The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Strong Words
 
Blind Belief
 

ReformedRicky
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

how do you know that nobody knows? you would have to have all knowledge to know that nobody knows.


would you be convinced if God came down in the flesh and confirmed the truth of the Bible?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

bcingu
Level

Join date: Mar 2009
Posts: 847

ReformedRicky wrote:
we know what we know because we are made in the image of God.


If that's your argument then you will need to provide evidence. If not then I will, in turn, dismiss it without evidence.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ReformedRicky
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

bcingu wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
we know what we know because we are made in the image of God.


If that's your argument then you will need to provide evidence. If not then I will, in turn, dismiss it without evidence.



I see you've been reading Hitchens.

how can i give you evidence that we are made in the image of God if you don't believe there is a God to be made in the image of? furthermore, how can you accept evidence as proof if you (assuming your a naturalist) can't believe anything, including your own existence. If you don't understand what i mean, simply ask your self to prove the validity of logic. mind you, in doing so you must use logic to do so, which is the very thing your trying to prove. this is a vicious circle in which you aren't able to escape.

my evidence is that God has revealed things to His creatures in a way in which we are able to know them for certain. one of these things He has revealed is that we are made in the image of God.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pgtips
Level

Join date: Aug 2011
Posts: 954

ReformedRicky wrote:
bcingu wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
we know what we know because we are made in the image of God.


If that's your argument then you will need to provide evidence. If not then I will, in turn, dismiss it without evidence.



I see you've been reading Hitchens.

how can i give you evidence that we are made in the image of God if you don't believe there is a God to be made in the image of? furthermore, how can you accept evidence as proof if you (assuming your a naturalist) can't believe anything, including your own existence. If you don't understand what i mean, simply ask your self to prove the validity of logic. mind you, in doing so you must use logic to do so, which is the very thing your trying to prove. this is a vicious circle in which you aren't able to escape.

my evidence is that God has revealed things to His creatures in a way in which we are able to know them for certain. one of these things He has revealed is that we are made in the image of God.


"my evidence is that God has revealed things to His creatures in a way in which we are able to know them for certain. one of these things He has revealed is that we are made in the image of God."

Proof?

That there is blind belief and it is an unhealthy thing.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ReformedRicky
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

pgtips wrote:

"my evidence is that God has revealed things to His creatures in a way in which we are able to know them for certain. one of these things He has revealed is that we are made in the image of God."

Proof?

That there is blind belief and it is an unhealthy thing.


please prove to me that logic is a valid way of argumentation.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

bcingu
Level

Join date: Mar 2009
Posts: 847

ReformedRicky wrote:
bcingu wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
we know what we know because we are made in the image of God.


If that's your argument then you will need to provide evidence. If not then I will, in turn, dismiss it without evidence.



I see you've been reading Hitchens.

how can i give you evidence that we are made in the image of God if you don't believe there is a God to be made in the image of? furthermore, how can you accept evidence as proof if you (assuming your a naturalist) can't believe anything, including your own existence. If you don't understand what i mean, simply ask your self to prove the validity of logic. mind you, in doing so you must use logic to do so, which is the very thing your trying to prove. this is a vicious circle in which you aren't able to escape.

my evidence is that God has revealed things to His creatures in a way in which we are able to know them for certain. one of these things He has revealed is that we are made in the image of God.


I see you've been reading Bible.

You can't prove the existence of God to anyone who doesn't already believe in the existence of God? And that's your argument for God's existence?

I don't consider myself to be a naturalist. If there were evidence for the existence of something supernatural, I would readily accept it. I don't quite follow your logic that since I don't believe in God, I don't believe in "anything," including my own existence. My existence is quite observable, and that is sufficient evidence for me.

Logic is "a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference." So you're asking me to prove something without using proof? And my inability to do so would...prove God's existence?

Also, this:
my evidence is that God has revealed things to His creatures in a way in which we are able to know them for certain. one of these things He has revealed is that we are made in the image of God.

begs the question. It is pure circular logic.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ReformedRicky
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

bcingu wrote:

I see you've been reading Bible.

You can't prove the existence of God to anyone who doesn't already believe in the existence of God? And that's your argument for God's existence?

I don't consider myself to be a naturalist. If there were evidence for the existence of something supernatural, I would readily accept it. I don't quite follow your logic that since I don't believe in God, I don't believe in "anything," including my own existence. My existence is quite observable, and that is sufficient evidence for me.

Logic is "a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference." So you're asking me to prove something without using proof? And my inability to do so would...prove God's existence?

Also, this:
my evidence is that God has revealed things to His creatures in a way in which we are able to know them for certain. one of these things He has revealed is that we are made in the image of God.

begs the question. It is pure circular logic.


