is not looking at the whole picture.

    At any rate, I don't believe that this mystical magical sky fairy exists and the contradictory nature of his appearances and words and actions in both testaments is exactly what you would expect not from an all powerful deity but from the workings of human minds in the infancy of our existence as an intellectual species. There is no proof, no evidence, no logical reason and no cause to believe that any of it holds any truth other than fear, idiocy or a desire to believe, which as I have stated time and time again, doesn't make it any more true.

    I'm done with this conversation.


  • #246
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    Improbable wrote: »
    Er, no it isn't. It doesn't have anything to do with that... It's a conversation about a master and a slave. Not the master and slave relationship between man and god, but actual flesh and blood people. Perhaps you should have studied it a bit more carefully...

    That quote is directly linked to the second coming, maybe you should have studied it more closely...

    The master is God, "The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him" i.e. The Lord will return when we least expect him and cast judgement.

    These quotes CANNOT be read literally..look for the hidden message and interpret it whatever way you like.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    Improbable wrote: »
    There is no proof, no evidence, no logical reason and no cause to believe that any of it holds any truth other than fear, idiocy or a desire to believe, which as I have stated time and time again, doesn't make it any more true.

    I'm done with this conversation.

    Likewise, There is no proof, no evidence, no logical reason and no cause to believe that any of what you believe holds any truth other than thinking somehow that you have reached a higher level of intelligence and therefore a belief in God is a daft, ancient and clandestine idea that is more suited to cave men than men and women in 2012.

    Anyway whatever you believe is your own business as is my beliefs my own business.


  • #248
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    whatsup? wrote: »
    I'm not going (.......) Gospels. Accounts of slaughters which I admit make for awkward reading do not represent the God we have today.

    I thought he was eternal?

    You might get back to me on
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79682743&postcount=234


  • #249
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    Nodin wrote: »
    So essentially the old Testament is wrong. Grand.

    Does this "its not to be taken literally except when it is" kind of thing not set off any alarm bells at all when applied to certain teachings of the church?

    God is eternal and never changing, the God of the OT is the exact same as the God today.

    The God of the OT is not wrong it portrays a God who led and saved his people from slavery and spoke through various prophets to foretell the coming of his son Jesus Christ.

    Events where God is seen to encourage hate based on allegiance to him is the ancients peoples way of converting societies to believe in God. i.e. you see several times where God orders the unfaithful to be wiped of the face of the earth..this cannot be interpreted literally as doing so would distort the Word. The basic message behind these "evil God" stories is to follow the Lord whatever the circumstances. God ordered the killings of no one as it flies in the face of the God revealed by Jesus. Ancient Jewish societies wrote these stories and they include their laws etc so that why there is so much evidence of slaughters.

    Much of the Bible is not to be read literally but in the knowledge that God is good. Texts have hidden messages. Protestant churches place great importance on biblical studies and correct interpretation, the RCC could take a leaf out of their book.

    The Church teachings are not supposed to be open to debate either but of course they are.


  • #250
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    whatsup? wrote: »
    God is eternal and never changing, the God of the OT is the exact same as the God today.
    ..........
    The Church teachings are not supposed to be open to debate either but of course they are.

    A lot of contradictory information in this post.


  • #251
    Dimithy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 351 ✭✭Dimithy


    whatsup? wrote: »
    God is eternal and never changing, the God of the OT is the exact same as the God today.

    The God of the OT is not wrong it portrays a God who led and saved his people from slavery and spoke through various prophets to foretell the coming of his son Jesus Christ.

    Events where God is seen to encourage hate based on allegiance to him is the ancients peoples way of converting societies to believe in God. i.e. you see several times where God orders the unfaithful to be wiped of the face of the earth..this cannot be interpreted literally as doing so would distort the Word. The basic message behind these "evil God" stories is to follow the Lord whatever the circumstances. God ordered the killings of no one as it flies in the face of the God revealed by Jesus. Ancient Jewish societies wrote these stories and they include their laws etc so that why there is so much evidence of slaughters.

