Can you? I’ve yet to see it proven to be honest. Enlighten me, if you will.
I lol’d HARD at this. Feel free to try and prove god “academically”.
Also, the resurrection NEEDS to be dis-proven in the same way the death of Superman needs to be dis-proven. It is a fictional story and has not a shred of evidence to back up it’s validity, the default position of a fantastical story of fiction with no proof that it’s anything else is FICTION. You have to prove that it has any merit before it needs to be dis-proven at all.
Yeah zeitgeist is a new age agenda dis-information documentary made by the jesuit order (who are luciferian)
the catholic church has done everything in their power to turn the bible upside down. changing the sabbath day of saturday to be sunday to fit the catholics pagan agenda. to even having the pope sit behind upside down crosses.
http://www.trosch.org/jpi/inverted-cross_jp2.jpg
anything turned upside down is an occult symbol.
Ok, I’m back from school, and I have some responses to the video for you.
Going by question number as relating to the video.
edit: Someone else’s explanation on what I’m arguing (It’s good and I just found it, so I’m placing it first.)
-
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=amputation
Amputation: " amputation (a condition of disability resulting from the loss of one or more limbs)"
Jesus healed an amputee in the Bible.
Luke 22:50-51
(50) And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
(51) But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him.
So God does in fact, heal amputees. Now I’ll elaborate. Why doesn’t God heal amputees today? That can’t be known for sure. There is still the argument of “undeniablity” that I placed in my last post. That article does a good explanation of the idea, so I’ll let you read that. Or I could just argue by saying that there’s two possibilities as to why someone is an amputee, or I’ll give you guys some more ammo, mentally retarded.
Either they were born that way, or they received it due to some sort of severe injury. Both of these possibilities, and many of the other questions presented by this video can be answered by simply saying that God puts struggles in our lives to build our dependence on Him. It also creates the opportunity for Christians to serve others, as they are called to do.
Consider both points:
a. Someone is born without a limb or mentally handicapped.
Surely God is a sadistic and vengeful God, because He allowed something awful to be created! I ask you this, awful by whose definition? The creator earns glory from His creation. Period. Human standards will make you think that being handicapped makes you inferior. Biblical teaching tells you that God shows no partiality among believers.
Romans 2:11 " For God shows no partiality." Why would God try and alter the creation that He made? Praying to grow limbs is like praying for different colored eyes or a different physique. God isn’t going to do it because He already struck gold when He made you the first time.
b. Someone who obtains a handicap post-birth.
I think there is one woman who can explain far better than I can about why God allows people to be paralyzed, crippled, or limbless, even though they pray for it to be fixed.
http://www.joniearecksontadastory.com/
If you watch any part of this video, please start around the 5:25 mark, and watch at least through 8:30.
This is about the best I can answer this question without saying what you don’t want to hear. Jeremiah 29:11 Says that God does have a plan.
My next post will address question 2 of the video.
Sorry citing bible verses does not satisfy the burden of proof to prove god has healed an amputee.
Also, if you really believe that there is no one deserving of a regenerated limb…for the sole reason of “god hasn’t done it so he must have a good reason + apologetic talking point” then you are not an independent thinking human being but a sheep blindly following an abusive husband you demands you simultaneously love and fear him.
Also, in the past 2 months we have seen catastrophe on a massive scale…the damn near complete destruction of Haiti…if got has a plan…and it’s currently being carried out, then Haiti was a part of that plan. If that was a part of his plan god deserves no respect and can suck my dick. But of course he’s not real so we have to just accept we are here on this rock ourselves and it’s a mostly hostile environment and that’s why we face these natural disasters.
I appreciate you taking the time to try to answer these questions. But I am unsatisfied with the answers you’ve given. I think it’s bogus to claim that God would not heal an amputee because it would prove without a doubt that he exists. This implies that God actively wants us to be able to doubt Him. And Joni’s story, though touching, does not attempt to answer the question, she merely outlines it. Maybe I should take that class and see what she has to say.
Also, I don’t consider what the bible says to be fact. I know you do, so we’ll have to agree to disagree. If I did, we wouldn’t be having this debate. Thanks, by the way. I appreciate talking with believers who don’t get mad when you question their beliefs.