If there were evidence for the existence of something supernatural, you would readily accept it? you want material evidence for something immaterial. would you like to provide me with evidence of the validity of logic?

and no, me pointing out that you can't prove logic without using it doesn't prove God exists... but it points out your "pure circular logic" as well.

and it's not that i can only prove the existence of God to those who already believe in Him, but rather everyone believes in Him and if you say you don't, you prove yourself wrong every time you act inconsistently with your atheism. calling things good and bad implies a standard for morality. using logical absolutes and the laws of logic assumes a standard by which you require others to be able to follow, and to not follow them would be "wrong" which, again requires a transcendent right and wrong.

if you still don't get my argument i suggest your read my article on this subject. http://deliveredtothesaints.co...
you can also listens to these debates
pt1:
http://unchainedradio.com/...;product_id=464
pt2:
http://unchainedradio.com/...;product_id=367
pt3:
http://unchainedradio.com/...;product_id=465

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes â?? his eternal power and divine nature â?? have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Romans 1:18-23

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pgtips
Level

Join date: Aug 2011
Posts: 954

ReformedRicky wrote:
pgtips wrote:

"my evidence is that God has revealed things to His creatures in a way in which we are able to know them for certain. one of these things He has revealed is that we are made in the image of God."

Proof?

That there is blind belief and it is an unhealthy thing.


please prove to me that logic is a valid way of argumentation.


The attached picture sums it up quite nicely.

If you KNOW we are made in the image of god, please tell me how you know - show me evidence, so I can form an opinion on it. WITHOUT having to believe blindly, because I am not going to do that.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

bcingu
Level

Join date: Mar 2009
Posts: 847

ReformedRicky wrote:
If there were evidence for the existence of something supernatural, you would readily accept it? you want material evidence for something immaterial. would you like to provide me with evidence of the validity of logic?

Yes, I would. Are you saying that God is incapable of showing himself to - or communicating with - anyone, or that he has never done so?

and it's not that i can only prove the existence of God to those who already believe in Him, but rather everyone believes in Him and if you say you don't, you prove yourself wrong every time you act inconsistently with your atheism.

So children are born believing in God? Does everyone believe in the "right" God? There are many gods and many holy books supporting their existence. How do you know yours is the right one? Because you were raised in the U.S.?

calling things good and bad implies a standard for morality. using logical absolutes and the laws of logic assumes a standard by which you require others to be able to follow, and to not follow them would be "wrong" which, again requires a transcendent right and wrong.

I base right or wrong on rational thought processes. It is common sense that if you say something to me that I don't like, it doesn't give me the right to punch you in the face. This simply requires empathy, and the absence of being a sociopath. I would rather not be murdered or be stolen from, so why would I do it to someone else? Obviously there are grey areas, e.g., what if I'm impoverished and can't afford to feed my family? But with situations, I feel there is a spectrum of possible actions that range from "bad" to "good." We live in a complex world, and the decisions with which we are faced are seldom black or white.

I'm assuming you get your morality from the Bible? Personally, I find rape, slavery, murder and genital mutilation to be reprehensible, so I think I'll stick to treating people how I would like to be treated (a concept that pre-dates Jebus).


if you still don't get my argument i suggest your read my article on this subject. http://deliveredtothesaints.co...
you can also listens to these debates
pt1:
http://unchainedradio.com/...;product_id=464
pt2:
http://unchainedradio.com/...;product_id=367
pt3:
http://unchainedradio.com/...;product_id=465

It's not that I don't "get" your argument. It's just that I don't find it to be especially profound or meaningful. And I don't mean any disrespect by that. I appreciate that we can discuss this in a civil manner.

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes ??????¢?? his eternal power and divine nature ??????¢?? have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Romans 1:18-23

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you what I think about the validity of the Bible. ; )

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

americaninsweden
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 352

"The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works." Psalms 145:17

"And he went up from there to Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, you bald head; go up, you bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." 2 Kings 2:23-24

I have no problem with people having faith in a higher power. I just don't understand how any rational person could possibly believe in such an inconsistent and absurd notion of God, such as the one found in the Bible. I could go on and on with scripture that contradicts itself over and over but it's not going to convince anyone.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ReformedRicky
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

I base right or wrong on rational thought processes. It is common sense that if you say something to me that I don't like, it doesn't give me the right to punch you in the face. This simply requires empathy, and the absence of being a sociopath. I would rather not be murdered or be stolen from, so why would I do it to someone else? Obviously there are grey areas, e.g., what if I'm impoverished and can't afford to feed my family? But with situations, I feel there is a spectrum of possible actions that range from "bad" to "good." We live in a complex world, and the decisions with which we are faced are seldom black or white.

