Dont be to quick to be a none believer
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
You think that YOU are the "sane" one??!! THATS HILLARIOUS!!! How about if I tell you that there are trolls in your closet and they will vomit at the mention of san "out of body experience," and will cause your house to fall down...I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN TO OTHER PEOPLE!!! Would you believe THAT... Well, it's TRUE!!!
Maybe you should think about whether you want to post here.
doctor jones - "No I Don't think I am special at all..."
VS
doctor jones - "all the things he had told me started to fade away as if it was just for me"
doctor jones - "Anyway what the whole thing done for me"
doctor jones - "are you jealous because it did not happen to you"
NUT meg and the rest of you-assholes and dumbass idiots...NUT meg "this is a discussion forum-"right". So people discuss things. right. So if you don't like it you can bug out. right!!! RIGHT!!!. Yes I can bug out "right"...But it is so much fun ridiculing you morons. Something's are just plain stupid. Worse than stupid they are idiotic. Worse than idiotic they are insane. Worse than insane they are dumber then dumb. Worse than dumber than dumb they are absurd. Worse than absurd they are crazy!!!! Doctor Jones talks about his experience in the "afterlife" The fucking "afterlife".. Yes this forum offers an opportunity discuss things that may seem ridiculous. Adam and Eve and the talking snake or Noah's arc or Moses talking to a burning bush is pretty ridiculous. Even though I think it is dumb to "debate" such stupidity I go along just to get along or ignore you assholes completely. But the fucking "AFTERLIFE"....The fucking "AFTERLIFE"..... I used the analogy of believing in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny as the most insane crazy "ideas"one could "argue. The idea of an AFTERLIFE --ok--lets discuss -heaven and hell or the afterlife as "mentioned" in the Bible or Koran even though it is kind of silly.. BUT BUT BUT--talking to someone who has "SEEN the after life and has been to "heaven" is no less ridiculous than believing in Santa Claus. I can not respond to all your fucking crap....But it is so much fun "belittling" stupid ideas. God Bless....
https://imgflip.com/i/qj0f5
"...someone with me explaining everything to me and there was a huge feeling of Love throughout the experience. After spending a while above the earth we proceeded to go through the universe to different places as he explained things to me, If I was unable to understand something he either made me experience the thing or become it so I would understand, It was really amazing with all the love and that I did not want to come back, but when I ended up back in my body all the things he had told me started to fade away..."
Honestly, a few years ago I had the same experience. And you know what?
As the things faded away, my wife faded in and said "WAKE UP, get up you're late for work!
You know what I did next doktor? I bought a book from another doktor. A brief history of time.
Hi doctorjones,
I stumbled upon this site and your question and wanted to respond. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a believer in Jesus Christ. It sounds like you have experienced a classic out-of-body experience in which your soul separates from the body, not unlike a person removing their body from a jacket. I have not personally experienced this, but know of at least a dozen similar accounts happening to both believers and non-believers. In the Christian world, it is referred to as being taken up in the spirit.
While these out of body experiences cannot be scientifically proven, eyewitness accounts are powerful testimonies and shouldn't be categorically dismissed because one doesn't immediately understand. I suspect there was a very powerful reason why you were chosen to have that experience. Even if you do not have a personal relationship with God or His son, Jesus, I would encourage you to still pray about it. There is a reason it happened.
I understand that I am posting on an athiest forum and many will be eager to encourage you to dismiss what I just wrote. But ask yourself, if you really just experienced what you say you experienced - why not spend 60 seconds silently asking God to reveal the purpose of your experience? Ask Him what He is trying to show you. Prayer, while difficult to understand from a natural perspective, yields incredible power in the spiritual world. All the best.
You know, with all the claims of out of body experiences, at least one doctor has set out to validate it scientifically. They put cards with random shapes, words, and numbers on top of things in the room like cabinets were they couldn't be easily seen. Absolutely NONE of the patients who have claimed to have these experiences of looking down on themselves, to this date, has ever so much as mentioned a peep about those cards. Isn't that interesting?
Moreover, depending on where these people live and what beliefs they hold their experiences differ significantly, almost like their experiences are shaped by preexisting expectations and their cultures, funny ain't it? Makes one wonder just whose "eyewitness account" we are supposed to take seriously, with such a diverse variety, it is no wonder that in cases where such testimony varies so wildly it is generally dismissed. It is also little wonder why there has been a legitimate push from the psychological community to exclude such testimony, considering in test after test "eyewitnesses" consistently fail to give anything approaching an unbiased account.
One wonders, with such "powerful testimonies" why Zeus and Odin aren't still recognized as legitimate deities, considering the hundreds of people who claim to "experience" them every year. Why, it is almost as if people might be skeptical of people who experience things under brain hypoxia, who'da thunk it? And what about all those lovely people who claim to have healed and resurrected people, surely they are just as honest, because there is no way they would lie? Surely it just must be because science has failed to investigate those claims, despite million dollar reward if they can, because they are just part of a conspiracy of silence around faith-healing and homeopathy.
No, no, surely nobody could seriously consider such unfalsifiable nonsense as anything but the most earnest of truth.
Hi Travis,
I am not personally aware of the scientific studies you mention, but I see your point about blindly accepting any eyewitness testimony as truth without further proof or evidence. While I am a Christian, I don't operate on blind faith. There is plenty of evidence - archaeological, historical, manuscript evidence, prophetic consistency and literary consistency that confirms the truth of the Bible as God's word. Eyewitness accounts are just one of the many pieces of evidence that reconfirms my faith time and again.
I've personally met non-believers who won't accept God until they see that definitive piece of evidence that affirms His existence. That is the heart of the great faith debate. I'll admit that I don't have all the answers, but faith is the one thing God wants the very most out of us. Throughout scripture this is the one overarching theme - from the days of Jewish animal sacrifices to accepting Jesus Christ as the risen Savior. The entire book is about the reconciliation of God to man.
The last part of your comment states:
And what about all those lovely people who claim to have healed and resurrected people, surely they are just as honest, because there is no way they would lie?
We have some close family friends we've known almost 20 years who are people of honor and integrity. They are evangelical Christians who travel to muslim countries to spread the gospel message of Christ, spending large chunks of their own money, putting their personal safety in jeopardy just to share the powerful message of the gospel with those who have never heard it. They pay armed guards to escort them around their destination countries. Their mission crusades bring 10,000-50,000 people from miles around who are desperate to hear the gospel. It is during these events that miraculous healings occur including sight restored to the blind, hearing to the deaf and in one particular circumstance an infant who had died early in the day was resurrected from the dead. If it's all an illusion - why would our friends go to so much trouble, spending large chunks of their annual salary and jeopardizing their own safety to experience something that is just in their imaginations? They get almost no public or social recognition from their work, so why bother?
"Their mission crusades bring 10,000-50,000 people from miles around who are desperate to hear the gospel. It is during these events that miraculous healings occur including sight restored to the blind, hearing to the deaf and in one particular circumstance an infant who had died early in the day was resurrected from the dead. "
Heatherwc ....
Bold claims ...... I wonder if you would be so kind as to furnish some evidence ......
Perhaps names ,dates , places....anything really....
You say ,and I quote ," I see your point about blindly accepting any eyewitness testimony as truth without further proof or evidence. " so I'm sure you'll see the necessity of providing something "checkable" ... for such astounding claims.
I await your reply....
Hi Watchman,
You are welcome to read all about these 2 missionaries and their stories at their website:
http://www.eternallifeinternational.com/howard-and-leslie/
Also, our friend passed away a couple months ago and at his funeral a video was played that depicts a mission trips to Pakistan. It's 8 minutes long and well worth the watch. Amazing to see so many people come to hear the gospel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2CXJzVzX60
Thank You Heatherwc....
I'm afraid I cannot give you a full reply at the present.....I am in the UK and it is getting late here ... but rest assured I shall return tomorrow evening (UK time).....
In the mean time just a quick point that I noticed and that you may be able to clarify for me...... On the home page of Eternal Life International I found this .....
"Leslie and I have taken the Gospel to places like Pakistan, India, and the Muslim Region of Mindanao spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ"
Now this seems to imply that Mindanao is a Muslim region and that this particular "crusade" ..is some how an act of some bravado..... when in fact only 20% of the population are Muslims ...this from Wikipedea....
."More than 70% of the population of Mindanao adhere to Christianity. Roman Catholics form the largest single religious group at 60.9 percent of the total household population. Islam comprises 20.44% while other religions are as follows: Evangelical (5.34%), Aglipayan (2.16%), Iglesia ni Cristo (1.66%), and Seventh Day Adventist (1.65%)."
You'll forgive me but on the surface of things ,at least as far as Mindanao is concerned ,it would seem that your friends have been preaching to the (already) converted.
Any way ,as I say ,I'll be back tomorrow with a more considered and better researched reply.
Thank you again for participating.
Hello Watchman, the area they visited in Mindanao is in Abu Sayaff territory known for muslim insurgency against the government with the population caught in the middle. I personally know that Howard had told churches in the area that requested him to partner with them for his peace concerts/crusades that he will only come if he can be assured his audience is muslim as he doesn't want to spend his financial resources or risk safety to preach to those who have already received Christ.
Here is a video news story by CBN done in 2008 on their mission trip to Mindanao which explains much better. You can hear in his own words of the Mujahideen fighters (Muslim freedom fighters) receiving a dream before their arrival - they laid down their weapons and received Christ. That is the power of the gospel.
http://www.cbn.com/tv/1503526863001
Heatherwc....
My apologies for my late appearance here today....
I watched your videos and "news" reports ....
I have to say that I'm somewhat disappointed ..... you spoke of evidence ,and I had hoped that you would provide something at least somewhat challenging ...... but ..... it was not to be....
Your friends stage show is simply the usual travelling show/revivalist meetings the format of which dates back to at least the American Civil war ...probably beyond.