    Much of the Bible is not to be read literally but in the knowledge that God is good. Texts have hidden messages. Protestant churches place great importance on biblical studies and correct interpretation, the RCC could take a leaf out of their book.

    The Church teachings are not supposed to be open to debate either but of course they are.


    So god is good, because god is good.
    And any stories, in THE BIBLE, about god being evil were just made up by the Jews so they could slaughter other tribes, and we shouldn't believe them.
    But everything in the bible is true, except for the made up parts about god being a murderous so and so, because god is good.

    I dont know about anyone else, but that makes perfect sense to me.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    whatsup? wrote: »

    Anyway whatever you believe is your own business as is my beliefs my own business.

    Ah theres no need to be like that. No one's saying you cant hold your beliefs and in fairness while we disagree big time at least you've defended them honestly imo even if i think you do some crazy internal logic ;) There's good cause to probably stop before you get angry with people for trying to point out honestly as well their concerns with your beliefs. There's no smarter than thou going on here!


  • #253
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Ah theres no need to be like that. No one's saying you cant hold your beliefs and in fairness while we disagree big time at least you've defended them honestly imo even if i think you do some crazy internal logic ;) There's good cause to probably stop before you get angry with people for trying to point out honestly as well their concerns with your beliefs. There's no smarter than thou going on here!

    haha yea i wasn't getting angry..and I love to see debate like this from both sides...Anyway it would be one hell of a boring world if we all thought the same thing!


  • #254
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,614 ✭✭✭swampgas


    whatsup? wrote: »
    [ ... ]
    These quotes CANNOT be read literally..look for the hidden message and interpret it whatever way you like.

    Surely this is exactly what you are doing - ignoring the obvious meaning of the text, and pretending that it somehow contains a hidden message - which is whatever you want it to be.

    We could all do that, and with pretty much any text. Such an approach to the Bible is self-delusional and only works for you because you have already decided in your own mind exactly what the text is going to tell you in advance.


  • #255
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    whatsup? wrote: »
    God is eternal and never changing, the God of the OT is the exact same as the God today.

    The God of the OT is not wrong it portrays a God who led and saved his people from slavery and spoke through various prophets to foretell the coming of his son Jesus Christ.

    Events where God is seen to encourage hate based on allegiance to him is the ancients peoples way of converting societies to believe in God. i.e. you see several times where God orders the unfaithful to be wiped of the face of the earth..this cannot be interpreted literally as doing so would distort the Word. The basic message behind these "evil God" stories is to follow the Lord whatever the circumstances. God ordered the killings of no one as it flies in the face of the God revealed by Jesus. Ancient Jewish societies wrote these stories and they include their laws etc so that why there is so much evidence of slaughters.

    Much of the Bible is not to be read literally but in the knowledge that God is good. Texts have hidden messages. Protestant churches place great importance on biblical studies and correct interpretation, the RCC could take a leaf out of their book.

    The Church teachings are not supposed to be open to debate either but of course they are.

    So its wrong except where its right.

    Again I have to ask - do you not find this a bit "convenient"? Does it not set off an alarm bell now and again with regard to some church teachings?


  • #256
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    But even things like the flood, you have to concede an evil god here. You say natural disaster but we're talking about a god that has had no problem interfering regularly before who allowed the nature he created to almost completely wipe out his chosen people. He's either evil or easily distracted by something else.

    Edit - by the way as of the funny side thread, our current "extreme" weather has resulted in a Bishop calling on prayers to god to sort it out. I can only imagine the pleas that must have went to him during the start of the flood.


  • #257
    joseph brand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    whatsup? wrote: »

    Anyway whatever you believe is your own business as is my beliefs my own business.

    But isn't that the problem?

    Religious beliefs (those of the RCC) are intruding on everyone's business in this country. Nobody cares what you believe as long as you keep it to yourself.

    Example: Islamic Nigerians are trying to inflict Sharia Law on the Christian half of the country. Their method of implementation involves extreme violence, just to get it off the ground. It's all downhill from there on in.


  • #258
    joseph brand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    whatsup? wrote: »
    haha yea i wasn't getting angry..and I love to see debate like this from both sides...Anyway it would be one hell of a boring world if we all thought the same thing!