I'm assuming you get your morality from the Bible? Personally, I find rape, slavery, murder and genital mutilation to be reprehensible, so I think I'll stick to treating people how I would like to be treated (a concept that pre-dates Jebus).


can you account for rational thought processes, common sense empathy a standardization of being a sociopath?
who cares if you would rather not be murdered and stolen from, how are your personal feelings a standard for morality? what if someone else would rather murder and doesn't mind being murdered back? is the action of murder now permissible?
again, where do you get a standard for reprehensibility (not sure if its a real word)? your standards are arbitrary. and the "golden rule" predates Jesus, because it was taught in the old testament AND those who taught it are made in the image of God and have an internal standard for right and wrong... a God given morality.

If you KNOW we are made in the image of god, please tell me how you know - show me evidence, so I can form an opinion on it. WITHOUT having to believe blindly, because I am not going to do that.

morality
Yes, I would. Are you saying that God is incapable of showing himself to - or communicating with - anyone, or that he has never done so?

no sir, He has done so, but is not obligated to do so. He has communicated this to us in the some writings called the Bible, in creation and He even came down to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. But, "proof" of His existence and evidence of His handiwork is skewed by your unbelief, you view these forms of revelation through your atheistic glasses/worldview. my premise is that the God of the Bible is real because it is impossible for Him not to, if that doesn't make sense to you, then you don't understand my argument.
So children are born believing in God? Does everyone believe in the "right" God? There are many gods and many holy books supporting their existence. How do you know yours is the right one? Because you were raised in the U.S.?

I wasn't aware that the Bible is of U.S. origins... yes, even my 15 month of son believes in God. as far as believing in the right God, other views of God are formed by people grasping at straws. i suppose my son does believe in the right God... now... but as he gets older, unless taught, he will form skewed views of a God of his own making. this goes with the quote from Romans 1 i posted. i don't expect you to agree since you are still wearing your atheism glasses.

I appreciate that we can discuss this in a civil manner.

i also appreciate this!

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you what I think about the validity of the Bible. ; )

true, but when viewing the world by the process of induction, you can't have validity on ANYTHING.
"The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works." Psalms 145:17

"And he went up from there to Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, you bald head; go up, you bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." 2 Kings 2:23-24

I have no problem with people having faith in a higher power. I just don't understand how any rational person could possibly believe in such an inconsistent and absurd notion of God, such as the one found in the Bible. I could go on and on with scripture that contradicts itself over and over but it's not going to convince anyone.

i don't see an issue with those verses... and again, to bring a charge against God, you would have to have a standard in which to stand on.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

americaninsweden
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 352

Where are you getting this odd notion of philosophy and argumentation? I need no standard "to bring a charge against God." I am not attempting to disprove the existence of God or prove the existence of him. I am simply saying that the Bible is filled with inconsistencies (Using God and the Bible itself to show that) and that the Biblical notion of God is flawed. Also, how can you have no issue with the power of God being used to kill 42 children when God is supposed to be "righteous", "merciful" and "just?"

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Hewbrews 13:8

However, the verse about the Bald guy sicking she bears on the children completely contradicts what Jesus taught when he said "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?'" "Jesus answered, 'I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.'" Matthew 18:21-22. Where is this forgiveness by the bald man in Kings? Where is Jesus' sense of kindness, mercy and forgiveness there? God is not the same yesterday, today and forever, at least not in the Bible.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

bcingu
Level

Join date: Mar 2009
Posts: 847

ReformedRicky wrote:
who cares if you would rather not be murdered and stolen from, how are your personal feelings a standard for morality? what if someone else would rather murder and doesn't mind being murdered back? is the action of murder now permissible?

Because they're not just my personal preferences. They are the feelings of 99.999999% of the population. This is why it is socially unacceptable to murder.

again, where do you get a standard for reprehensibility (not sure if its a real word)? your standards are arbitrary.

Common sense. Do you think that, pre-Exodus, people didn't know it was wrong to murder and steal from one another? No. These things are become obvious when you are part of a society, are capable of empathy, and are not a psychopath.

And there are plenty of Christians who perform immoral (by God's standards) acts. But I guess that's OK as long as they repent?


and the "golden rule" predates Jesus, because it was taught in the old testament

It pre-dates the Old Testament.

AND those who taught it are made in the image of God and have an internal standard for right and wrong... a God given morality.