You’re just contradicting yourself now. You say that those verses were added. Then in the next sentence you say that they were deleted. If the earliest sources did not contain the verses, they could not have been “deleted”, by definition of the word “delete”. To delete would have implied that the verses were there in the first place.
Sure, the jews had oral tradition. Which is why there are dual accounts of creation in genesis which contradict each other, coming from the different oral traditions. But by Jesus’ time, the Hebrew Bible had been around since 500 BC or so. So yes, the jews had learned how to write shit down at that point.
Confucius never had any writings? News to me. The Lunyu are a record of his acts and words.
Well, assuming Jesus is a mere mortal, then sure, he had no time to write stuff down. But, if he can make water into wine, and then walk on water, I’m sure he coulda snapped his fingers and BOOM, instant documentation. Given that he’s supposed to be the son of God, and anyone who doesn’t believe in him will burn in hell for an eternity, you’d think he’d want to at least establish the theology of the religion that he “founds”. That way you know, you’d at least avoid stuff like the Inquisition or the Protestant Catholic schism, and thus leave no room for theological debate.
Paul’s writings were the earliest and the most numerous. He laid down the theology, mostly in Romans. Salvation through faith, not works, original sin, and so on. The gospels appeared later, so whatever theology they had would of course be based on Paul’s writings.
Do you really think the inconsistencies I listed are the only ones? There are far more. And that’s not even looking at the OT. I know creative christian apologists can come up with all sorts of rationalizations for each one. Taken alone, each error might not be a big deal. When combined together, it seriously undermines the validity of the gospels as historical documents. Here, I’ll toss out yet another one. How did Judas die? Either he refused to take the money, and hung himself, or he took the money, bought a field, tripped, fell and died. The most hilarious apologist response I’ve heard so far is that Judas hung himself, and then fell when the rope snapped. Of course, that still doesn’t address the fact that in one version he takes the money, and in the other, he doesn’t.
You mean, the later versions embellished on the originals, adding to the mythology? Is it any wonder that the original Mark did not have the post resurrection appearances and that Mark does not contain a virgin birth? And of course, John is vastly different from the other gospels, and its pretty clear he doesn’t use any of the others as reference. In John, Jesus talks about his divine role explicitly, whereas in the other gospels, that’s pretty downplayed. So even in regards to being in harmony about Jesus, the gospels differ. John views Jesus as Logos, and downplays his humanity.
again, I addressed the fact that the common apologist response to the differing genealogies is that Luke gives Mary’s line. “Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli”. How much clearer can it get that Joseph is the son of Heli? If he had wanted to give the genealogy from Mary, he would have said, “yo Joseph was thought to be the dad, but it was Mary instead, the son of Heli”. Not to mention the genealogies intersect. Not to mention that Matthew gives 28 names, whereas Luke gives 43 names. And Matthew of course, explicitly says it took fourteen generations from Abe to David, and fourteen generations from David to Jesus. Oh and Mary is cousin to Elizabeth, who was tribe of Levi, not royal . And yes, the common apologist response is to claim translation of cousin is “countrywoman” lulz. Kinda like your translation defense of Luke stating that Jesus was born when Qiurinus was “governing”, as opposed to “governor”. Of course, the NIV, among other translations, clearly states, when Quirinus was governor of Syria. Sounds like even the christian scholars can’t agree.
Anyway, this thread keeps exploding, I’m happy its still alive, did Kix respond to me, I’m sorry if I missed his post. This is a great thread btw, it should not be closed.
Question 2: "Why are there so many starving people in the world?"
On top of the reasons for suffering listed here multiple times, I’m going to try and elaborate more on this topic.
First someone else who has answered the question: http://www.slaying-dragons.com/2008/09/why-are-there-so-many-starving-people.html
If I were to put it simply: There are starving people in the world because there are apathetic Christians in a position to help but don’t.
Deuteronomy talks all about having “brothers” that are poor. Most of chapter 15 talks about the treatment of the poor.
Deu 15:11 For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.'
In this day and age, food is accessible to those with money. I can’t think of any region where food is unavailable unless you don’t have to money to get it.
There is a reason why people are poor.
James 2:5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?
We are also supposed to help the poor if we are able to do so.
James 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.
James 2:15-17 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
paralleled by 1 John 3:17
"But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?"
So I say this, why is it that people starve when a good God exists? The reason is two-fold.
First, those who are poor and starving are better able to focus on God.
Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25 all say that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
This is hyperbole, but its point is valid. Without worldly possessions, your focus shifts. Self-promotion isn’t at the forefront anymore, and instead you build a reliance on something other than yourself.
Second,
It’s a test for rich and well-to-do, or even just non-poor Christians. They are given the opportunity to share what they have been blessed with. The verses I quoted in James and 1 John basically say that if you don’t share with those in need or give to them, you have no love, and you have no faith. If everyone with money did as the Bible instructs them to do, we would be able to feed the starving and help the poor. Simple as that.
So why is it that so many starving exist? It isn’t because God doesn’t hear their prayers. It’s that we are blessed and are called to be a resounding “Yes” answer to their prayers for food, but very few of us actually do as we’re told.
Other instances in the Bible that feature the poor as their main characters usually use a lack of money or food as a faith building experience.
The Widow and Elijah: Start at verse 7. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+17&version=NIV
And that’s all I can really say on that unless prompted for more of a response.
@ Soul Bushido : You say that citing Bible verses doesn’t work? The question is why doesn’t God heal amputees and I can’t use the entire document that Christians use to explain God? If you asked me to tell you about the United States separating from England would you allow me to use the Declaration of Independence or would I have to adhere to your notion of that too?
The bible is not evidence for an event having occurred, ESPECIALLY if the event is supernatural and the event is also not supported by any corroborating sources. You should know better than that. The status of the lost limb of said handicapped person is a matter of reality. You clearly cannot use something that has little to no basis in reality as a refutation OF reality.
And might I add, duh.
You’ve missed quite a bit of the thread. You might want to consider going back about four pages and filling yourself in on what exactly has been said before you come here and poison the well like that.
At Hadokn:
An answer to question 3: http://www.mychurch.org/blog/177649/Atheists-Question-3-Why-does-God-demand-the-death-of-so-many-innocent-people-in-the-Bible
An answer to question 4: http://www.mychurch.org/blog/185972/Atheists-Question-4-Why-does-the-Bible-contain-so-much-anti-scientific-nonsense
Near the end, the answer to question four goes south, and I apologize. I will admit his answer about Adam being made from dust is wholly ridiculous, as instead of actually answering anything, he just makes accusatory anti-evolution statements that don’t at all refer to the question he was presented with.
Where the video gets the question from: Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
also Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
God created Adam out of the dust of the earth. This shows what man is primarily composed of and what his body returns to at death, dust of the earth. There is allowed here a certain amount of poetic language which in which God is spoken of in terms of a man (anthropomorphic). God does not have hands and it is not meant to show the exact scientific means whereby God created man. Rather it shows the essential substance of mans composition and teaches us his temporal earthiness.
Read the earlier pages.
Ah, the academical sides has been given early on it this thread. Please feel free to participate, because i’ve been waiting for an academical basis as to how Jesus survived/magic tricked a roman execution. I mean something has to fill the hole in the sociology science on it. Believers die for what they believe in, right, so the question is how they developed the belief and where it came from. Convincing a group of people about a man rising from an execution is seriously impossible with out anything impressive for them to believe it. You’ve read how the followers died, right, so why would they die for something that they weren’t sure about? The only way effective refutation of the resurrection is by showing a basis for Jesus being a great magician that pulled a stunt, other wise, suggesting that those apostles gained their serious beliefs out of nothing or Jesus resuscitated is illogical and also an uneducated assumption.
There is no belief that managed to originate with out a center root, and there is no martyr that would die for something he seriously believed was true, so logically speaking, how can anyone believe some one resurrected after being crucified with out a good reason? It’s funny how much you guys feel that you are the logical and the knowledgeable one when in reality every time this is brought up only half guessed assumptions become your refutation and none of them fills the Sociology holes.
The Zeitgeist is originally sourced by satanists and free masons, it is currently in pop by the help of refuted non-scholars such as Acharya S. I don’t think Jesuits are involved. That link of an upside down cross is not an occult symbol, it is a symbol dedicated to the Apostle Peter because he was crucified upside down.
@Hadokn: You didn’t like my answers for question one, and probably question two. Would you mind explaining what you thought needed to be fleshed out so I can see if I can add anything? Though you didn’t like my first few answers, I still finished adding a reply to the rest of the video’s questions, maybe one of these will be sufficient for you.
Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible? The ideal master - servant relationship is far different than our own notion of slavery. It’s possible to have a servant but still be morally good.
Read on:
http://www.lifes-long-haul.com/why-is-god-such-a-huge-proponent-of-slavery-in-the-bible/
Question #6: Why do bad things happen to good people?
We’ve gone in circles around the whole suffering argument. If you want to read what I or many others have had to say, go back a few pages.
Question #7: Why is there no evidence left over from Jesus’ miracles?
http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/jmrcls.html - Jesus’s Miracles
Here is an explanation as to how one might ascertain any sort of evidence for Jesus’s miracles.
http://www.christianorigins.com/miracles.html
Question #8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?
This question surprises me, because the answer is fairly straightforward.
If you are a non-believer, you argue that Jesus died a long time ago, and because He is dead, He can’t appear to you.
The Christian claims that Jesus ascended back into Heaven and is going to make His second coming to earth sometime in the future.
Beyond that, there’s really no answer for this one. Either you believe what the Bible claims, or you don’t.
Question 9: "Why would Jesus want you to eat His body and drink His blood?"
The idea behind this argument comes from the Catholic belief of transubstantiation. In other words, during communion, the bread and wine (grape juice, in most circles) physically transform into the actual flesh and blood of Christ. I think the concept of transubstantiation is due to fanaticism and misunderstanding. When Jesus gave the first communion at the last supper, He presented the bread and the wine metaphorically as His body and His blood. He didn’t want you to actually think you were cannibalizing Him.
John 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."
In other words, we are to hunger and thirst (figuratively) for Jesus. He is supposed to be as integral to our lives as food and drink.
In communion, the phrase “Eat this, in remembrance of me,” is brought up. The entire sacrament is meant to bring us closer to God, and it’s also meant to remind us of the community we have with Christ and other Christians because of Christ’s sacrifice. Do I think I’m literally supposed to eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood? No. I think that’s crazy. This is another one of those questions that has me curious as to why it’s posed in the video. It seems like it wouldn’t be that perplexing, but maybe I made too big of an assumption.
Question 10: Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
Why? Because though Christians are supposed to separate themselves from worldly practice, such as divorce, they are still inhuman and imperfect. Divorce happens. To some it may make Christians seem hypocritical. The Bible says it’s a sin, and the basis for getting a divorce that’s not sinful is dependent on circumstance. The Bible also says theft, murder, adultery, covetousness, idol-worship, lying, using the Lord’s name in vain, and many more thing were all sinful. Just because Christians are expected to adhere to this standard does not mean they follow these rules without ever messing up. (Once again, making Christians hypocrites, right? I’m being a little sarcastic with that. The idea that Christians preach against certain things and then go about doing them is somewhat hypocritical, and by intentionally sinning, Christians intentionally become hypocrites. If we were perfect people, this would never be the case, but we are in fact imperfect, and therefore we’re prone to hypocrisy. I wish it wasn’t so, but it is.) Divorce happens to Christians because Christians have just as much trouble loving one another as non-Christians do. When asking this question, the creator of the video seemed to have a very weird view of Christians. It’s almost as if he saw them as completely idiotic, but at the same time, he expected them to be morally better than him. This is another question I think serves as filler so he could have ten oppositions. I’ll answer it one more time, Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians because like non-Christians, they’re still human. Plus, many people that are polled and testify as being Christian don’t know the first lick about anything Christianity requires. Divorce is still a bad thing, especially for Christians, but does that mean it doesn’t happen? No, it doesn’t. It does mean that our model for marriage is messed up, and that needs to be fixed or the divorce rate will keep increasing.
The “God hates amputees” is terrible argument made by Marshall Brain, did you read the basis for his arguments?I remember one, he said, “Pick an amputee (must have both legs severed, just one would not be good enough), and have millions of Christians throughout the world pray for his healing”. According to Brain, this proves that God does not exist. The main problem is that the experiment has never been done… theoretically, even if it does happen: the Christian people will all pray for it at the same time and nothing happens, it still doesn’t disapprove the existence of God. This is a dumb and ignorant argument to use as support. It’s like suggesting that God heals all who are prayed for. Even the Bible records examples of Christians - even apostles - who were not healed, despite prayer. Any Atheist who brings this up is severely ignorant, why are you asking a question like this when the answer is quite obvious to the theist? We Theist think (because of the Bible) that God will not heal in this life, but in the next, because the bible says he created us as souls first and we are the ones who create the physical bodies (reproduction) so his work is done when it comes to what he originally created. The soul. It doesn’t matter if you believe it, but you did ask a question against the Biblical God and that is the biblical answer. God will heal in the next life and there is no way we can question how God thinks… just because you can’t understand or rationalize him for your own sake doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist at all. Isn’t it logical that a God -omniscient, omnipotent… can’t be solidly understood in the first place, since he is a god, then truly he must be capable of seeing the whole picture better than we do? Or is this logic you talk about just based on your own emotions and your own experience?