    While I don't agree with your posts in general, I can't remember a better poster on this forum arguing the other side.

    Either you're a level headed theist (rare round these parts) or you're a new model theist who's very sneaky. ;)


  • #259
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    whatsup? wrote: »
    Deuteronomy was written by Moses and most Biblical scholars consider many of the events from the OT to be peoples perception of God not actual historical events, Noah and the flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were probably linked to natural disasters such as great rainfalls or earthquakes, the people of the time interpreted them as God's wrath and so stories were written that made it into the Bible. Not every word of the Bible should be interpreted as fact.

    Just curious, you attribute examples of gods wrath as most likely just being misunderstood natural events. And I agree with this, people didn't have the understanding of the world around us that we have built up today, so it is very understandable that they would attribute something beyond their understanding to something supernatural. But if you contend that the bad things could just be people misunderstanding the world around them, surely you must also accept that the good things could be the same sorts of misunderstanding.

    I know you aren't exactly comfortable defending the old testament, but surely you understand that if you expect us to take the new testament and the whole son of god thing seriously, you must first establish the whole god part. So if you discount the parts of the bible that portray god as evil, and are forced by the same justifications to discount the parts that portray god as neutral or good, then what is your justification for a god belief in the first place? Is there any part of the old testament that can't be discounted by misunderstanding or misreporting or an attempt to justify some action, that can be taken as proof of anything? There was a bishop recently who suggested that people pray for an end to the rain we have been having, if it ends tomorrow will that just be because some days it doesn't rain or proof of something more?

    When Alfred Wegener first suggested plate tectonics in 1912, the idea was ridiculed, and pretty understandably so. But in 1950 paleomagnetism was producing data which supported the theory the 1960s saw several developments and discoveries in geology which backed it up, and now GPS allows us to measure the movement of the continents directly. The theory of plate tectonics is almost uniformly accepted and in the space of just about 50 years our understanding of the earth completely changed, and this is just one example out of many. Does it not worry you that despite being one of the oldest and richest organizations in the world, the church still don't have a single scrap of anything but which the most ardent believer would ever consider evidence? Not only do they not have evidence, but they praise those who will believe without it "blessed are those that believe without seeing" (Very few part of the bible are extolled more than that one). After over a millennium of existence and still all you have to go on is blind faith (and if you care to tell me the difference between credulity and faith, I would be interested to hear it). Wegener's ideas are no longer ridiculed because people did the leg work, built a case from them, argued for them, ultimately validated them, and earned the respect that they then deserved. Psudoscience like homeopathy or astrology are still ridiculed because they haven't built a case or validated themselves and therefore don't deserve respect. Like religion, their proponents also believe they deserve to skip those steps.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion! What annoyed me here was to see the church and those who possess a faith in it being constantly ridiculed and belittled.
    Firstly I want to point out something here, there is a difference between ridiculing a person and an opinion they might hold (or more importantly express, one my friends might believe in fairies, if they do we have never debated over it because they have never expressed it to me), generally we do the latter and not the former. I'm a scientist, if I present a paper sometimes people will disagree with it, they will argue or debate against it, if they find it especially egregious they might ridicule it (although it would certainly make it easier for me if I were allowed to dismiss any criticisms by saying everyone is entitled to their opinion, it just wouldn't work that well). If politicians disagree, they debate, argue and sometimes ridicule. If my friends and I disagree, we debate, argue and sometimes ridicule each others points. That is just the way the world works. What is special about religious beliefs that they should be immune from debate? If people were able to argue over religion, as we strive to in on every other subject, instead of reacting angrily, then I honestly think there would be a lot less religiously motivated violence in the world. The only explanation I can think of why people believe they shouldn't have to, is because on some level they recognize how indefensible they are.