Complete with unsubstantiated "wonders" the snake oil sales man peddles his wares....healing whatever ails ya ...even raising the dead ,.... all unsupported assertions.
The video itself is edited in such a way as to try to make the numbers attending look greater...but if you are quick enough you can see that there are only 3 buses pictured although they are shown multiple times ... low camera angles and the concentration of shots on the kids dancing serves to mask numbers.
So..no.... sorry not convincing. Plus the several and conflicting claims for the numbers of attendees tends to give rise to suspicions of false accounting and perhaps self agrandisment.
You provided a link to a CBN "news" story..... CBN stands for Christian Broadcasting Network .... it is linked to the infamous 700 club ... and so more a propaganda organisation than an independent news gathering group.
So if its all the same to you I think I'll pass on the apostate mujahadin story.....
If you have anything else that you consider as evidence I would be glad to look it over .... but be advised you are not the first to come here claiming evidence.
Watchman,
Perhaps the greatest thing about free will is that we are each free to choose what we will believe. The gospel message is really a love story and not a science story. That's what makes it so unique from any other belief system or religion in the history of the world. It really isn't a religion at all - but God seeking a personal relationship with you through Jesus Christ. It's the story of God loving mankind so much that He took on human form, lived a perfect sinless life then died on the cross to pay the price for your sins and mine - all you have to do is accept the gift. It's a free gift available to anyone who is willing to take it. Blessings.
Heatherwc....
"Perhaps the greatest thing about free will is that we are each free to choose what we will believe."
Indeed ..... perhaps it is...
"The gospel message is really a love story and not a science story."
If you say so.....but we can agree that whatever else it is ...it is a story..... a fabricated narrative ..... to paraphrase Shakespeare ,
"It is a tale told by mad men ...full of sound and fury and signifying ................ nothing"
Im sorry to tell you it is not unique ....in fact it borrows so much from so many other religions that it is often difficult to see where ,say ,Mithrasism ends and christianity begins or where the line is between easter and the rites of Eoster.
But I digress ...you are ,of course entitled to your own faith ,your own beliefs ,your own thoughts and ideas... you are not ,however ,entitled to your own facts ..... so be careful with claims of evidence and truth.....
But thank you for the civil exchanges .... I wish you well and I hope that you will find your way to a better understanding of things in the future.
"I am not personally aware of the scientific studies you mention, but I see your point about blindly accepting any eyewitness testimony as truth without further proof or evidence."
If I recall correctly, it was a experiment done by someone named Penny Sartori, but I am not certain.
"While I am a Christian, I don't operate on blind faith."
I don't think it is possible for anyone to operate on blind faith alone, it would get them injured or killed rather quickly.
"There is plenty of evidence - archaeological, historical, manuscript evidence, prophetic consistency and literary consistency that confirms the truth of the Bible as God's word."
Every single time I read or hear this, I have to stop myself and remember that people actually believe this, when the overwhelming majority of the evidence points to most of the "important" biblical events being fiction. You may believe that the seven day creation, Noah's flood, garden of Eden, and even Exodus happened. You might even believe that Nazareth existed at the supposed time of Jesus, despite Roman records disputing that fact. You are welcome to believe in all of those things, but when you call them either scientific or historical despite all legitimate evidence being to the contrary, it makes you seem less than wholly honest.
"Eyewitness accounts are just one of the many pieces of evidence that reconfirms my faith time and again."
I would dismiss the majority of them, where I you, because anyone who has ever taken either sociology or psychology would be able to tear them apart in less than a minute.
"I've personally met non-believers who won't accept God until they see that definitive piece of evidence that affirms His existence."
Seems a pretty reasonable request. A genuine piece of existence affirming evidence is something that should be able to be found for anything that exists, and something that can never be found for something that doesn't.
"That is the heart of the great faith debate. I'll admit that I don't have all the answers, but faith is the one thing God wants the very most out of us."
Why? Also, if I wanted people to have "faith" in me, I would at least be willing to establish my existence. Hell, I wouldn't even expect them to trust me until they had adequate reason to, because I realize people have brains. If a god truly wanted us to believe and know it exists, it could easily provide any an all evidence to us in a heartbeat, so why doesn't it? Either he doesn't really want us to, or it demands us to based on wholly insufficient evidence. Perhaps this is all but a litmus test, and you have it backward. Maybe god is weeding out all of the people willing to believe nonsense for no good reason.
"Throughout scripture this is the one overarching theme - from the days of Jewish animal sacrifices to accepting Jesus Christ as the risen Savior. The entire book is about the reconciliation of God to man."
No thanks, I adamantly oppose human sacrifice on principle, and will have no part even in that of Jesus. I would much rather take responsibility for myself and my own actions than foist them off on someone else, as that is the moral thing to do, and not shrug my personal choices on to a scapegoat so they can be punished in my place. I would consider that a truly immoral way of viewing accountability and responsibility, which is probably part of the reason why people like me(atheists) are less than half as likely to commit a crime.
"The last part of your comment states:
And what about all those lovely people who claim to have healed and resurrected people, surely they are just as honest, because there is no way they would lie?
We have some close family friends we've known almost 20 years who are people of honor and integrity. They are evangelical Christians who travel to muslim countries to spread the gospel message of Christ, spending large chunks of their own money, putting their personal safety in jeopardy just to share the powerful message of the gospel with those who have never heard it. They pay armed guards to escort them around their destination countries. Their mission crusades bring 10,000-50,000 people from miles around who are desperate to hear the gospel. It is during these events that miraculous healings occur including sight restored to the blind, hearing to the deaf and in one particular circumstance an infant who had died early in the day was resurrected from the dead. If it's all an illusion - why would our friends go to so much trouble, spending large chunks of their annual salary and jeopardizing their own safety to experience something that is just in their imaginations? They get almost no public or social recognition from their work, so why bother?"
Thanks for the illustration of my point, we have zero reason or evidence to believe any of this, and yet people still pretend that it is somehow unreasonable to doubt these claims. May I see some scientific studies or material evidence in support of these claims, please? Hell, if your friends are willing to prove a genuine miracle, they can win a MILLION dollars from James Randi.
The million dollar prize has been on offer for decades, and to date, not a single person could show a speck of evidence for such claims thus far. Kinda makes one wonder...
Travis,
"I am not personally aware of the scientific studies you mention, but I see your point about blindly accepting any eyewitness testimony as truth without further proof or evidence." If I recall correctly, it was a experiment done by someone named Penny Sartori, but I am not certain."
I wasn't familiar with Penny Sartori, but I took a little time to research her bio/book. She beautifully illustrates that near death experiences are very real. Here is a short excerpt from her book intro on Amazon:
One patient in particular, patient number 10, stands out for Dr. Sartori. “He was in bad condition,” she says. “When we put him into bed he was unconscious and unresponsive. Later he reported an OBE. He was accurately able to tell us which doctor was in the room and what he had said while he was unconscious. He claimed to have met his deceased father and a Jesus-like figure. But the most extraordinary part was that afterwards he was able to use his hand, which had been paralyzed since birth. There is no medical explanation for how that healing occurred.
Penny Sartori also mentions Howard Storm in a comment on her blog. He's a former Atheist turned Christian minister after a near death experience. https://drpennysartori.wordpress.com/contact/
Here's Howard Storm's story:
http://ndestories.org/howard-storm/
"Every single time I read or hear this, I have to stop myself and remember that people actually believe this, when the overwhelming majority of the evidence points to most of the "important" biblical events being fiction. You may believe that the seven day creation, Noah's flood, garden of Eden, and even Exodus happened. You might even believe that Nazareth existed at the supposed time of Jesus, despite Roman records disputing that fact. You are welcome to believe in all of those things, but when you call them either scientific or historical despite all legitimate evidence being to the contrary, it makes you seem less than wholly honest."
I believe the Bible is God's true word. Physical proof of some of the above items have not been found, but lack of evidence does not prove something did not happen or does not exist. I will use your Nazareth example. Nazareth was a fairly insignificant town in the time of Jesus (for the world, not for Jesus). Some speculate it does not exist because it does not appear in the writings of Josephus, nor any other 1st century writings outside the Bible. The argument is because the texts don't mention it, it didn't exist which I believe is flawed rationale to use silence on a topic to prove something doesn't exist. However, to say there is no proof is not factual. The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. An inscription was discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima which documented the priests of the order of Elkalir came to live in Nazareth. Also, in 2009 the first Nazarene home to date from Jesus' era was excavated by archaeologists. These are very recent dates in history. I think it is not only plausible, but likely that more biblical evidence will continue to be unearthed into the near future.
"Eyewitness accounts are just one of the many pieces of evidence that reconfirms my faith time and again." I would dismiss the majority of them, where I you, because anyone who has ever taken either sociology or psychology would be able to tear them apart in less than a minute."
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you provide an example of a specific argument that a sociologist or psychologist is able to tear apart in less than a minute?
"I've personally met non-believers who won't accept God until they see that definitive piece of evidence that affirms His existence."
Seems a pretty reasonable request. A genuine piece of existence affirming evidence is something that should be able to be found for anything that exists, and something that can never be found for something that doesn't.
Please see my response above about Nazareth. There is plenty of evidence that the bible is true. The Bible is 66 books written by 40 different authors over a 1500 year period in 3 different languages, yet not one fact in the bible contradicts itself. That is because it's writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit. There are thousands of prophecies throughout the bible that are still being fulfilled to this very day. It will always stop short of your measure of "scientific proof" as God seeks a personal relationship with each of us through faith.
I suspect that even if a big booming voice came from the sky, us human beings would still find the rationale to disregard it as from God. The world is corrupted and God gives each of us the free will to choose Him or the world. He will never force any of us into a relationship with Him. It's something each of us will choose for ourselves. He doesn't just love Christians, He loves every person in this world and desires each to be reconciled to Him. That only happens by free will.