Lol, OK. How convenient...

no sir, He has done so, but is not obligated to do so. He has communicated this to us in the some writings called the Bible, in creation and He even came down to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. But, "proof" of His existence and evidence of His handiwork is skewed by your unbelief, you view these forms of revelation through your atheistic glasses/worldview. my premise is that the God of the Bible is real because it is impossible for Him not to, if that doesn't make sense to you, then you don't understand my argument.

My atheism is neutral. It doesn't mean I refuse to believe in God; it just means I have no reason to do so as of yet. "Atheism glasses," for me, are essentially just glasses.

my premise is that the God of the Bible is real because it is impossible for Him not to, if that doesn't make sense to you, then you don't understand my argument.

Well you haven't provided a non-circular argument so I guess we'll have to end it here then. And again, I can assure you it's not that I don't "get" your argument, it's just not an especially coherent one.
So children are born believing in God? Does everyone believe in the "right" God? There are many gods and many holy books supporting their existence. How do you know yours is the right one? Because you were raised in the U.S.?

I wasn't aware that the Bible is of U.S. origins...

Come on, now. You know full well that what I saying. You think you would be so convinced about the truth of the Biblical God if you were raised in India or Afghanistan?

true, but when viewing the world by the process of induction, you can't have validity on ANYTHING.

Well I'll be sticking with empiricism, evidence and observation. Though I'm sure finding ways to support a preconceived conclusion is much more comforting when contemplating one's place in the universe.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ReformedRicky
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

americaninsweden wrote:
Where are you getting this odd notion of philosophy and argumentation? I need no standard "to bring a charge against God." I am not attempting to disprove the existence of God or prove the existence of him. I am simply saying that the Bible is filled with inconsistencies (Using God and the Bible itself to show that) and that the Biblical notion of God is flawed. Also, how can you have no issue with the power of God being used to kill 42 children when God is supposed to be "righteous", "merciful" and "just?"

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Hewbrews 13:8

However, the verse about the Bald guy sicking she bears on the children completely contradicts what Jesus taught when he said "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?'" "Jesus answered, 'I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.'" Matthew 18:21-22. Where is this forgiveness by the bald man in Kings? Where is Jesus' sense of kindness, mercy and forgiveness there? God is not the same yesterday, today and forever, at least not in the Bible.


the problem of induction is a well known philosophical issue.
how can you say that you don't need a standard on which to bring a charge against God.... that is like Hitler, telling someone that it's immoral to kill insects. you presuppose standards already, but you have no grounds for the legitimacy of them. you use terms like inconsistencies, justice, forgiveness etc. but have no grounds for them.

in bringing a charge against God in 2 Kings, you are presupposing that God isn't real... if He were, don't you think that He is able to do whatever He wants with His creation? furthermore, it is possible that the intention of the Mob of boys was to harm Elisha. God therefore commanded she bears to maul the 42 of them. (makes me wonder how many boys there were total)

if you are really interesting in a Bible study about forgiveness you are welcome to PM me but i don't think you are interested.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ReformedRicky
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

bcingu wrote:
Because they're not just my personal preferences. They are the feelings of 99.999999% of the population. This is why it is socially unacceptable to murder.

do you know 99.999999% of the population? what about Nazi Germany? was it okay since those numbers were more like 25%?

you seem to be missing my point as many atheists do... seems like the common denominator is me... being unclear. i'm not saying that you cannot be moral without the Bible, i'm saying without the God of the Bible you have no reason for being moral... moral atheists are inconsistent with their beliefs. all humans are made in the image of God and are therefore moral agents.

and yes it is convenient that my worldview lines up with reality... that's what you'd except about a worldview that is true... right?

My atheism is neutral. It doesn't mean I refuse to believe in God; it just means I have no reason to do so as of yet. "Atheism glasses," for me, are essentially just glasses.

you may think you are being neutral, but there is no such thing as neutrality. we are all biases... you may not think you have a reason to believe in God, but you sure do have a reason to reject Him. If He exists you would be morally culpable for your actions, you would have to give an account of all the sins you've committing, and these sins would find you guilty. so it is very comforting to war against God because in so doing your distancing yourself of the reality that will surely come.


Come on, now. You know full well that what I saying. You think you would be so convinced about the truth of the Biblical God if you were raised in India or Afghanistan?


I know that the presence of Christianity is stronger in some places than others. But yes, i would be convinced of the truth of the Biblical God if i lived in India or Afghanistan, because God ordains those to salvation and determines the places of our dwelling (Acts 17). If person X is going to be saved, he would be saved if lives in tim buck two or not.