No, you misunderstood. It was acknowledged that those verses where added, because the footnotes in the Bible address it. Yet recent scholarly address that they where actually deleted instead of added… read the link.
No. Forget the writers of the OT for a moment and lets just focus on the regular Rabbi’s and religious leaders during Jesus time and place. There are no existing first hand material for any of them. You didn’t bother to read everything i wrote to you, you clearly used the lack of first hand writings as a case against Jesus yet you fail to actually realize that by doing this you also need to come to a conclusion that there probably weren’t any religious leaders or rabbi’s during early AD because they don’t have first writings either. The creation accounts in genesis don’t contradict each other, and trying to show me that they do will only only show your misapprehension
But he didn’t actually write it, it wasn’t by his hands. This book is a collection of sayings and teachings of Confucius himself (i never said it wasn’t), compiled from the notes that everyone of his disciples made according to the answers the Master gave to their questions.
That is a horrible answer, because this answer only fits a materialistic God which is far from the nature of the God of the Bible. Oh, if you noticed the sentence i underlined, i did it because that sentence shows your ignorance of Christian beliefs.
Yes, Paul’s letters are the earliest and most numerous… however you have yet to explain the book of Acts in order to validate this conspiracy because it doesn’t stack. He laid down the doctrine in Romans, but the theology is seen to be known by the apostles in the book of acts.
Of course not, you think these “inconsistencies” are never brought up?I know these so called inconsistencies and it is all just the exposure of bad comprehension, and i think the theological difference of the gospels has been explained.
Oh about Judas… there is no contradiction with that either. It’s common sense that a hanged body can fall once the rope or branch snaps.
Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff (after all, you have to get some space between your feet and the ground to hang yourself). In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks. Is that’s not possible to happen? I mean, i’ve seen movies where a person would hang themselves on a pipe or wood or something and eventually either the ropes snaps.
The only two verses that talks about Judas’ death Matt 27:5 and in Acts. Acts was written by the Historian Luke, and Luke used Matt as a source to write his first gospel, would he like know he would be writing a contradiction? Of course he knew that Matt records Judas leaving and then hanging himself, however him falling head long is also possible to of happen after the hanging. Why does Matt record the money Judas got while it is left out in the other gospels? Because the other authors did not feel it was needed, re-read the difference in focuses of the gospels.
No that is not what i mean, please re-read it.
Regardless of the Man being a son-in-law he is still considered a Son by Jewish tradition. I already gave the reason why Luke is the biological line, because it records Nathan. Jesus can not be biologically out of Solomon’s line because it was said in the OT that God cursed the Solomon line. With the Mary/Elizabeth part, her being of Levi doesn’t matter, it is possible that Elizabeth is with in the mothers side or a second cousin… and yes, the greek word for cousin is synonymous with countrywoman.
Yes, probably. Because i gave the original greek word, and it is a broader term for governor. We are very aware of mistranslations, and using that in your arguments don’t prove support for your case because mistranslations are translation errors, they did the best they could to translate the original language to English format but there are words that don’t have an actual English translation.
Good to see this thread still going strong. Before I fully read and catch up with stuff, I wanted to reply to the following post by Cisco as it was actually quite good.
Yes. Whenever I personally reason about God, it is on general terms.
Either we debate God on general terms, or we switch into the debate about whether Christianity and the Bible is valid (which I do not believe they are).
Because, as I’ve explained, it is not about the specific content, but rather the type of evidence (written) and the types of claims it is making (metaphysical truth).
Now, see part of the reason I enjoyed your post here is because you do mix in some general theistic arguments amongst the Bible thumping. I agree with the above point, and the kind of God which I’m open to the possibility of existing may well turn out to have motives that were just beyond our fathoming.