    Perhaps you do not think your religion worthy of ridicule, but perhaps you can see why another religion might be. Take mormonism for example (if you have seen the south park episode on it, it is pretty accurate). The founder of that religion, was a convicted conman, claimed to receive golden tablets from an angel, which he couldn't show to anyone and instead hid them behind a curtain as he dictated them to another person. The wife of that other person was skeptical enough to suggest an easy test, hiding the original manuscript and getting Joseph Smith to dictate another copy so they could compare, then the angel was annoyed that smith lost the original so punished him by refusing the original and giving a slightly different account, before taking the golden tablets away forever, and so on. More importantly the details of the religion itself makes a lot of claims that were later proven to be wrong by genetics or Egyptology (mormonism included a translation of some hieroglyphics back when we didn't know how to translate them, the later discovery of the rosetta stone allowed us to actually translate them, invalidating theirs) or geology, or just other science in general. Despite all this there are people who honestly and fervently believe this religion, every bit as much as you believe yours. At least I'd hope you'd agree that it is a little ridiculous, if not outright depressing, because despite its ridiculousness it has also caused its fair share of racism, misogyny, child abuse and suffering among its adherents. And in honesty can you really defend your religion any more than they can defend theirs?

    I can agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but nobody is entitled to state their opinion and hold it beyond question. Or at least society has a consensus on this for every other opinion but religion.


  • #260
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    Knasher wrote: »
    I know you aren't exactly comfortable defending the old testament, but surely you understand that if you expect us to take the new testament and the whole son of god thing seriously, you must first establish the whole god part.


    So if you discount the parts of the bible that portray god as evil, and are forced by the same justifications to discount the parts that portray god as neutral or good, then what is your justification for a god belief in the first place?

    The idea that Christians discount any part of the Bible is incorrect as the Bible is the true word of God. I think what you're asking is if one can disregard the quotes where an "evil God" is evident and then pick and chose sections of the text where an all loving God is portrayed, surly religious belief is more of a pick and mix scenario based on personal opinion and bias, so therefore the God exists only in the mind of the believer and is not factually present at all.

    Firstly God is not evil and is all loving and good (mark 10;18), even close examination of the OT reveals this. One has to examine the text extremely closely. A story that many claim portrays and "evil" God is the great flood. The first thing that springs into mind is "but what about all the children and innocent people?" but scripture says that no one was innocent infact the entire population was committing evil and sin.
    "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" Genesis 6:5. According to the text not one innocent person was drowned only the truly wicked.
    Similarly Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God so does that mean he destroyed even the good people who lived in the cities? Abraham asked if God would sweep away the righteous with the wicked. He asked the Lord if there were 50 righteous, would the Lord spare it; He said yes. He asked the Lord if there were 40 righteous, would the Lord spare it; He said yes. and so on and so on. What the Catholic Church gathers from this is that only truly wicked people will feel Gods wrath not the Good and furthermore if there were even just 10 righteous people in the city of vicious thugs, the Lord would still spare it for the sake of the good. Therefore the God of the OT is just interpreted as evil when all he is doing is Judging his creation based on their individual actions, which is a core teaching of the Church today.No one can blame God for not providing a merciful alternative or call Him evil for providing justice against sin.
    God is not evil for destroying those who are. He (or she) is dispensing justice and standing up for those who are right.
    Also, the argument that man can destroy the wicked in Gods name which would allow for the claims of suicide bombers etc is very wrong as only God can judge not man.
    Knasher wrote: »
    Is there any part of the old testament that can't be discounted by misunderstanding or misreporting or an attempt to justify some action, that can be taken as proof of anything?

    If you are looking for proof, factual proof that god exists then its no where to be found, not even in the Bible. Likewise proof that he does not exist is equally non existent. The Bible portrays a Loving God.

    An argument in theology is that if God didn’t exist and the Bible weren’t His Word, there would be no basis to say that good and evil exist, and therefore, brutality would be neither good nor bad. In other words, the Word of God presents us with Good and evil in the first place and our very thinking on moral justice is based fundamentally on the existence of a loving God. (that's a very tricky thing to get your head around by the way)

    Knasher wrote: »
    Does it not worry you that despite being one of the oldest and richest organizations in the world, the church still don't have a single scrap of anything but which the most ardent believer would ever consider evidence?