"That is the heart of the great faith debate. I'll admit that I don't have all the answers, but faith is the one thing God wants the very most out of us. "Why? Also, if I wanted people to have "faith" in me, I would at least be willing to establish my existence. Hell, I wouldn't even expect them to trust me until they had adequate reason to, because I realize people have brains. If a god truly wanted us to believe and know it exists, it could easily provide any an all evidence to us in a heartbeat, so why doesn't it?"
He did provide evidence (please see above). He came from heaven in the form of man, Jesus Christ to fulfill His own requirements of justice. He gave His life on the cross to pay for the sin that corrupted the world. Jesus became our intermediary between the world and God. God had promised Him to the world thousands of years before He came. Because of our faith in Jesus, we don't have to pay the penalty that we deserve as a result of our own sins. Jesus paid it for us.
"No thanks, I adamantly oppose human sacrifice on principle, and will have no part even in that of Jesus. I would much rather take responsibility for myself and my own actions than foist them off on someone else, as that is the moral thing to do, and not shrug my personal choices on to a scapegoat so they can be punished in my place. I would consider that a truly immoral way of viewing accountability and responsibility, which is probably part of the reason why people like me(atheists) are less than half as likely to commit a crime."
Well, you and God agree on something. He is opposed to human sacrifice as well. :). Jesus death on the cross was a result of sin and God came down in the form of man to take on that sin for us. It had to be this way because of God's perfection. He requires the penalty of death (spiritual death) for sin. Jesus was perfect and without sin, so that is how he was able to take on God's own punishment. The problem with your argument above is that it assumes you can save yourself. Because of the grip sin (Satan) has on the world, we are all born with a one way ticket straight to hell. That's our destination and by ignoring your ticket to salvation you aren't able to "opt out". The default choice has already been made for you.
Regarding the last part of your post objecting to my claims of our family friend missionaries who spread the gospel. I included some links in an earlier post about their story. It really is an amazing story and if you have a few minutes I encourage you to watch the video links below. We've known this family for 20 years and yes the claims they make are astounding. So astounding, one can only come to 2 conclusions:
1) They are lying frauds who have perpetrated an elaborate multi-decade scheme to fool members of their family, friends and home church by spending tens of thousands of dollars of their own money and flying to dangerous, remote regions to share a message no one wanted to hear, then returning home and boldly lying about what they saw and experienced.
or
2) They are telling the truth and our God really is astounding.
http://www.eternallifeinternational.com/howard-and-leslie/
http://www.cbn.com/tv/1503526863001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2CXJzVzX60
"I wasn't familiar with Penny Sartori, but I took a little time to research her bio/book."
Neither am I, but I did read some of the work that was published in academic journals at one time or another, but I think she was the one that conducted the experiment I discussed. Was I right? Seriously, she was the only one I could think of.
"She beautifully illustrates that near death experiences are very real. Here is a short excerpt from her book intro on Amazon:"
Is it peer-reviewed?
"One patient in particular, patient number 10, stands out for Dr. Sartori. “He was in bad condition,” she says. “When we put him into bed he was unconscious and unresponsive. Later he reported an OBE. He was accurately able to tell us which doctor was in the room and what he had said while he was unconscious. He claimed to have met his deceased father and a Jesus-like figure. But the most extraordinary part was that afterwards he was able to use his hand, which had been paralyzed since birth. There is no medical explanation for how that healing occurred."
I am going to need a bit more evidence than THAT. People tell me strange and unbelievable stuff all the time, and usually a hard look at the relevant case data utterly demolishes their claims. This does not tell me the type of paralysis or what his affliction that left him unconscious was, and both are pieces of data that are usually necessary to determine if there IS a medical explanation or not. Meanwhile, like most anecdotal narratives, I have yet to find ANY of this data online outside her book. Is that important? Yes, in science independent corroboration is important.
"Penny Sartori also mentions Howard Storm in a comment on her blog. He's a former Atheist turned Christian minister after a near death experience. https://drpennysartori.wordpress.com/contact/
Here's Howard Storm's story:
http://ndestories.org/howard-storm/"
""What is atheism?" It is not possible to believe in nothing, therefore atheism does not exist." - Howard Storm
I hate to tell you, but he obviously has no clue what an atheist is, and neither does Jesus if he said that to him.
"I believe the Bible is God's true word. Physical proof of some of the above items have not been found, but lack of evidence does not prove something did not happen or does not exist."
Much evidence has been found to support that many biblical events never happened at all, and that many are simply rewrites of older stories from other older religions.
"I will use your Nazareth example. Nazareth was a fairly insignificant town in the time of Jesus (for the world, not for Jesus)."
We were talking about Roman Census data, you know, that census thing that was the entire REASON Jesus was supposedly born in a manger? Yet Nazareth does NOT actually seem to exist yet at this time, while even smaller towns are mentioned by name. Sorry, your answer does not bear up under historical scrutiny.
"Some speculate it does not exist because it does not appear in the writings of Josephus, nor any other 1st century writings outside the Bible."
The damn census, the thing they were on the road for in the first place, has no account of "Nazareth". Now people have lot to say about the Romans, but only a fool would call them negligent in their census.
"The argument is because the texts don't mention it, it didn't exist which I believe is flawed rationale to use silence on a topic to prove something doesn't exist. However, to say there is no proof is not factual."
Finally, perhaps something to sink my teeth into.
"An inscription was discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima which documented the priests of the order of Elkalir came to live in Nazareth."
Strange, that fragment dates to AD 132-35.
"Also, in 2009 the first Nazarene home to date from Jesus' era was excavated by archaeologists."
Now THAT is interesting, as the house appears to date to at least AD 67, but it is the ONLY one of its kind. One house does not make a village. Also, the structure appears to be defensive and comes replete with pits and traps, which would indicate that there where some kind of battle or war occurring. Most historians point directly at the vicious roman backlash in around AD 50-60.
I appreciate the bone to gnaw, this is actually a fascinating tidbit of information. I will have to file it for later.
"These are very recent dates in history. I think it is not only plausible, but likely that more biblical evidence will continue to be unearthed into the near future."
Its ok, even if not one single piece of evidence is ever unearthed again, people will continue to believe anyway.
"I'm not sure what you mean. Could you provide an example of a specific argument that a sociologist or psychologist is able to tear apart in less than a minute?"
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
This has a number of them, and it is still a fairly easy read.
"There is plenty of evidence that the bible is true."
Hardly, and when someone says this I recount the part that literally claims that showing striped sticks to pregnant sheep will encourage striped offspring.
"The Bible is 66 books written by 40 different authors over a 1500 year period in 3 different languages, yet not one fact in the bible contradicts itself."
You can't be serious, there have been lists floating around for decades about the contradictions in the text of the bible. The fact that you can type this as an argument demonstrates your inability to accept such contradictions.
"That is because it's writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit. There are thousands of prophecies throughout the bible that are still being fulfilled to this very day."
The vast majority of "prophecy" in the bible was also conveniently fulfilled in the bible, in some instances so blatantly that you have Jesus riding two horses at once like a bad western. The few that apply to extra-biblical events are usually so vague and ill-defined that it could apply to a plethora of other events, and were actually pointed to by eminent scholars then too.
"It will always stop short of your measure of "scientific proof" as God seeks a personal relationship with each of us through faith."
That is ridiculous way of doing things. Expecting the other party to surrender their reason seems a very poor start to any relationship.
"I suspect that even if a big booming voice came from the sky, us human beings would still find the rationale to disregard it as from God."
If everyone hears it: "Oh, it seems I was probably wrong, better do more investigation."
If only I hear it: "Oh hell, either I am insane or I am wrong, better do more investigation."
If a deaf person hears it: "Holy shit, I can hear, better listen to that voice!"
If a religious person hears it: "God."
On of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong...
"The world is corrupted and God gives each of us the free will to choose Him or the world."
No being has truly free will, but a limited will, its choices are subject to the constraints of the reality it inhabits; and moreso the experiences often thrust upon it at no fault of its own.
"He will never force any of us into a relationship with Him. "
He is already trying to do that through blackmail.
"He did provide evidence (please see above)."
Sorry, your batting average so far is pretty low, but I am sure it will get better with time.
"Well, you and God agree on something."
Apparently not, and worse, he did it without even asking.
"It had to be this way because of God's perfection. He requires the penalty of death (spiritual death) for sin."
I don't think you know how the whole omniscience thing works.
"The problem with your argument above is that it assumes you can save yourself."
No, it only assumes that I am the one who bears responsibility for my actions, and so it is my responsibility to attempt reparations on my own if they are necessary. Will I always be able to be forgiven? No, but that isn't the point, accountability is. The one thing your system would utterly destroy. I'm sorry, the idea that someone as morally reprehensible as the Catholic Hitler is probably in heaven, whilst innocent Jainists will burn forever for not be a sycophant to the right idea is wholly repugnant and immoral on principle.
Your religion may be many things, but moral or accountable isn't on the list.
"We are all born with a one way ticket straight to hell."
Whelp, that pretty much nails it, you are too far gone. If you can look at a baby as an evil, twisted being deserving of hell and torment, you are too far gone for us to reach you with a spaceship.
"The default choice has already been made for you."
Let me see, oh yes, I will use this one:
"He will never force any of us into a relationship with Him."
It would appear it is far too late for that, as he already has, even if you do not choose to consciously recognize it. A rigged system isn't a sign of a just or moral being, but of a tyrant and a dictator, and if your particular divine Stalin puts me in a gulag it will be because a good man didn't just stand back and do nothing as he was ordered to.
" So astounding, one can only come to 2 conclusions:
1) They are lying...
or
2) They are telling the truth..."