Well I'll be sticking with empiricism, evidence and observation. Though I'm sure finding ways to support a preconceived conclusion is much more comforting when contemplating one's place in the universe.


this comment lets me know that you haven't been following my argument. because you have no foundation for evidences and trusting your observations (which comes through your senses) with your current worldview.
If you can, you can try and form an argument and tell him why you can trust your senses (which have evolved. if you cannot do so, please get back to me when you have a coherent worldview in which to critique mine.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

bcingu
Level

Join date: Mar 2009
Posts: 847

ReformedRicky wrote:
do you know 99.999999% of the population? what about Nazi Germany? was it okay since those numbers were more like 25%?

Perhaps you should ask Zombie Catholic Hitler.


i'm not saying that you cannot be moral without the Bible, i'm saying without the God of the Bible you have no reason for being moral.

Speak for yourself, buddy. Let's say that one day you were presented with irrefutable evidence that there is no - and never has been - a god. We both know that this is impossible (to prove), but just humor me. You're telling me that from that point on you would feel no obligation to act in a way that you perceive to be moral? You suddenly wouldn't feel prohibited from murdering whomever you'd like?


and yes it is convenient that my worldview lines up with reality... that's what you'd except about a worldview that is true... right?

*lines up with your reality.


you may think you are being neutral, but there is no such thing as neutrality. we are all biases... you may not think you have a reason to believe in God, but you sure do have a reason to reject Him. If He exists you would be morally culpable for your actions, you would have to give an account of all the sins you've committing, and these sins would find you guilty. so it is very comforting to war against God because in so doing your distancing yourself of the reality that will surely come.

All I can say is that it saddens me to think that anyone would slavishly worship a god who ensures that you a born guilty, who dooms you to a life of guilt-laden repentance, simply for being a human with corresponding thoughts and desires. I wouldn't say that's why I "reject" him, since I can't reject something that doesn't exist. But it sure makes me glad that such a capricious tyrant does not, in fact, exist.
And despite his absence, I am still morally culpable for my actions. I care about how my actions affect others, whether a stranger or a loved one.
There are often actions that I could take against others, from which I could benefit at their expense, that I could get away with doing without fear of consequence. When I don't, it is due to this moral culpability.



I know that the presence of Christianity is stronger in some places than others. But yes, i would be convinced of the truth of the Biblical God if i lived in India or Afghanistan, because God ordains those to salvation and determines the places of our dwelling (Acts 17). If person X is going to be saved, he would be saved if lives in tim buck two or not.

Lol, that sounds like a pretty dishonest degree of certainty to me. What about all the people in West/Central/East Asia who don't believe in Jebus? Is God just not that into Asians? Doomed for all eternity for being born in the wrong place. Sucks for them.

And what about Israel/Palestine? You'd think God would want more of his real followers in the holy land, right?


this comment lets me know that you haven't been following my argument. because you have no foundation for evidences and trusting your observations (which comes through your senses) with your current worldview.

My senses have proved their own utility on a daily basis for several decades. Though I wouldn't say I fully trust my own observations, as I don't believe that I am capable of complete objectivity. That is why I always make a point to question them. That's the downside of not having all the answers given to you in a nice little collection of books.

Also, considering you're coming at me with creepy lines like
so it is very comforting to war against God because in so doing your distancing yourself of the reality that will surely come.

spare me the condescension of
If you can, you can try and form an argument and tell him why you can trust your senses (which have evolved. if you cannot do so, please get back to me when you have a coherent worldview in which to critique mine.

Because the former reads like the ramblings of a nut, to put it mildly.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pgtips
Level

Join date: Aug 2011
Posts: 954

This is quite a good video.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

americaninsweden
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 352

ReformedRicky wrote:
americaninsweden wrote:
Where are you getting this odd notion of philosophy and argumentation? I need no standard "to bring a charge against God." I am not attempting to disprove the existence of God or prove the existence of him. I am simply saying that the Bible is filled with inconsistencies (Using God and the Bible itself to show that) and that the Biblical notion of God is flawed. Also, how can you have no issue with the power of God being used to kill 42 children when God is supposed to be "righteous", "merciful" and "just?"

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Hewbrews 13:8

However, the verse about the Bald guy sicking she bears on the children completely contradicts what Jesus taught when he said "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?'" "Jesus answered, 'I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.'" Matthew 18:21-22. Where is this forgiveness by the bald man in Kings? Where is Jesus' sense of kindness, mercy and forgiveness there? God is not the same yesterday, today and forever, at least not in the Bible.


the problem of induction is a well known philosophical issue.
how can you say that you don't need a standard on which to bring a charge against God.... that is like Hitler, telling someone that it's immoral to kill insects. you presuppose standards already, but you have no grounds for the legitimacy of them. you use terms like inconsistencies, justice, forgiveness etc. but have no grounds for them.

in bringing a charge against God in 2 Kings, you are presupposing that God isn't real... if He were, don't you think that He is able to do whatever He wants with His creation? furthermore, it is possible that the intention of the Mob of boys was to harm Elisha. God therefore commanded she bears to maul the 42 of them. (makes me wonder how many boys there were total)

if you are really interesting in a Bible study about forgiveness you are welcome to PM me but i don't think you are interested.