But I can’t see any sufficient reason to believe that the Bible somehow maps out God’s plan…
Of course I’m not thinking of clouds and God on a throne and all of that ‘What Dreams May Come’ stuff… I mean, unless my Heaven had an arcade, then it wouldn’t be worthy of the name, right? Believe me I have spent a LOT of time thinking about this stuff (way too much time, in fact) and if Heaven is indeed a ‘world’ where we are all individuals, then it must have some individual tailoring to it, so that one man’s Heaven might be another man’s Hell…
Which all leads to some really interesting speculation, which is great, but in the absence of better standards of evidence than mere speculation, you can’t believe it as a true place.
Oh, or Heaven could be a ‘Union with God-state’, which is more like an impersonal thing where you sort of ‘merge’ with God (no-homo)… which is even more abstract to what I was talking about before.
Now, if you read my earlier posts you’ll see I was talking about my ‘gaps’ that were filled by the concept of God. And yes, I used to look at things that we considered ‘natural’, and held them as miraculous (laws of physics, living creatures etc).
But the reason I did this, the real miracle I thought was going on, is that these things were of different ontological categories and so the ‘step’ from one to the next was what was miraculous. So going from non-existence to existence (this was actually the most questionable one for me, because non-existence is unobservable and purely a theoretical thing). And then after that you’d have going from existence to ordered existence of laws. And after that going from those ordering laws to biological systems.
And the reason I was such a passionate advocate of ID theory is because living creatures are so totally not abstract and all around us and 100% observable all the time. They are even more ‘real’ than the laws of physics, which exist to us purely as theoretical constructs. Well, living creatures, to us, exist in a way that is as primal and undeniable as sensory data (the sight, sound and touch of them), and so I saw them as indisputable evidence of God.
Now, I’m not so sure… anyway, I guess I’ve gone off on a slight tangent but moving on…
Although you’ve again shrouded this in a Biblical reference, this is an interesting question. I was discussing it with Kix(?) earlier, and I was saying that it is possible to have choice while God’s makes his presence totally clear. But then, as you say, you wouldn’t really have a choice of whether to believe in him or not. But… is this such a bad thing?
Anyway, that’s the kind of question I’d debate, and although the Biblical episode you detailed does presumably raise the question in a good way, there’s no reason to believe that the angels would have appeared in the desert, or could have, because you’re just reading about it in a book.
During my worse episodes I’ve wandered the woods awaiting a miracle, and had the thought that “perhaps that is not how God works, perhaps it would be for the worse”. Now? I’ve given up looking for miracles, and will only believe When. One. Happens.
It’s up to God to prove himself to me now, I’m not running around after the cunt no more.
Again, this is a pretty good general argument in favour of God (that morality would not be possible without a source for it). But morality can be seen to be very flexible. Consider a war where both sides have a pretty good case to be made. I mean, how would God perfectly argue his case for anything he believed to be right or wrong (for instance, being gay is wrong)?
We don’t know because the cunt won’t speak for himself, he let’s his book (and it’s followers) do it. And they all give mixed messages too (the problem of multiple religions which I mentioned).
Well, no. That’s sweeping away the entire category of ‘natural evil’ which you discussed. Cancer makes the world horrible, the premature death of a child makes the world horrible etc etc.
Natural evil is an evil with no moral agent who you can blame for it. So yes, what you described would fit. But are viruses moral agents? They are biological, but they don’t exhibit much sign of being a moral agent. And accidental death, like a child who falls off a cliff-face, I consider that a natural evil because the laws of physics dash the child to the rocks in the same way it would have to an inanimate object such as a bucket. The laws of physics make no distinctions between people and rocks, and that can lead to some evil occurences imo.
I’ve got to wrap this up soon, but this is another really interesting question. There may very well be problems with making people invulnerable, I’m not denying that. But why we have to be quite so soft and fleshy and vulnerable, in a world of flesh-eating viruses and bone-breaking boulders…
Don’t mean to sound like a pussy here but y’know. That’s what Behe would be tellng me now I reckon. “Quit being a pussy!”