False dichotomy. It is possible that they are not intentionally lying, but caught up in their own hysteria and delusion, and are simply unable to see the truth. It happens all the time, I worked in a psych ward for years, and some of the worst kinds were just such narcissistic delusions of god working through them. Now, I won't tell you what to believe, but I know what I do.
Travis, I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed response. You bring some excellent points that I will need to research a little further.
I did want to respond to one of your objections about the Roman census. You seem very knowledgeable on historical events. This is a bit "in the weeds", but thought you may appreciate it - it describes the apparent contradictions regarding the census and claims in the Book of Luke.
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Cen...
I assume that while we approach God (or lack there-of) from very different viewpoints, that we are both interested in pursuing truth no matter where that truth leads us. Correct?
I do have one question. It's a question to which I have never received a satisfactory answer from someone who does not believe in the existence of a creator:
If there is no God or creator, how did something come from nothing?
"Travis, I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed response."
Well, your response was fairly detailed and thought out, so I attempted to give it the consideration that I thought it deserved.
"You bring some excellent points that I will need to research a little further."
Ideally, in a mutual discussion, both parties learn new things. I am rather interested in the house you mentioned, I'll keep my eye out and see if they are ever able to date it with radiometry.
"I did want to respond to one of your objections about the Roman census. You seem very knowledgeable on historical events. This is a bit "in the weeds", but thought you may appreciate it - it describes the apparent contradictions regarding the census and claims in the Book of Luke."
Indeed, I was somewhat aware of the problem. I had assumed, however, that you probably accepted the census story because the birth in a stable story doesn't make much sense without it. Late-term pregnant women, at that time, didn't usually travel unless it was a matter of life and death. The census account, flawed as it is, makes more sense than her traveling for something unimportant.
"I assume that while we approach God (or lack there-of) from very different viewpoints"
Indeed. A non-believer will look for another reason other than god for whatever evidence or events they experience, while believers often see god in nearly everything that happens. Take an example:
'God did X"
While a believer is likely to evaluate the claim based on whether they think god would do X or not, a non-believer would dismiss the claim because god needs to be established before one could claim it did anything at all.
"that we are both interested in pursuing truth no matter where that truth leads us. Correct?"
Yes, we just start at different places and view the course from differing perspectives. While I disagree with your perspective, I do not think it is "bad" inherently, there are parts of it I dislike. As you probably gathered from our exchange.
"I do have one question. It's a question to which I have never received a satisfactory answer from someone who does not believe in the existence of a creator:
If there is no God or creator, how did something come from nothing?"
This question deals with the cause, or origin, of the "big bang". The "big bang" is the scientific model of the universe that covers everything from the first Planck Second. The only thing we really have in the way of explanation of origin are hypotheses, which are nearly impossible to test due to being inside of the universe. Lawrence Krauss, tends to tout his hypothesis as a universe from nothing, but even it requires a one-dimensional planar vacuum. There are no current hypotheses which claim it came from "nothing", as "nothing" in a scientific sense does not exist.
Even a state with no dimensional characteristics, space, or time would still be a "something" so long as energy existed in that state. The best scientific answer I can give you, as someone who studied physics, is that there was always a "something" and as beings within this universe we just aren't able to work out exactly what that "something" was. It is simply beyond our current capacity to understand, and may always be beyond that capacity.
In the end, there may well be people who believe the universe came from "nothing", but they aren't physicists because unless you redefine "nothing" like Krauss does; it is a nonsensical abstract. Even in theism, for instance, one presupposes at least some state in which god can exist outside of our universe, because a "something"(god in theism) cannot exist in nothing. Ergo, in either case there was always "something", but in physics we simply refuse to make unjustified assumptions on what it is or how it works.
I hope that answers you question to some extent, but I doubt it will give much satisfaction, as it essentially a very long and probably overthought response that was the equivalent of a shrug and an assertion that "something" must have always preceded the universe. Let me know if you have questions about this convoluted response.
"The best scientific answer I can give you, as someone who studied physics, is that there was always a "something" and as beings within this universe we just aren't able to work out exactly what that "something" was. It is simply beyond our current capacity to understand, and may always be beyond that capacity."
Since it is nearly impossible to test, it would require faith that it is true. In fact, since no human being is omniscient with a perfect view of all past, present and future, there is an element of faith in any belief system - religious or otherwise. Even as you state that "something" must have always preceded the universe, the question comes back to how did that something get there in the first place?
Also, you mentioned in a previous post and I forgot to respond in my last post:
"Your religion may be many things, but moral or accountable isn't on the list."
I have to say it is the opposite. A belief in God demands moral accountability to God. If there is no God, then morality is relative. What is good for me, may be bad for you and vice versa. Hitler justified the murder of 6 million Jews. Without God, there is no one to set the standard- a firm and unyielding measure of what is right or wrong.
As a Christian, I agree that we are to be fully responsible for ourselves. I believe I know what you were inferring though, there are Christians who see Jesus' sacrifice on the cross as a free credit card to sin and feel they will not be held accountable. Nothing is further from the truth. While we are born into sin and will never be perfect, we are to still try for perfection knowing that our sins are covered by Jesus (i.e. our ticket into the presence of God). Our faith is what saves, but faith without works is a dead faith. Christians are still sinners even after accepting Jesus, and unfortunately the hypocrisy amongst the Church today is stunning.
Lastly, I would encourage you to genuinely ask God if He is really there. It's a private conversation between the two of you - the only thing required is a degree of humility. When you are alone just ask: "Creator, if you are there and if you can hear me, then reveal yourself to me" and wait, patiently. You may be amazed to get a response that will change your life. At least the next time a Christian wanders into this forum you can say you already genuinely tried.
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you" - Matthew 7:7
"Since it is nearly impossible to test, it would require faith that it is true. In fact, since no human being is omniscient with a perfect view of all past, present and future, there is an element of faith in any belief system - religious or otherwise."
True, but to an extent. Believing that there was something you don't know or understand preceding the universe is not the same as a belief that you know and understand it some degree, those are wholly different claims. The former only requires one single unprovable assertion, the latter is jam-packed with unjustifiable assertions that would strain Occam's Razor to the point of completely dulling it.
"Even as you state that "something" must have always preceded the universe, the question comes back to how did that something get there in the first place?"
Only inasmuch as that question applies to your "something"(god).
"I have to say it is the opposite. A belief in God demands moral accountability to God."
Who apparently is willing to forgo that accountability at the drop of a hat, so long as you are a sycophant to the right idea.
"If there is no God, then morality is relative."
Even if there is a god, morality is still relative. One can easily establish that merely by looking around.
"What is good for me, may be bad for you and vice versa."
Indeed, which is what makes it relative to the individual. People consider all kind of atrocious acts "moral", so whether you like it or not, on Earth morality IS a relative construct; regardless of whether your god exists or not.
"Hitler justified the murder of 6 million Jews. Without God, there is no one to set the standard- a firm and unyielding measure of what is right or wrong."
The only standards we have today are ones we have collectively agreed upon. Of course, if we used the laws of god laid down in Leviticus, I would view that as pretty damn immoral too. So, your damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
"As a Christian, I agree that we are to be fully responsible for ourselves."
I doubt it. Do you believe that repenting of your sins to Jesus is enough to be forgiven them? If so, then you certainly don't agree.
"I believe I know what you were inferring though, there are Christians who see Jesus' sacrifice on the cross as a free credit card to sin and feel they will not be held accountable. Nothing is further from the truth. While we are born into sin and will never be perfect, we are to still try for perfection knowing that our sins are covered by Jesus (i.e. our ticket into the presence of God). Our faith is what saves, but faith without works is a dead faith. Christians are still sinners even after accepting Jesus, and unfortunately the hypocrisy amongst the Church today is stunning."
Then let me ask you two questions:
If a man routinely rapes and kills small children until he is caught and prosecuted, finds Jesus and truly repents his crimes on death row, where does he go when he dies?
If a peaceful atheist man lives a very good life, never harming others and giving of himself to his fellow man all the days of his life, but happens to be gay; where does he go when he dies?
"Lastly, I would encourage you to genuinely ask God if He is really there. It's a private conversation between the two of you - the only thing required is a degree of humility. When you are alone just ask: "Creator, if you are there and if you can hear me, then reveal yourself to me" and wait, patiently. You may be amazed to get a response that will change your life. At least the next time a Christian wanders into this forum you can say you already genuinely tried."
I tried that when I was younger, numerous times, and your god apparently declined to respond. Perhaps he wanted me to be an atheist for a reason? Or, perhaps he wasn't ever there. I suppose we will both find out eventually, whether we would like to or not. But I suppose I shall attempt it again, under advisement, but if he declines to respond I am not going to be surprised or angry that he didn't deign to speak to me. I suppose I will let you know if he ever does respond to me, if you are around if and when it happens.
"Who apparently is willing to forgo that accountability at the drop of a hat, so long as you are a sycophant to the right idea."
Travis, the accountability is never foregone. Each believer still has to give an account of his life to God. That person just makes it to heaven to be able to give their account. Without faith in Christ, a person remains eternally separated from God - a choice made in this lifetime.
"Even if there is a god, morality is still relative. One can easily establish that merely by looking around."
Yes, that is because sin has entered into the world. God's nature is that He does not change. This is the reason He gave the law to the Jews. It was so that they would realize they could not be saved by their own merits. In other words, the entire Old Testament of the Bible was forward looking to the Messiah. Once Jesus came to earth, He fulfilled the law. He did not abolish it. It was the realization that we needed God and we could not do it on our own that mattered. Ironically, the Jews did not recognize their own Messiah when He came and many still don't to this day. Although, that is beginning to change with the rise of the Messianic Jew (another fulfilled biblical prophecy). The purpose of God's laws via the Old Testament were to teach His people (the Jews) and by extension us (the gentiles) His standards. So God set the measuring stick for morality, but because we have a corrupted world and nature, our human nature chooses what is not of God - further evidence that Satan is the prince of this world.