Yes, I am aware of these philosophical notions but I think in a general argument, applying them because you know that your argument is completely void of reason is just a cop out (not trying to offend but you aren't using them to make better arguments, you are just using them to try and avoid the issues). My standards for those terms are grounded in the Bible, I am using "The Word of God" as my basis just as you are.

All of the above points are facets of the Bible and God but it is clear that God is not remaining consistent with them even though he is claimed to be the same forever (lack of moral relativity). In Kings I am supposing God is real, in the Bible it claims God is just, merciful, forgiving does it not? The passage in Kings is an example of the power of God being used to be just the opposite of just merciful and forgiving. An offended man calls upon God to murder 42 children because he is insulted and apparently God complies.

What part of this coincides with Jesus in the NT? Do you truly believe that Christ would have, for one second, considered doing such an action? Would he have not taken the boys aside and first tried to show them the error of their ways as he did with all others? If God is perfect (clearly we assume he is) then he is bound by what he creates and says and if he says that he is just and merciful than how can he not act in that manner all of the time?

There are a few possibilities. 1, God is not the same yesterday, today and forever (bringing moral relativism into the picture). 2, God is not perfect (he is not bound to be just and merciful). 3, God is not real and the she bears acted according to their own will. 4, The Bible is not the word of God but instead a bunch of megalomaniacs writing.

In any of these scenarios, God is no longer the God Christians see him as. I have used no outside sources but instead passages and ideas from the Bible, that still show God's existence in the traditional Christian sense as invalid.

No, I am not interested in Bible study (thanks for the offer though), I have read and studied it before. I grew up in a religious family but am no longer that way. What Bible study taught me is that for every thing in the Bible, its converse also exists. I guess that is the problem with compiling books from dozens of authors over hunderds/thousands of years and then translating them 4536433 times.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

bcingu
Level

Join date: Mar 2009
Posts: 847

^Eloquently put. Reminds me of Epicurus's Trilemma:

If God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent.
If God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good.
If God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ReformedRicky
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

americaninsweden wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
americaninsweden wrote:
Where are you getting this odd notion of philosophy and argumentation? I need no standard "to bring a charge against God." I am not attempting to disprove the existence of God or prove the existence of him. I am simply saying that the Bible is filled with inconsistencies (Using God and the Bible itself to show that) and that the Biblical notion of God is flawed. Also, how can you have no issue with the power of God being used to kill 42 children when God is supposed to be "righteous", "merciful" and "just?"

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Hewbrews 13:8

However, the verse about the Bald guy sicking she bears on the children completely contradicts what Jesus taught when he said "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?'" "Jesus answered, 'I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.'" Matthew 18:21-22. Where is this forgiveness by the bald man in Kings? Where is Jesus' sense of kindness, mercy and forgiveness there? God is not the same yesterday, today and forever, at least not in the Bible.


the problem of induction is a well known philosophical issue.
how can you say that you don't need a standard on which to bring a charge against God.... that is like Hitler, telling someone that it's immoral to kill insects. you presuppose standards already, but you have no grounds for the legitimacy of them. you use terms like inconsistencies, justice, forgiveness etc. but have no grounds for them.

in bringing a charge against God in 2 Kings, you are presupposing that God isn't real... if He were, don't you think that He is able to do whatever He wants with His creation? furthermore, it is possible that the intention of the Mob of boys was to harm Elisha. God therefore commanded she bears to maul the 42 of them. (makes me wonder how many boys there were total)

if you are really interesting in a Bible study about forgiveness you are welcome to PM me but i don't think you are interested.

Yes, I am aware of these philosophical notions but I think in a general argument, applying them because you know that your argument is completely void of reason is just a cop out (not trying to offend but you aren't using them to make better arguments, you are just using them to try and avoid the issues). My standards for those terms are grounded in the Bible, I am using "The Word of God" as my basis just as you are.

All of the above points are facets of the Bible and God but it is clear that God is not remaining consistent with them even though he is claimed to be the same forever (lack of moral relativity). In Kings I am supposing God is real, in the Bible it claims God is just, merciful, forgiving does it not? The passage in Kings is an example of the power of God being used to be just the opposite of just merciful and forgiving. An offended man calls upon God to murder 42 children because he is insulted and apparently God complies.