    The fact that there is no factual evidence in Gods existence is of (or should be) no concern to any Christian as the Bible says that looking for proof with doubt in mind will get you no where. The apostle Thomas didn't believe until he could his hands in the holes on Jesus's hands and when examined the evidence he believed. "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" John 20:29

    I mentioned earlier that the church accepts that there is nothing that even "the most ardent believer would ever consider evidence" and the Church doesn't look for it either.
    Faith is belief with no evidence, but to say its a belief based on what you want to believe is completely incorrect.
    Knasher wrote: »
    After over a millennium of existence and still all you have to go on is blind faith (and if you care to tell me the difference between credulity and faith, I would be interested to hear it).
    Faith is belief based on no evidence, the religious definition is one's response to ones' faith i.e praying, going to Mass and being sure of the God's plan is faith. Credulity is believing something too quickly based on little evidence but the issue of God stretches back over thousands and thousands of years and yet people still believe based on personal faith.
    Knasher wrote: »
    Psudoscience like homeopathy or astrology are still ridiculed because they haven't built a case or validated themselves and therefore don't deserve respect. Like religion, their proponents also believe they deserve to skip those steps.

    Belief in a God does not require factual proof however belief in homeopathy or astrology does, and rightly so. Faith cannot be compared with worldly things which science demands should be proved beyond doubt. Faith is a gift not a means by which distortion is twisted to show a God in a Godless world. It's hard to explain it and those who argue that factual proof is required for everything will always disregard religious belief as blindness in a well lit world, but there will never come a time when we will be so far advanced that God will be disproved, because he cant be.
    Knasher wrote: »
    Firstly I want to point out something here, there is a difference between ridiculing a person and an opinion they might hold (or more importantly express, one my friends might believe in fairies, if they do we have never debated over it because they have never expressed it to me), generally we do the latter and not the former.

    I agree totally. Belief is worthy of ridicule as its a persons opinion ( tbh i only realized that on here) All opinions are worthy of debate. Even the fore fathers of the Church debated and discussed with each other over the core teachings which Rome would follow, especially in relation to the Holy Spirit and whether it is God and also in relation to whether or not Jesus was God's son or just a prophet and a sinner like us. Therefore debate and re debate were the foundations of the Church.

    From a Christian point of view however debate will only ever lead to God and the Love of God. No argument that states otherwise would succeed as God and the Histrue word can never be undermined.

    I dont believe religious faith should not be debated, the great saints were great debaters who argued there points.
    What I am saying is that people of faith should not fear their beliefs being disregarded by others as God can never be challenged by debate. Only shown to be a real presence in the world.


  • #261
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    whatsup? wrote: »
    If you are looking for proof, factual proof that god exists then its no where to be found, not even in the Bible. Likewise proof that he does not exist is equally non existent.

    So in other words you simply have no arguments, evidence, data or reasons to lend even a modicum of credence to the claim that such an entity exists. Yet you think it does anyway. And the best defense you can offer for that position is to point out the obvious... which is that no one can prove unfalsifiable negatives.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    An argument in theology is that if God didn’t exist and the Bible weren’t His Word, there would be no basis to say that good and evil exist, and therefore, brutality would be neither good nor bad.

    That is not an argument so much as wishful thinking based on implications. You declare that without a god there would be no good or evil.... you really want there to be good and evil.... therefore there must be a god.

    It does not work like that. God does not exist because you prefer the implications involved if it does. Thing is many atheists on these forums happily acknowledge there is no basis for thinking "good" and "evil" actually exist as anything other than human concepts. So if you want to use "good" and "evil" as evidence for a god you would do well to show they exist first in and of themselves before you apply them to a god concept.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    the Bible says that looking for proof with doubt in mind will get you no where.

    Just goes to show how wrong the bible can be then doesn't it? Look at the Scientific Method for example. It is almost ALL about "looking for proof with doubt in mind" and you would be very hard pushed indeed to claim that Science has "gotten us no where".
    whatsup? wrote: »
    What I am saying is that people of faith should not fear their beliefs being disregarded by others as God can never be challenged by debate. Only shown to be a real presence in the world.