Yeah, I actually lumped us in with all the animals there. I mean for living things to exist they need to devour other living things. Law of predation and all that. While I’m no animal rights activitis, I do think the animals have it rather fucking harsh out there, and live real shitty lives (whenever my mumj says “I’d like to come back as a bird” I just sort of roll my eyes)
Ok I gotta go, but you talked about the apostles a bit. My point is just that they were men like you and I, and they received miraculous evidence that Jesus was who he says he was. But to us, it is all in a book. I cannot be 100% certain that story is true.
And to use it as a basis for a belief in God, or a knowledge of God, then I’d need to be 100% certain.
It is interesting. While I do not believe I can know that there is no God, I do believe it is possible to know there is one. But I’ll need the proof. And the Bible dont cut it. That is all, I have to go sorry if the last part seemed rushed, but I have sort of said that bit before anyhow.
“The “God hates amputees” is terrible argument made by Marshall Brain, did you read the basis for his arguments?I remember one, he said, “Pick an amputee (must have both legs severed, just one would not be good enough), and have millions of Christians throughout the world pray for his healing”. According to Brain, this proves that God does not exist.”
Got another 10mins so i thought I’d just comment and say y’know what, the amputee argument is a pretty good manifestation of the problem of evil imo…
And this is why I thought we didn’t have religious threads on SRK. The religious members just spout garbage dogma that doesn’t make any kind of compelling case and the people actually using logic and reason get frustrated at the laundry list of logical fallacies used by the theists. Sifting thru all of this nonsense is more tedious than the power leveling I’m doing in Disgaea right now…
The amputee argument is not “ignorant” when made by an atheist who understands that Jesus said that he will give you WHATEVER you ask for. He did NOT make exceptions. And we’re NOT saying everyone should be healed, we’re saying if there WAS a real god with real healing power…and certainly you’ve given your god credit for “miraculous healings” so clearly he does it sometimes, someone at some point in time without a limb was deserving to get a limb back.
Don’t think anyone is deserving of their limb back? What of the soldier who believes god spoke to them personally to serve and protect their country? What about emergency services (fire dept. police) who lost a limb while SAVING someone or otherwise doing their noble service? The point is someone at some point in time has been a prime candidate for their limb back, but it hasn’t happened. The ONLY answer that logically works for the question of “Why doesn’t god heal amputees?” is “There is no god to heal them therefor they do not get healed”.
Also explain how “The problem of evil”, can even be remotely solved by Christian theology (note: in a way that is not completely immoral).
You misread what I said, or you’re also assuming to know what I believe. On paper, I’m a Catholic. If a Muslim or a Hindu or a Wiccan says “hey, I’m a Muslim/Hindu/Wiccan”, I don’t scoff and think to myself “wow, what an idiot, they haven’t even figured out that Catholicism is the way to go” in the way that all of these internet atheists do (except they put “atheism” in place of “Catholicism”, naturally). I don’t reject their belief system, because I don’t think they’re incorrect in their beliefs.
And I can confidently say that the vast majority of theists are “like me” in the same way I can say that not all pro-life people bomb abortion clinics, not all anti-war people were anti-American flag-burners and not all environmentalists are mouth-breathing idiots. You’re basically saying that anyone who disagrees with you absolutely must be some degree of radical, which is both wrong and stupid.
Which basically led back to my earlier post:
http://www.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=226258&p=8453829&viewfull=1#post8453829
Well, the thing is, your arguments do provoke Biblical references or biblical talk. I don’t see how else can a theist argue about that. The main reason why i don’t go for the debates such as - why God allows evil, is because the christian really has no option to biblical answer - or simply go into evangelist mode. And in reality, all the arguments 80% points of view with added biblical verses to support, but that’s what is it in the end. A point of view. A Christian can not answer 100% as to why accurately, because we can’t simplify the thoughts of God. You will not have a non-biblical based answer from a theist because you are asking questions concerning God’s character.
While i know that is the basis of every debate argument, a debate such as yours leaves the Christian with no other option than to minister; it becomes a debate on the greater philosophy. I think that is kinda a big jump on the topic. You see the type of debate Fishjiz and StarvinMarvin are having, IMO, that is the real debate on validating/debunking Christianity and the Bible. They are using Sources and actual academical references, not just points of view but an actual basis. The whole “If God exists, then why is there evil/suffering” is not an academical topic, because both sides will start using points of view (skeptical and religious). It is both questioning and answering a God who is believed to be all knowing, therefore he has reasons and motives that no one can fathom or explain. As i suggested before, you study the bible first before jumping into that specific skepticism, since you are that interested in it. Do you honestly think that no Christian has questioned himself/herself with that? Of course, even i did myself. The whole understanding of the Biblical God is kinda like the study of psychology (almost), in psychology you do have to study different theories to understand different ways of thinking. This logic also applies to God, we have the Bible to help us understand what is important to know.