"Indeed, which is what makes it relative to the individual. People consider all kind of atrocious acts "moral", so whether you like it or not, on Earth morality IS a relative construct; regardless of whether your god exists or not."
Only because of sin. God's morality never changes.
"The only standards we have today are ones we have collectively agreed upon. Of course, if we used the laws of god laid down in Leviticus, I would view that as pretty damn immoral too. So, your damned if you do, and damned if you don't."
When reading the Old Testament, we always have to remember that the bible was written for us but not to us. We have the unique vantage point of hindsight - acquired knowledge of history, technology, etc. Take the old testament dietary rules for example, they were written for hygienic purposes - something we don't have to be concerned about in modern times. The law was written for the Jews for their protection as well as a test of their obedience to God and specific for the time period in which they lived. We no longer live under the laws of Leviticus because their purpose has been served. Jesus fulfilled the law and summed it up as follows:
Jesus was asked by one of the Pharisees, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” - Matthew 22: 36-40
"I doubt it. Do you believe that repenting of your sins to Jesus is enough to be forgiven them? If so, then you certainly don't agree."
Yes, repenting of your sins is enough to be forgiven of them. However, repent means to turn away with a contrite heart. Unfortunately, this definition is often twisted in that some believers feel it's enough to say sorry on Sunday and go right back to living the old way come Monday. This would not meet God's definition of repentance.
True repentance reconciles us to God and our sins are forgiven. As believers we still give an account of our lives to God in heaven, and we are rewarded based on that account. God does not judge believers, but He does promise judgement for anyone who rejects His son Jesus Christ. He made it clear there is no other way to reconcile oneself to Him. While He promises to judge unbelievers, He does not look forward to it. He wants as many believers to come to Him through Christ before it is too late.
"If a man routinely rapes and kills small children until he is caught and prosecuted, finds Jesus and truly repents his crimes on death row, where does he go when he dies?"
He goes to heaven. That is the promise of reconciliation for all of us to God through Jesus. God is holy and cannot be in the presence of sin. All sin - from a petty theft to mass murder is abhorrent to Him. He does not categorize sins like we do in this world. Salvation is a free gift to anyone, and I mean anyone regardless of the life they lived on the earth. His forgiveness is always about His mercy and never about how much we deserve it. However, being reconciled to God does not mean the child rapist would get a free ticket out of the consequences of his actions during his life in this world.
"If a peaceful atheist man lives a very good life, never harming others and giving of himself to his fellow man all the days of his life, but happens to be gay; where does he go when he dies?"
If he knew of Christ and rejected Him as his Savior, then Jesus told us he would not be in heaven. It is a heart and faith issue and not a behavior issue that determines where we go. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." -John 14:6
I know it's not popular to speak about (ironically, it's even less popular in churches these days), but I will say it again: this world belongs to Satan. He has this world. He had it the moment Eve took the bite of the apple (whether it was a figurative or a literal apple - I do not know, so please don't make this a debate point. I've never personally met a talking snake, so I will file this one in the "I have no idea" category). In any event, the part of this that I do know is that the world was made perfect before sin entered into it creating a giant chasm between God and mankind. Jesus is the bridge that brings us back to God's side. If you are not on God's side, then you will not be reconciled to Him. It will always be left as a choice for the individual since it's always a matter of faith, first. Do you put your faith in the world and yourself or do you trust one greater than yourself?
"I tried that when I was younger, numerous times, and your god apparently declined to respond. Perhaps he wanted me to be an atheist for a reason? Or, perhaps he wasn't ever there. I suppose we will both find out eventually, whether we would like to or not. But I suppose I shall attempt it again, under advisement, but if he declines to respond I am not going to be surprised or angry that he didn't deign to speak to me. I suppose I will let you know if he ever does respond to me, if you are around if and when it happens."
Well, He's not just my God and I'm going to bet that He never wanted you to be an atheist. It can be frustrating when we don't receive answers on our timeline. I know He is there because of the answers to prayers I have received. Sometimes when I am in the midst of something that seems hopeless, it is only when I look back awhile later and realize that not only did my prayers get answered, but they were answered in a way far greater than I could have imagined. It just took patience and perseverance and faith.
God has done amazing things with people that you would least expect. Take Paul in the New Testament - after Jesus' death and resurrection. Here's a Jewish guy named Saul, who hated Jesus and was bent on murdering anyone associated with Him. Jesus comes back to earth after His ascension, blinds Saul with a bright light while he's on his way to destroy more Christians, and asks him why he's persecuting him. He renames him Paul, and tells him to go back home and wait for more instructions. Saul, now Paul stunned and still temporarily blind, realizes what just happened, goes home to wait for God's instructions and then goes on as the primary missionary spreading the gospel message into Europe. God can and does amazing things - He turned a Jesus-hating, Christian-murdering thug into a missionary that brought the gospel message to Europe and ultimately to the rest of the world. While this was along time ago, it is still happening today. There are stories coming out of the middle east of former ISIS members coming to Christ. The real story here is that no matter what life we have today or what we think of our destiny, God's power, grace and mercy are far bigger.
I would love to hear back when you receive your answer and I would be more than happy to pray for you. Feel free to message me if there is something specific you would like me to ask Jesus to do for you.
Lastly, I want to say that I am surprised by the open-mindedness of many of your members on this forum. I didn't know what to expect when I replied to this post. While many are a little angry (which I do not take personally), many others including yourself have asked very informed questions. Ironically, I have found it easier to have an in-depth and enlightening conversation about God in this Atheist Forum, then I would have found in many churches. Who'd have thought.
"Travis, the accountability is never foregone."
Having read the entire bible, I know for a FACT that it actually references "wiping out" or "washing away" of sin. It literally STATES that the accountability is taken upon Christ himself, and that you are to remit them.
"Each believer still has to give an account of his life to God."
"I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Hmm, I am pretty sure that atheists are people too...
"That person just makes it to heaven to be able to give their account. Without faith in Christ, a person remains eternally separated from God - a choice made in this lifetime."
I would like to see where you get this from, in the bible, considering I have never heard this particular twist on the judgement narrative.
"Yes, that is because sin has entered into the world."
That is rather obvious, if what you call "sin" did not exist, morality wouldn't even be necessary at all. Is this some kind of time-traveling tautology?
"God's nature is that He does not change."
Except for all the times he has changed his mind or his laws.
"This is the reason He gave the law to the Jews. It was so that they would realize they could not be saved by their own merits. In other words, the entire Old Testament of the Bible was forward looking to the Messiah. Once Jesus came to earth, He fulfilled the law. He did not abolish it. It was the realization that we needed God and we could not do it on our own that mattered. Ironically, the Jews did not recognize their own Messiah when He came and many still don't to this day. Although, that is beginning to change with the rise of the Messianic Jew (another fulfilled biblical prophecy). The purpose of God's laws via the Old Testament were to teach His people (the Jews) and by extension us (the gentiles) His standards. So God set the measuring stick for morality, but because we have a corrupted world and nature, our human nature chooses what is not of God - further evidence that Satan is the prince of this world."
I tried to parse this, I really did, but there is entirely too much here to reasonably address in one post. As such, I will stick with one thing. Have heaven and Earth passed away?
"Only because of sin."
Tautology.
"God's morality never changes."
Except that it, apparently, has. It used to immoral to eat pork and shellfish, or wear mixed fabrics, or even work on a Sunday. So, either it is still immoral, or it never was despite god stating that it was. Pick one.
"When reading the Old Testament, we always have to remember that the bible was written for us but not to us. We have the unique vantage point of hindsight - acquired knowledge of history, technology, etc. Take the old testament dietary rules for example, they were written for hygienic purposes - something we don't have to be concerned about in modern times. The law was written for the Jews for their protection as well as a test of their obedience to God and specific for the time period in which they lived. We no longer live under the laws of Leviticus because their purpose has been served. Jesus fulfilled the law and summed it up as follows:
Jesus was asked by one of the Pharisees, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” - Matthew 22: 36-40"
Unfortunately, all you have done is demonstrate a lack of moral consistency, by all but dismissing the Mitzvot. Quite despite the fact that Jesus himself didn't, and actually stated that it should be obeyed by his followers, as he himself obeyed them.
"Yes, repenting of your sins is enough to be forgiven of them."
Then we don't agree.
"However, repent means to turn away with a contrite heart. Unfortunately, this definition is often twisted in that some believers feel it's enough to say sorry on Sunday and go right back to living the old way come Monday. This would not meet God's definition of repentance."
I don't really care how contrite the heart is, one should not be forgiven by pushing their sins onto another, that is a literal lack of responsibility and accountability I could not countenance in myself.
"If a man routinely rapes and kills small children until he is caught and prosecuted, finds Jesus and truly repents his crimes on death row, where does he go when he dies?"
"He goes to heaven."
"If a peaceful atheist man lives a very good life, never harming others and giving of himself to his fellow man all the days of his life, but happens to be gay; where does he go when he dies?"
"If he knew of Christ and rejected Him as his Savior, then Jesus told us he would not be in heaven. It is a heart and faith issue and not a behavior issue that determines where we go. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." -John 14:6
I know it's not popular to speak about (ironically, it's even less popular in churches these days), but I will say it again: this world belongs to Satan. He has this world. He had it the moment Eve took the bite of the apple (whether it was a figurative or a literal apple - I do not know, so please don't make this a debate point. I've never personally met a talking snake, so I will file this one in the "I have no idea" category). In any event, the part of this that I do know is that the world was made perfect before sin entered into it creating a giant chasm between God and mankind. Jesus is the bridge that brings us back to God's side. If you are not on God's side, then you will not be reconciled to Him. It will always be left as a choice for the individual since it's always a matter of faith, first. Do you put your faith in the world and yourself or do you trust one greater than yourself?"