    I disagree. If someone wants to publicly espouse a belief, especially in our halls of power, education and/or science, then they should very much expect to have their beliefs challenged, debated, discussed and even ridiculed and.... above all.... entirely dismissed if found to be unsubstantiated.

    People of personal faith however I agree with you on. There is no reason they should be hunted down and debated at or attacked. Alas way too much faith simply does not stay personal.

    Respect people, not ideas. We should rip ideas apart to see what they are made of and if they hold up to scrutiny.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    I posted this in funny side of religion, but I think it deserves to be posted here... Not exactly a message of love or whatever it is whatsup? would like us to believe, but more like the message the rest of us know.

    487320_392926500766690_190188150_n.jpg


  • #263
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 242 ✭✭Wiggles88


    Clearly youre just misinterpreting, Luke 19:27 actually means love your neighbour and all that.....


  • #264
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,258 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    Just came across Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Raised an eyebrow to say the least.


  • #265
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    ^
    11 “When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, 12 then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.
    So people will know the bit of nonsense in question.


  • #266
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    whatsup? wrote: »
    The idea that Christians discount any part of the Bible is incorrect as the Bible is the true word of God. I think what you're asking is if one can disregard the quotes where an "evil God" is evident and then pick and chose sections of the text where an all loving God is portrayed, surly religious belief is more of a pick and mix scenario based on personal opinion and bias, so therefore the God exists only in the mind of the believer and is not factually present at all.

    Firstly God is not evil and is all loving and good (mark 10;18), even close examination of the OT reveals this. One has to examine the text extremely closely. A story that many claim portrays and "evil" God is the great flood. The first thing that springs into mind is "but what about all the children and innocent people?" but scripture says that no one was innocent infact the entire population was committing evil and sin.
    "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" Genesis 6:5. According to the text not one innocent person was drowned only the truly wicked.
    Similarly Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God so does that mean he destroyed even the good people who lived in the cities? Abraham asked if God would sweep away the righteous with the wicked. He asked the Lord if there were 50 righteous, would the Lord spare it; He said yes. He asked the Lord if there were 40 righteous, would the Lord spare it; He said yes. and so on and so on. What the Catholic Church gathers from this is that only truly wicked people will feel Gods wrath not the Good and furthermore if there were even just 10 righteous people in the city of vicious thugs, the Lord would still spare it for the sake of the good. Therefore the God of the OT is just interpreted as evil when all he is doing is Judging his creation based on their individual actions, which is a core teaching of the Church today.No one can blame God for not providing a merciful alternative or call Him evil for providing justice against sin.
    God is not evil for destroying those who are. He (or she) is dispensing justice and standing up for those who are right.
    Also, the argument that man can destroy the wicked in Gods name which would allow for the claims of suicide bombers etc is very wrong as only God can judge not man.
    So, leaving aside the fact that I persoannly don't think anyone or anything has the right to put anyone to death for anything, there is still a problem with this.

    First of all, what are the chances that in an entire city or on the entire world there was not a single person that was not "wicked"? Were there no new born or very young children? Were there no mentally ill people who were not responsible for their actions? To say that every living person was no longer worthy of life and was beyond salvation, particularly when your god apparently says that anyone can be saved, is patently ridiculous.

    And another thing. You believe this god of your is all good, all loving, all knowing and all powerful. Given this, do you not think it is odd that the only options apparently open to him when dealing with people who have been naughty are 1) Do nothing, or 2) A near extinction event. Surely such a powerful and loving being would have some in between options? No?


    whatsup? wrote: »
    If you are looking for proof, factual proof that god exists then its no where to be found, not even in the Bible. Likewise proof that he does not exist is equally non existent. The Bible portrays a Loving God.
    As has been pointed out numerous times, the burden is not on us to prove he does not exist. And again, the bible does not portray a loving god. It portrays an evil, self centred, petty, vindictive, jealous prick.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    An argument in theology is that if God didn’t exist and the Bible weren’t His Word, there would be no basis to say that good and evil exist, and therefore, brutality would be neither good nor bad. In other words, the Word of God presents us with Good and evil in the first place and our very thinking on moral justice is based fundamentally on the existence of a loving God. (that's a very tricky thing to get your head around by the way)
    Oh an argument in theology? Personally a argument in theology hold about as much weight for me as an argument in homoeopathy.