What part of this coincides with Jesus in the NT? Do you truly believe that Christ would have, for one second, considered doing such an action? Would he have not taken the boys aside and first tried to show them the error of their ways as he did with all others? If God is perfect (clearly we assume he is) then he is bound by what he creates and says and if he says that he is just and merciful than how can he not act in that manner all of the time?

There are a few possibilities. 1, God is not the same yesterday, today and forever (bringing moral relativism into the picture). 2, God is not perfect (he is not bound to be just and merciful). 3, God is not real and the she bears acted according to their own will. 4, The Bible is not the word of God but instead a bunch of megalomaniacs writing.

In any of these scenarios, God is no longer the God Christians see him as. I have used no outside sources but instead passages and ideas from the Bible, that still show God's existence in the traditional Christian sense as invalid.

No, I am not interested in Bible study (thanks for the offer though), I have read and studied it before. I grew up in a religious family but am no longer that way. What Bible study taught me is that for every thing in the Bible, its converse also exists. I guess that is the problem with compiling books from dozens of authors over hunderds/thousands of years and then translating them 4536433 times.

God is in now way obligated to have mercy to all. I know the mainstream evangelical TV pastors give off the impression of a pansy deity. you and I both deserve hell... a just judge does not let a murder go because he just wants to forgive his crime... punishment must be served. ALL sins must be paid for either by the individual in hell of by receiving the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ReformedRicky
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

bcingu wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
do you know 99.999999% of the population? what about Nazi Germany? was it okay since those numbers were more like 25%?

Perhaps you should ask Zombie Catholic Hitler.


i'm not saying that you cannot be moral without the Bible, i'm saying without the God of the Bible you have no reason for being moral.

Speak for yourself, buddy. Let's say that one day you were presented with irrefutable evidence that there is no - and never has been - a god. We both know that this is impossible (to prove), but just humor me. You're telling me that from that point on you would feel no obligation to act in a way that you perceive to be moral? You suddenly wouldn't feel prohibited from murdering whomever you'd like?


and yes it is convenient that my worldview lines up with reality... that's what you'd except about a worldview that is true... right?

*lines up with your reality.


you may think you are being neutral, but there is no such thing as neutrality. we are all biases... you may not think you have a reason to believe in God, but you sure do have a reason to reject Him. If He exists you would be morally culpable for your actions, you would have to give an account of all the sins you've committing, and these sins would find you guilty. so it is very comforting to war against God because in so doing your distancing yourself of the reality that will surely come.

All I can say is that it saddens me to think that anyone would slavishly worship a god who ensures that you a born guilty, who dooms you to a life of guilt-laden repentance, simply for being a human with corresponding thoughts and desires. I wouldn't say that's why I "reject" him, since I can't reject something that doesn't exist. But it sure makes me glad that such a capricious tyrant does not, in fact, exist.
And despite his absence, I am still morally culpable for my actions. I care about how my actions affect others, whether a stranger or a loved one.
There are often actions that I could take against others, from which I could benefit at their expense, that I could get away with doing without fear of consequence. When I don't, it is due to this moral culpability.



I know that the presence of Christianity is stronger in some places than others. But yes, i would be convinced of the truth of the Biblical God if i lived in India or Afghanistan, because God ordains those to salvation and determines the places of our dwelling (Acts 17). If person X is going to be saved, he would be saved if lives in tim buck two or not.

Lol, that sounds like a pretty dishonest degree of certainty to me. What about all the people in West/Central/East Asia who don't believe in Jebus? Is God just not that into Asians? Doomed for all eternity for being born in the wrong place. Sucks for them.

And what about Israel/Palestine? You'd think God would want more of his real followers in the holy land, right?


this comment lets me know that you haven't been following my argument. because you have no foundation for evidences and trusting your observations (which comes through your senses) with your current worldview.

My senses have proved their own utility on a daily basis for several decades. Though I wouldn't say I fully trust my own observations, as I don't believe that I am capable of complete objectivity. That is why I always make a point to question them. That's the downside of not having all the answers given to you in a nice little collection of books.

Also, considering you're coming at me with creepy lines like
so it is very comforting to war against God because in so doing your distancing yourself of the reality that will surely come.

spare me the condescension of
If you can, you can try and form an argument and tell him why you can trust your senses (which have evolved. if you cannot do so, please get back to me when you have a coherent worldview in which to critique mine.

Because the former reads like the ramblings of a nut, to put it mildly.

you can pass off my sayings as being a "nut" but theses are real issues which affect daily life... many choose to ignore them because their lives would be utterly meaningless if they had to come to a logical conclusion that they have no basis for using logic.