That is a LOT of mental gymnastics to go through not to have to admit what your theology says on the subject, which is, if he is gay and never repents he will go to hell. This is one of the problems I really have with your religion(not you specifically), it is all about whether you repent or not, and not at all about being moral at all. This isn't even a question about morality to me anymore, because your religion isn't in my opinion, and my real frustration is the inability of believers to give a response without trying to justify what I see as an atrocity.
"Well, He's not just my God and I'm going to bet that He never wanted you to be an atheist."
Well, given that between the two of us, you are the one that believes he exists; you will have to excuse me if I consider him more yours than mine. As far as what your god wants, I wouldn't presume to know even if I thought it existed, as I wouldn't consider myself its equal if I did. That is perhaps, one of the things I find truly baffling about believers, their certain confidence that they "know" what their god thinks or wants in any given situation. Now this isn't exclusive to Christians, so don't feel like I am picking on you, but it truly does confuse me to some degree. It just seems like presuming to "understand" or "comprehend" something said to be truly omniscient and foreign to our thinking, seems a little egotistical.
I am told all the time by the religious that their god has a plan for me, and perhaps he does, and it includes what I am doing right this moment. Who knows. But if everything we do is "as he wills", to some extent a part of the plan, then perhaps we are all but actors on a grand stage; merely playing out our predetermined roles. One could hardly fault a philosopher for imagining such, given the circumstances.
"It can be frustrating when we don't receive answers on our timeline. I know He is there because of the answers to prayers I have received. Sometimes when I am in the midst of something that seems hopeless, it is only when I look back awhile later and realize that not only did my prayers get answered, but they were answered in a way far greater than I could have imagined. It just took patience and perseverance and faith."
Well, I am patient enough to enjoy Sudoku puzzles and physics, but I seem to lack your faith. I suppose we will see what we will see. I am in no great hurry, I am fairly boring and healthy, so I am really good at waiting.
"God has done amazing things with people that you would least expect. Take Paul in the New Testament - after Jesus' death and resurrection. Here's a Jewish guy named Saul, who hated Jesus and was bent on murdering anyone associated with Him. Jesus comes back to earth after His ascension, blinds Saul with a bright light while he's on his way to destroy more Christians, and asks him why he's persecuting him. He renames him Paul, and tells him to go back home and wait for more instructions. Saul, now Paul stunned and still temporarily blind, realizes what just happened, goes home to wait for God's instructions and then goes on as the primary missionary spreading the gospel message into Europe. God can and does amazing things - He turned a Jesus-hating, Christian-murdering thug into a missionary that brought the gospel message to Europe and ultimately to the rest of the world. While this was along time ago, it is still happening today. There are stories coming out of the middle east of former ISIS members coming to Christ. The real story here is that no matter what life we have today or what we think of our destiny, God's power, grace and mercy are far bigger."
I am fairly familiar with Saul of Tarsus, and his Damascus road experience, as I actually did study comparative theology as an elective course. The writings of Paul are the earliest Christian documents, and as such, are required reading in the portion dealing with Christian theology.
"I would love to hear back when you receive your answer and I would be more than happy to pray for you. Feel free to message me if there is something specific you would like me to ask Jesus to do for you."
I'll let you know, and I appreciate your offer, but I will leave the content of your prayers to your own discretion.
"Lastly, I want to say that I am surprised by the open-mindedness of many of your members on this forum. I didn't know what to expect when I replied to this post. While many are a little angry (which I do not take personally), many others including yourself have asked very informed questions. Ironically, I have found it easier to have an in-depth and enlightening conversation about God in this Atheist Forum, then I would have found in many churches. Who'd have thought."
Well, in general, those who reached atheism recently are usually the most angry. Those of us old hats, and those that were never very religious, generally aren't as hostile as interested in speaking to people of faith. I doubt you will convert me, and I doubt I will deconvert you, but that doesn't mean that we can't have a conversation which benefits us both without screaming obscenities at each other. Like I stated earlier, I have never heard this particular judgement narrative, so I learned something different today. That is one of my personal goals, to learn something new every day.
"Having read the entire bible, I know for a FACT that it actually references "wiping out" or "washing away" of sin. It literally STATES that the accountability is taken upon Christ himself, and that you are to remit them. "Each believer still has to give an account of his life to God." "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Hmm, I am pretty sure that atheists are people too...
There are two "judgements". One is for believers (judgement seat of Christ) and the other is for non-believers (the great white throne). Both are held accountable for their words and actions. Those believers in Christ who have been justified to God by their faith will receive their reward during that time. I understand that on the surface it seems contradictory, but it is not. Without Christ's sacrifice to atone for sin, a believer would not have the opportunity to face the judgement seat of Christ. Here is a link that explains the verse you quoted very succinctly (with verses, Greek translation). I've also heard it described with a chocolate cake analogy. Two believers could each be eating a piece of chocolate cake, but one is enjoying their cake more than the other, but neither is aware of the other's enjoyment of their cake.
http://www.gtpress.org/gtweb/gtmag/mag10/jun10/youasked.html
"That person just makes it to heaven to be able to give their account. Without faith in Christ, a person remains eternally separated from God - a choice made in this lifetime." I would like to see where you get this from, in the bible, considering I have never heard this particular twist on the judgement narrative."
Hopefully, I just addressed that with my first answer, but if I did not, then I apologize for my misunderstanding. I wasn't sure which part of the judgement narrative you were not familiar with. I would be happy to answer in more detail if you could elaborate the piece with which you are not familiar.
"That is rather obvious, if what you call "sin" did not exist, morality wouldn't even be necessary at all. Is this some kind of time-traveling tautology?"
Sorry, if I stated the obvious. Yes, without sin there would be no need for the law.
"God's nature is that He does not change." Except for all the times he has changed his mind or his laws."
Can you provide a specific example of where God changed His mind?
"I tried to parse this, I really did, but there is entirely too much here to reasonably address in one post. As such, I will stick with one thing. Have heaven and Earth passed away? "Only because of sin." Tautology.
No, heaven and earth have not yet passed away and yes the law still remains in effect today. However, the law was not given for the Gentile, but for the Jew. God gave the Jews the law to demonstrate to them they could never keep God's laws to His standard of perfection. Jesus Christ is part of the new covenant - God used the Jews to bring salvation to the rest of the world. The entire old testament was written for the Jews and was forward-looking to the coming of their Messiah. However, the Jews did not recognize their own Messiah, and they killed Him as He was a threat to their current religious power structure. Obviously, some of the earliest "Christians" were Jews who believed Jesus was their Messiah. After the remaining Jews rejected Christ as the Messiah, Paul took the gospel message to the Gentiles who received it with great joy. (Matthew 21:43-44).
"Except that it, apparently, has. It used to immoral to eat pork and shellfish, or wear mixed fabrics, or even work on a Sunday. So, either it is still immoral, or it never was despite god stating that it was. Pick one."
The law applies to the Jews and not the Gentiles. Unless you are Jewish, you are not under the Mosaic Covenant (Jewish law). We are both classified as Gentiles.
"Unfortunately, all you have done is demonstrate a lack of moral consistency, by all but dismissing the Mitzvot. Quite despite the fact that Jesus himself didn't, and actually stated that it should be obeyed by his followers, as he himself obeyed them."
Yes, because Jesus was a Jew He was under the law. I'm not aware of scripture that extends Jewish law to the Gentiles. If you have one in mind, please share and I will respond.
"I don't really care how contrite the heart is, one should not be forgiven by pushing their sins onto another, that is a literal lack of responsibility and accountability I could not countenance in myself."
We never "pushed" our sins onto Jesus. Jesus willingly took them up. He was part of God's plan for redemption of mankind from the very beginning as stated in Genesis 3:15. The only way to receive heaven through our own works is to live a completely sinless life which is not possible. The only man to walk the earth that was sinless was Jesus Christ, which is why He had to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins.
"That is a LOT of mental gymnastics to go through not to have to admit what your theology says on the subject, which is, if he is gay and never repents he will go to hell. This is one of the problems I really have with your religion(not you specifically), it is all about whether you repent or not, and not at all about being moral at all. This isn't even a question about morality to me anymore, because your religion isn't in my opinion, and my real frustration is the inability of believers to give a response without trying to justify what I see as an atrocity."
It's all about accepting the free gift of salvation. It always comes back to the fact that we can't be perfect enough to stand in God's presence. A petty thief is as lost as a murderer. God cannot exist in the presence of sin. Also, you cannot claim yourself a Christian, live a sinful life all the while saying you know Jesus and assume your salvation is secure. (Please don't confuse this with someone who sinned throughout their life and then genuinely found Jesus at the end of their life). You have to have a sincere and contrite heart. God knows the complete thoughts and the inner workings of all men as well as our motives.
O Lord, you have examined my heart
and know everything about me.
You know when I sit down or stand up...
You know my thoughts even when I’m far away...Psalm 139
"Well, given that between the two of us, you are the one that believes he exists; you will have to excuse me if I consider him more yours than mine. As far as what your god wants, I wouldn't presume to know even if I thought it existed, as I wouldn't consider myself its equal if I did. That is perhaps, one of the things I find truly baffling about believers, their certain confidence that they "know" what their god thinks or wants in any given situation. Now this isn't exclusive to Christians, so don't feel like I am picking on you, but it truly does confuse me to some degree. It just seems like presuming to "understand" or "comprehend" something said to be truly omniscient and foreign to our thinking, seems a little egotistical."