I gave you a boost to help you with it, such as the story of Jesus in the desert to actually help you have an understanding of God principles.
Dude, there will be no evidence on supernatural miraculous claims nor will there be a supernatural event. You hear so called unexplainable phenomena, I gave examples of those reported blood crying statues or those crazy southern churches that dance around with snakes and slam bibles around foreheads, then the story of Fatima… while some are not orchestrated, i don’t think any of them are miracles and they are failure attempts of showing “supernatural”. You want to know something, i don’t believe in supernatural miracles, i don’t. It may sound ironic to you, but i don’t see a good academic basis for some miracles. Most Christians cling on to the super natural miracles in the bible because of maybe sentimental value, try to recall my example about the book of exodus. Now if i think this, then why do i approve of the resurrection? It’s because of the academics that support it, as i said clearly, until a solid evidence is shown to me that Jesus was indeed a magician, because that is the logical way to show that the apostles really did die out of being deceived… but until there is a solid academical basis then there is no reason for me to disbelieve the strong legacy and impact that this story had on lives for 2000 years.
IMO, supernatural things don’t need to be considered as random meteors falling from the sky during some anti-christian parade… contrary though, if some outrageous things are scientifically explained, i can also believe that’s just how God worked it. For example on my rejection towards super natural claims isthe Islamic/Muslim Scholar, Amhaad Deedat. That guy was seriously hard to debate against;he would twist and take the scriptures out of his context, and he was effective in it… yet there was one debate where he lost and he and the muslim audience went on a rampage, storming on the stage. One of the bodyguards of Deedats opponents got stabbed. Ahmaad Deedat closes himself by praying “May God strike and silence the liar and the mistaken one”. Two weeks later, he flies to Australia and desecrates a tribute to Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection and also gets deported from Singapore on a related anti-christian act. The moment he returns home, the man suffers a stroke and remains a paralyzed mute in bed for 10 years until he died in 2002 (?). Is this a divine God Smack on him? It looks very relevant, however I guess the Christians in Australia that were pissed at him where getting their sense of justice, because i still don’t believe so. Because why him, and not really bad men like Hitler? Hitler almost killed the Jews to near extinction, and also twisted a bit of words from Jesus and the Bible to help shit on the minds of the German people? You understand the logic as to why i can’t accept miracles?
You see, as i read the Bible, i get the perception that God will do the justification of the person after their first life, and he doesn’t work on the world with supernatural miracles… I mean, a bunch of medical volunteers with boxes of food/water going to a poverty country seems like more of God’s work than turning the stones into bread. In other words, i see God using people as “miracles” in helping the other people.
With the part on Amputees:the reason why i see this as a bad argument is because it’s neglecting science in a way. We have to understand that there is a root to all of those negative stuff such as amputees, and i don’t see why God has to be blamed for it or denied because of it. It is said that Amputee people are victims of someone in their ancestor that possibly did drugs… so i guess you are familiar with the whole sin being passed on to the children thing. Now, most people can’t understand that because of what they think “Sin” is… Sin is actually translated as “Corruption”… drugs do corrupt and mess up a persons hormones, so usually this gets passed on to the innocent descendant. Why does this happen under God’s watch, it’s because the will of God (of course being against corruption/sin) isn’t in full on earth, just as Jesus’ prayer…
Hmm… i don’t know what you mean about that, God’s plan as in what he has for the future of the world? I don’t think the Bible maps out God’s plan, or not entirely… i just see it more as revelation to man.
Honestly, i don’t find the big deal of heaven also. Life on earth seems much better to me… regardless of making mistakes and all that. In the end, no one can say what heaven is (whether it is a realm, if it exists, or it just means in God’s presence…) until we all die. I never gave any thought or cared to give fanaticism about Heaven.
Ya, there are allot that suggest this… in the end, that topic of heaven has no answer, neither should it be expected from any body.
I’ll reply to the rest of your stuff later… good output btw.