My senses have proved their own utility on a daily basis for several decades


how do you know? you cannot know without using your senses to validate this... viciously circular argumentation.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

silee
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2006
Posts: 258

pgtips wrote:
"This begs the questions: is the religion true or not?"

This brings me back to what I said earlier. Nobody knows. In my opinion, this is what makes it such an interesting topic. Theres so much possibility.

"If the religion is true, than that religion is millions of times more reliable than science because it is coming from an infinite all knowing being who has revealed truth to His creation. This kind of knowledge cannot be wrong and is not subject to human judgment."

Yes, if that happened (how/what/when/why?) it would be more reliable than science, but it hasn't and I highly doubt that it would ever happen, but thats not to say it will not happen. Which again leads me back to the "nobody knows" point.




Just recently some quack right-wing nut predicted the end of the world for the second maybe third time.. We are still here lol. We do know that some day the earth will no longer exist cause the sun will go out of existence, but don't let that stop you from working out lol.. Thats billions and billions of years away. But If man keeps listening to the deniers of Global warming who knows what catastrophic events await us. And how a death of a thousand "drops" will be endured by us.

Read the book, "when Prophesy fails". What these predictors do is in the light of failed predications they reaffirm with more fervor their beliefs.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

JLone
Level 3

Join date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2169

Having heard/read this discussion a lot I seem to encounter two types of religious people. One kind uses cyclical logic as a shield. The 2nd, more advanced, religious person will gladly tell you that don't have the answers but they have a good-idea. The second of the two will also admit that everything in the bible is not 100% true but a collection of stories to teach mankind how to act. The problem with using the bible as "facts" is that it was written by humans, good old fallible humans. I really don't think arguing for or against the bible is worth the bandwidth its saved on.

Now getting back to Rickey, I think it is clear which of the two religious people he is. The really scary part is he mentioned having a blog and such so he actively seeks out this argument. But in reality he will just turn more people away from faith in god by claiming to have all the answers. Even more sad is that 99 out of 100 times you see this on the internet it is a guy like Rickey...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ReformedRicky
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 16

JLone wrote:
Having heard/read this discussion a lot I seem to encounter two types of religious people. One kind uses cyclical logic as a shield. The 2nd, more advanced, religious person will gladly tell you that don't have the answers but they have a good-idea. The second of the two will also admit that everything in the bible is not 100% true but a collection of stories to teach mankind how to act. The problem with using the bible as "facts" is that it was written by humans, good old fallible humans. I really don't think arguing for or against the bible is worth the bandwidth its saved on.

Now getting back to Rickey, I think it is clear which of the two religious people he is. The really scary part is he mentioned having a blog and such so he actively seeks out this argument. But in reality he will just turn more people away from faith in god by claiming to have all the answers. Even more sad is that 99 out of 100 times you see this on the internet it is a guy like Rickey...


if that was a response i find it very shallow. you didn't deal with anything besides saying i'm wrong along with presupposing your conclusion to before you came to it (the Bible is written by humans). I do not have all the answers, however, God does, and God has given us revelation that conveys SOME answers... important answers, without which you cannot know anything (see previous posts). also you seem to have some hypocrisy in your response. you say that i claim to know everything, however, you say the bible isn't true, and then you go on to tell my how it REALLY is.
there is no "turning people away from faith" people are already turned away from faith... they are haters of God as Romans 3 says. Apologetic is merely to shut the mouth of unbelievers. http://deliveredtothesaints.co... and preaching the Gospel is the means of salvation that "attracts people to faith" http://deliveredtothesaints.co...

not sure if your a liberal Christian trying to rewrite my wrongs, or an unbelievers trying to respond to my posts. your response seems can be summed up as: you use the bible as fact: i don't think it is, therefore it isn't, so there"

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Macmade
Level

Join date: Oct 2011
Posts: 440

There is no way of proving a supreme being such as God, and there is no way of disproving it. That's all. Those who become too attached to their individual belief will just be annoyingly dogmatic.

But, I believe life exists beyond what's inhibited in our physical body, which makes the existence of a God far more "fathomable" for me. Ontologically speaking, the true Form of Life-first stated by Plato in his dialogues of Socrates-is atemproal and aspatial, thus given that the the world of Forms is independant from the temporal process with infinite possibilities, there must be an equal chance for God to exist just as much as for God not to exist.

Also, we can not discuss whether God/Religion is good or bad. We are beings and our values partake only the imperfections of true "knowledge"; it's not plausible to posit that God/Religion is bad because we are such sinful and fallible beings, it is only plausible to suggest that we know nothing, for our values are only relativistic.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report