It's all about the Holy Spirit. You are possessed with the Holy Spirit once you invite Him into your heart. It's not fancy hyperbole, it is the only way to get the Holy Spirit. He imparts supernatural wisdom and understanding into your spirit. I have heard Him speak in my innermost being. I don't know how else to describe the inner knowing (or inner voice) that we receive with the Holy Spirit, other than to share my own testimony. It is like being in love or in pain. There is no way to prove I have it or I don't, but I do know it. The Bible described those without the Holy Spirit will hear the word and see it as foolishness. I guess without seeking out the Holy Spirit, it will continue to baffle every non-believer. This is why an athiest non-believer is perplexed when they hear of a new believer "finding Jesus". They can't understand what caused them to "lose their rational minds" and begin believing in Jesus.
"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." 1 Corinthians 2:14
"I am told all the time by the religious that their god has a plan for me, and perhaps he does, and it includes what I am doing right this moment. Who knows. But if everything we do is "as he wills", to some extent a part of the plan, then perhaps we are all but actors on a grand stage; merely playing out our predetermined roles. One could hardly fault a philosopher for imagining such, given the circumstances."
God only has a plan for those who seek Him. The world continues to belong to Satan. Otherwise, we could rationalize all sorts of evil acts as "God's plan". True, God does allow evil to occur as part of His plan, but He is not the author of evil. It is not because He is some twisted sycophant who enjoys suffering. It is because He has a larger, grander plan than any human mind can conceive.
I know there are many things I don't understand. For example, the power of prayer. If God is all-knowing, then why doesn't He just do what He's going to do without us having to ask? However, I know that it does work and He has told us that our prayers do change the course of history. We assume God has every little detail worked out, but this isn't the case. There are things that we cannot change about God's plan, but prayer is powerful and does change many circumstances in the natural world.
"Well, in general, those who reached atheism recently are usually the most angry. Those of us old hats, and those that were never very religious, generally aren't as hostile as interested in speaking to people of faith. I doubt you will convert me, and I doubt I will deconvert you, but that doesn't mean that we can't have a conversation which benefits us both without screaming obscenities at each other. Like I stated earlier, I have never heard this particular judgement narrative, so I learned something different today. That is one of my personal goals, to learn something new every day."
I like that - learning something new each day. That's a great goal for each of us.
"There are two "judgements". One is for believers (judgement seat of Christ) and the other is for non-believers (the great white throne). Both are held accountable for their words and actions."
Then we are ALL to give an account of our lives before your god, regardless of belief, believers just have the advantage of having their charges summarily dismissed by repenting them unto Christ. The judgement itself, however, appears to still come from god.
"Hopefully, I just addressed that with my first answer, but if I did not, then I apologize for my misunderstanding. I wasn't sure which part of the judgement narrative you were not familiar with. I would be happy to answer in more detail if you could elaborate the piece with which you are not familiar."
You seemed to indicate that your god didn't even consider our cases, but rather simply condemned us for what we believed.
"Sorry, if I stated the obvious. Yes, without sin there would be no need for the law."
Then it is the ABILITY to be immoral, that creates morality as a practice, not god. Morality would still exist, as a practice, regardless of a god.
"Can you provide a specific example of where God changed His mind?"
"So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people," (Exodus 32:14, NASB).
"No, heaven and earth have not yet passed away and yes the law still remains in effect today. However, the law was not given for the Gentile, but for the Jew."
Numbers Ch 15
"14 For the generations to come, whenever an alien or anyone else living among you presents an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, he must do exactly as you do.
15 The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the LORD:
16 The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you."
Jews and Gentiles apparently have the SAME laws, according to god.
"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Not everything has been accomplished, yet.
"The law applies to the Jews and not the Gentiles. Unless you are Jewish, you are not under the Mosaic Covenant (Jewish law). We are both classified as Gentiles."
God seemed to indicate, in Numbers, that Jews and Gentiles are under the SAME regulations.
"Yes, because Jesus was a Jew He was under the law. I'm not aware of scripture that extends Jewish law to the Gentiles. If you have one in mind, please share and I will respond."
Done.
"We never "pushed" our sins onto Jesus. Jesus willingly took them up."
Semantic distinction. You are still foisting off your sins on another, no matter how willing they may be, and I do not consider that accountable, responsible, or moral.
"It's all about accepting the free gift of salvation. It always comes back to the fact that we can't be perfect enough to stand in God's presence. A petty thief is as lost as a murderer. God cannot exist in the presence of sin. Also, you cannot claim yourself a Christian, live a sinful life all the while saying you know Jesus and assume your salvation is secure. (Please don't confuse this with someone who sinned throughout their life and then genuinely found Jesus at the end of their life). You have to have a sincere and contrite heart. God knows the complete thoughts and the inner workings of all men as well as our motives."
Then we will disagree, at least about what is just and moral, considering your polarized perspective. God would treat someone who stole a coat the same as one that stole a car, I find that absolutely stupid, so I don't think we will agree.
"It's all about the Holy Spirit."
I am not all that confused or perplexed on how or why people become Christian, unlike some, we just disagree about the reasons. Also, I think you kind of reinforced what I meant, your possession of the holy spirit would appear to make you closer to your god than I. Ergo, more your god than mine. I am not being facetious or "cute" when I say that I don't consider myself quite indebted to your god as you do. Mainly because I don't believe he exists, but the fact remains that I don't.
"God only has a plan for those who seek Him."
I was under the impression he has a plan for everyone, as everything is "as he wills".
"The world continues to belong to Satan."
No, a quick review of the old testament would tell one that god controls satan, and satan needs permission to do almost anything.
"Otherwise, we could rationalize all sorts of evil acts as "God's plan". True, God does allow evil to occur as part of His plan, but He is not the author of evil. It is not because He is some twisted sycophant who enjoys suffering. It is because He has a larger, grander plan than any human mind can conceive."
If god allows suffering, for his plan, then he is also responsible for it as well. Moreso, if he intentionally permisses it to be done specifically for his plan.
"I know there are many things I don't understand. For example, the power of prayer. If God is all-knowing, then why doesn't He just do what He's going to do without us having to ask?"
Causal loop. God, being omniscient and eternal, could have foreknown your prayer, and preemptively planned to answer it. Or maybe not. Infinite concepts cause such loops, as paradoxes, precisely because they cannot logically exist with will.
"I like that - learning something new each day. That's a great goal for each of us."
Thank you, I consider the world/universe to exciting to stop learning about it, so I set a rather self-gratifying goal of learning something new about it everyday.
"Then we are ALL to give an account of our lives before your god, regardless of belief, believers just have the advantage of having their charges summarily dismissed by repenting them unto Christ. The judgement itself, however, appears to still come from god."
-Yes, that is it in a nutshell.
"You seemed to indicate that your god didn't even consider our cases, but rather simply condemned us for what we believed."
-No, we are all condemned without the saving grace of Christ. No one can make a "case" since God cannot exist in the presence of sin and He makes it clear a perfect, sinless life is the only way to "earn" your way to the presence of God. Your statement seems to separate Christians vs. non-believers, but in God's eyes there is no difference - none is worthy. The only difference between a Christian and non-believer is the Christian has accepted the free gift of salvation.
How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure? Behold, even the moon is not bright, and the stars are not pure in his eyes; how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!” -Job 25:4-6
For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. -James 2:10
"Then it is the ABILITY to be immoral, that creates morality as a practice, not god. Morality would still exist, as a practice, regardless of a god."
-No, immorality exists because the world is corrupt with sin. If sin had not been introduced into the world via man not obeying God, the law would not be necessary as we would be ignorant of sin. I believe you and I are talking two different things - objective morality (a standard based outside yourself) vs. subjective morality (dependent on you, a situation, culture, preferences, etc.) It is because of man's knowledge of sin, that required an objective law of morality in the first place.
"Can you provide a specific example of where God changed His mind?" So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people," (Exodus 32:14, NASB).
-To understand this verse, we must look at wider context this verse fits in. Specifically, the verse states God changed his mind or "repented" as some translations state. If God is good and all-knowing, why would God change his mind or repent of something He has decided to do? In the context of this verse, God is speaking with Moses and telling him that the children of Israel are sinning and their sins are putting them in danger of being judged. God then says "Let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation."
Now, God had previously promised that He would deliver the nation of Israel out of the bondage of Egypt and into the Promised Land. Notice how He says "Let me alone." This was a test for Moses. God wanted to see if Moses would intercede for the people and provide a way of escape for them. Moses did as he should have and God didn't destroy Israel.
In writing this incident, Moses chose to use dramatic language to reflect the seriousness of the situation. By saying "God changed His mind" or "God repented", Moses employs what is known as an anthropomorphism - ascribing human qualities to God - to make his point. God promised that He would deliver Israel and He did. The "changing of mind" wasn't a change at all - God made good on His promise.
"Jews and Gentiles apparently have the SAME laws, according to god."
-The Numbers 15 verse you quote speaks of foreigners or sojourners living in the promised land of Israel and applies to the Jews living in Israel (and foreigners also living in Israel, as you pointed out). The law was meant for Jews and those living in Israel (which I did not specify "Israel" in my earlier description). While I as a Christian am not under the Old Testament laws, the law is still relevant to Christians today. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Christians are living under the new covenant or the "law of Christ" (i.e. Love thy neighbor).
Here is a link to a more thorough answer to the question, "Do Christians Have to Obey the Old Testament law?"
http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html
"Semantic distinction. You are still foisting off your sins on another, no matter how willing they may be, and I do not consider that accountable, responsible, or moral."
-Then without taking Christ's free gift of salvation, it would be up to you the individual to earn your way to heaven on your own merits. However, God standard is perfection.
"Then we will disagree, at least about what is just and moral, considering your polarized perspective. God would treat someone who stole a coat the same as one that stole a car, I find that absolutely stupid, so I don't think we will agree."
-I guess so. I'm not sure what else to say except that God demands 100% perfection and since mankind (including us) are fallen, we do not have the ability to "earn" our way back to paradise. The entire theme of all of the scriptures is faith, obedience and love. From the story of Adam and Eve (obedience) to Noah's Ark (faith and obedience) to leading Israel into the promised land (obedience and faith) to Christ's death and resurrection (faith and love) and awaiting Christ's return (faith, obedience and love) the entire point of scripture is to reconcile man back to God.