    whatsup? wrote: »
    The fact that there is no factual evidence in Gods existence is of (or should be) no concern to any Christian as the Bible says that looking for proof with doubt in mind will get you no where. The apostle Thomas didn't believe until he could his hands in the holes on Jesus's hands and when examined the evidence he believed. "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" John 20:29
    And here is the power of religion. They have convinced people to ignore that fact that it does not make sense, it appears to be bullsh1t and teach them that it is somehow virtuous not believe without evidence. If it wasn't so insidious it would be impressive.

    If you are going to create a new belief system which you want people to follow, and there is no evidence at all whatsoever for what you are saying, what would you expect that new belief system to say about evidence? Would you expect it to say you should only believe if you have evidence or would you expect it to say some bullsh1t like you are more awesome if you believe without evidence.

    Of course the bible says "blessed are those who have not seen but believed" what else could they do. There is no evidence so unless they somehow convinced people that they should believe without evidence it would have been a rather short lived religion.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    I mentioned earlier that the church accepts that there is nothing that even "the most ardent believer would ever consider evidence" and the Church doesn't look for it either.
    Faith is belief with no evidence, but to say its a belief based on what you want to believe is completely incorrect.
    Of course the church doesn't look for it, why would it? First of all it doesn't need to, as it has convinced the believers it is not required, and more importantly, there isn't any.

    whatsup? wrote: »
    Faith is belief based on no evidence, the religious definition is one's response to ones' faith i.e praying, going to Mass and being sure of the God's plan is faith. Credulity is believing something too quickly based on little evidence but the issue of God stretches back over thousands and thousands of years and yet people still believe based on personal faith.
    People believe based on habit, indoctrination and a desire for it to be true.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    Belief in a God does not require factual proof however belief in homeopathy or astrology does, and rightly so.
    That is rather convenient, isn't it?
    whatsup? wrote: »
    Faith cannot be compared with worldly things which science demands should be proved beyond doubt. Faith is a gift not a means by which distortion is twisted to show a God in a Godless world. It's hard to explain it and those who argue that factual proof is required for everything will always disregard religious belief as blindness in a well lit world, but there will never come a time when we will be so far advanced that God will be disproved, because he cant be.
    Faith should be no different to anything else. The only reason it is different is because the people who first espoused the belief probably realised there was no proof, how could there be, it was made up, so they had to do something a bit different.

    whatsup? wrote: »
    From a Christian point of view however debate will only ever lead to God and the Love of God. No argument that states otherwise would succeed as God and the Histrue word can never be undermined.
    See, this reminds me of the creationist view of science. Anything that contradicts the word of the bible should be discarded. What you are saying here is you are debating form a closed mind. You have the assumption that a particular god exists and that god has a particular set of attributes. What, then, is the point of debating?

    MrP


  • #267
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    whatsup? wrote: »
    God is eternal and never changing, the God of the OT is the exact same as the God today.

    You say this, and also dare to claim you've read the Bible properly.

    By any chance, was it the pop-up version for children? Because the God of the OT and NT are two very different beings in their behaviour.


  • #268
    DuPLeX
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 250 ✭✭DuPLeX


    Is there evidence for the non existence of God ?


  • #269
    DuPLeX
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 250 ✭✭DuPLeX


    MrPudding wrote: »
    You have the assumption that a particular god exists and that god has a particular set of attributes. What, then, is the point of debating?

    MrP
    Do you not have assumption that this God does not exist?


  • #270
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    DuPLeX wrote: »
    Is there evidence for the non existence of God ?

    Is there evidence that a non existent innocent person is innocent?


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    DuPLeX wrote: »
    Is there evidence for the non existence of God ?
    Tell you what, you show us evidence for the non-existence of anything you don't believe exists, then we can talk.


Advertisement