"God only has a plan for those who seek Him."
I was under the impression he has a plan for everyone, as everything is "as he wills".
-You are correct. My wording was a bit clumsy. God does have a plan for the world that affects believers and non-believers alike. However, that does not mean every minute detail of that plan has been set in stone. God created man with a free will and while God has a plan for the world, man ultimately chooses his own destiny. Otherwise, God just created a bunch of mindless robots that will end up exactly where He wants us to end up. That's not free will. God may be omniscient, but we ultimately decide where we end up.
"No, a quick review of the old testament would tell one that god controls satan, and satan needs permission to do almost anything."
-The world belongs to Satan inasmuch as man was not obedient when God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge. So, God has allowed the consequences of sin because of the disobedience of man.
"If god allows suffering, for his plan, then he is also responsible for it as well. Moreso, if he intentionally permisses it to be done specifically for his plan."
-Again, God created man to have a free will. Suffering resulted from man's disobedience to God. Since He is omniscient, He was always aware of the suffering that would take place, but that does not mean He causes the suffering. However, He does allow it to happen as a consequence of our own free will.
"Causal loop. God, being omniscient and eternal, could have foreknown your prayer, and preemptively planned to answer it. Or maybe not. Infinite concepts cause such loops, as paradoxes, precisely because they cannot logically exist with will."
-Great point. For reasons I don't entirely understand, our asking for intervention through prayer (and faith that He will intervene) is more important to God than the intervention itself.
"No, we are all condemned without the saving grace of Christ. No one can make a "case" since God cannot exist in the presence of sin and He makes it clear a perfect, sinless life is the only way to "earn" your way to the presence of God. Your statement seems to separate Christians vs. non-believers, but in God's eyes there is no difference - none is worthy. The only difference between a Christian and non-believer is the Christian has accepted the free gift of salvation."
One may parse it however they desire, the fact remains, god has given you a loophole. Your admission into heaven has NOTHING to do with morality, but what you believe, and that is all that saves you. This is not either a moral or just system, more a corrupt one, based solely on nepotism and belief alone.
"No, immorality exists because the world is corrupt with sin."
Tautology, again. Sin is immorality, so saying that one exists because of the other is entirely meaningless. It would be like me saying that felines exist because cats exist. A banal observation that does not actually mean anything.
"If sin had not been introduced into the world via man not obeying God, the law would not be necessary as we would be ignorant of sin."
You are merely reiterating my point that without the ability to be immoral, morality would not exist. Ergo, for morality to exist, all that needs to exist is immorality.
"I believe you and I are talking two different things - objective morality (a standard based outside yourself) vs. subjective morality (dependent on you, a situation, culture, preferences, etc.)"
Your division is flawed. Most morality is not based in the self, but on culture/society/law. It is little different than morality based on a god, for different gods have differing standards of morality, much like cultures and societies. The only thing that makes you think it is different, is your conviction that your god is real, without it; your gods morals wouldn't look so special to you. Plus, in the event A god did exist, no matter which one it was, its opinion of morality would be just as subjective to itself as ours is. Making it a rather biased arbiter of morality for anyone and anything different from itself.
"It is because of man's knowledge of sin, that required an objective law of morality in the first place."
See above about restating the case.
"To understand this verse, we must look at wider context this verse fits in."
Oh, of course, the bible NEVER means what it actually says; only what believers believe that it says. You also aren't the only one that can read CARM.org.
"This was a test for Moses."
Except that is NEVER stated in the bible, so I can only see all of this as a flimsy interpretation used for apologists like Slick to hand-wave away the argument. Apologists use this almost ANY time a religious verse doesn't say what they want it to, so they can make it say what they wish it to. That is something that actually turns a LOT of people off, because it seems so slimy and dishonest, and makes it nearly impossible to have a serious conversation with them on scriptural inaccuracies.
"The Numbers 15 verse you quote speaks of foreigners or sojourners living in the promised land of Israel and applies to the Jews living in Israel (and foreigners also living in Israel, as you pointed out). The law was meant for Jews and those living in Israel (which I did not specify "Israel" in my earlier description)."
So anyone living in Israel needs to be living by rabbinical laws? I don't think most of the people in Israel would appreciate that very much, especially the gays and atheists.
"Then without taking Christ's free gift of salvation, it would be up to you the individual to earn your way to heaven on your own merits."
I am not trying to seek a reward for being responsible and accountable, only being MORAL. I do not do the right thing because of a perception of reward, eternal or otherwise, but for its own sake. One need not have the guarantee of a ticket for the pearly gates to do the right thing, the right thing is its own reward.
"However, God standard is perfection."
Then he is a tyrant that would make us ill, then command us to be well, under pain of suffering and death. That is NOT a kind or just being, by any description, and has more in common with Kim Jong Un than it does I.
"You are correct. My wording was a bit clumsy. God does have a plan for the world that affects believers and non-believers alike. However, that does not mean every minute detail of that plan has been set in stone."
It actually requires it. Causal loop again, any small and tiny change could still affect the plan, so it is already set in stone with the foreknowledge of what we would do.
"God created man with a free will and while God has a plan for the world, man ultimately chooses his own destiny. Otherwise, God just created a bunch of mindless robots that will end up exactly where He wants us to end up. That's not free will. God may be omniscient, but we ultimately decide where we end up."
Not if there is already a plan, as for a plan to be perfect, it has to account for all details. This includes individual choice, so our choices have already been calculated into the plan and are unalterable, as is the will of your god.
"The world belongs to Satan inasmuch as man was not obedient when God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge. So, God has allowed the consequences of sin because of the disobedience of man."
Also a big plot hole. Adam had no knowledge of good or evil, so was ignorant of the fact that his choice was bad. Your god basically punished a child that had no knowledge of right and wrong, for not obeying perfectly. If I put a cup full of razor blades on the floor of a room with a one and a half year old playing, and he gets a hold of them despite being told not to, following your gods example we should banish it and curse it to die. Yeah, sounds like a good dude, alright.
"Again, God created man to have a free will. Suffering resulted from man's disobedience to God. Since He is omniscient, He was always aware of the suffering that would take place, but that does not mean He causes the suffering. However, He does allow it to happen as a consequence of our own free will."
Not all suffering is so easily blamed on its victims, much of it is due to forces far beyond the action or control of any person, but he allows it anyway for the sake of his precious "plan". I'd say that makes him pretty damn culpable.
"Great point. For reasons I don't entirely understand, our asking for intervention through prayer (and faith that He will intervene) is more important to God than the intervention itself."
Praise and glorification seem important to your god, moreso than our wellbeing, so I am not sure why I should want it to be real. Seems more of a nightmare, than any dream come true, to me.
"You are merely reiterating my point that without the ability to be immoral, morality would not exist. Ergo, for morality to exist, all that needs to exist is immorality."
-Objective morality (the standard set by God who is good) exists with or without our knowledge of immorality. If we were speaking of subjective morality (as what you are describing), then your above point makes sense.
"Oh, of course, the bible NEVER means what it actually says; only what believers believe that it says. You also aren't the only one that can read CARM.org."
-I can't win on this one. If I say to look at the larger context of the verse/passage and study the original Hebrew text, history and culture of the time when it was written, I will be making the bible say whatever it is I want it to say. However, one can also make the opposing argument. If I take a verse and read it at face value (as you have done with Exodus 32:14), not taking into account it's overall context including translation variations from original Hebrew, culture, etc. I can also make scripture say whatever it is that I want it to say.
"Not if there is already a plan, as for a plan to be perfect, it has to account for all details. This includes individual choice, so our choices have already been calculated into the plan and are unalterable, as is the will of your god."
-I disagree that every single detail of a plan has to be set in stone for it to be a perfect plan. If that were the case, we would not have free will, but as you stated merely actors in a grand play that's already been predetermined.
"Then he is a tyrant that would make us ill, then command us to be well, under pain of suffering and death. That is NOT a kind or just being, by any description, and has more in common with Kim Jong Un than it does I."
-This presumes God is not dealing with the world now. This statement assumes that because suffering and death are in the world now (as a result of Satan), and that God is not dealing with the world on our human timeline, then He is not good or just. God can take care of sin in the world right this instant if He wanted too. I would prefer His plan over that one as there are many that would not be with Him now if he did. I believe it's wrong to assume that just because He hasn't administered ultimate justice yet, that He never will.
"Your god basically punished a child that had no knowledge of right and wrong, for not obeying perfectly. If I put a cup full of razor blades on the floor of a room with a one and a half year old playing, and he gets a hold of them despite being told not to, following your gods example we should banish it and curse it to die. Yeah, sounds like a good dude, alright."
-Adam was a man and not a child. He understood the concept of obedience where an 18 month old child would not. God gave Him a choice - obey God or don't obey God.
It seems that we are just rehashing our different perspectives, but a relationship with God will always be an act of faith. If you are waiting for definitive proof to begin believing, I don't think you'll find it. You will find evidence, but not proof. We are each given free will to make our own decision as to what we believe, and we each have to live with the consequence of that decision once our lives are over as our eternal fate is sealed. I have the free will to choose a faith in God and I accept whatever the consequences I will encounter here on earth and in the afterlife. You also have the free will to choose not to believe.
I will end my response with: Why not just try it? Earnestly try to find God. Give it 30 days and try to earnestly, humbly and prayerfully put yourself into the shoes of a believer and ask God to reveal Himself to you. Worst case, you'll lose 30 days of your life and bolster your own argument against God since you've earnestly attempted a faith in Christ. Best case, you'll discover a supernatural world and a gracious and merciful God you never knew existed.
Wherever you go and whatever you decide, I've enjoyed our thought-provoking discussion and wish you the very best.
Pages