Why is belief in a higher power required?

[Esquilax]

You have, we've been waiting on some rational thoughts to come out of your head if you can manage it.

It's not surprising that you can't see rationality when it's beating you over the head, thank you for demonstrating that.

Please I'm asking, show where it says murder in the scriptures you quoted, we're all waiting. You are the one making the claim of murder and rape, don't you think it's about time you prove this so we can move on, I mean really this is getting old.

Fine, killing then. I love it; these people are dead, and you'd rather quibble over terminology like a true coward. You know what? The doublespeak is getting boring, but George Orwell might have been interested to see just how accurate his thinking on the subject turned out to be.

Listen, dude: you can't ignore the actions by simply blocking your ears until you get the right words. God told his people to go into a town and kill all the people there, I don't care if it calls that murder, killing, or some other invented magic word; he called for people to die. And true to form, rather than argue the thing I'm actually objecting to, you act like a fucking child and go "murder? I don't see the word murder. Therefore, the act that word describes never took place."

There has to be punishment for sin but, only after judgement, and that is precisely what took place. If God let any sin go He would be unjust, and if He did you would complain even more when He judges you. God can not murder, He can however remove the life He gives to anyone any time it suits His will and accomplish it in any way that brings glory to His name.

So, what does Jesus Christ represent, if not god letting go the sins of the people? This is what makes your position so unassailable; you'll make room for this cognitive dissonance in your brain, where if a human committed an act it'd be immoral, but if your god does the same damn thing, you're okay with it. Why am I even bothering to argue with a delusional guy like you?

Your first mistake here is calling God a person, He is above all. Those women were sinful and I assume God was punishing them through marriage to their conquerors seems a reasonable assumption. he could have removed His mercy and left them to fend for themselves.

So, once again, you can assume things that aren't present in the text, but if I do the same thing in a way you disagree with, it doesn't count? So why should your assumptions count either?

Take this away from it, those men would want virgins for their wives, the culture then made that most desirable. These women were coming into child bearing age also another desirable thing in that culture.

So... they wanted virgins to have sex with? Like I've been saying all along?

Or are you saying that these virgins would willingly have sex with the people they had been sold to after having their entire village razed? Is that the argument you're making?

I am defending what I believe, God's word needs no defending, you have only stated what you want God's word to say so you can complain, so we have not needed to defend God's word, just trying to correct your misrepresentation of God's word. God is very specific in what He wants, if you studied scripture you would see this.

You're doing exactly the same thing in the opposite direction; offering an interpretation of the same words, rather than relying on what's there. The difference is, you can't let what's there stand on its own, because what's there is a call to slaughter.

It doesn't say that and I did not say it did, why would I follow in your misguided footsteps when I have the Holy Spirit to guide me.

Oh, so you didn't say this in your initial post?

Yes, I know people feel pain when they are stabbed, the one thing you can not discount is the mercy God could have and cause these children to feel nothing, omnipotent.

You didn't say that? You didn't speculate on something not in the text in order to justify something that was? The very same thing you later castigated me for doing? That never happened?

We can't all go and see that earlier in the page?

So the only hypocrite here is you buddy boy. Oh, why so bent out of shape, it's unbecoming, please try to do better.

You just got Esqui-slapped, liar.

You're the one who has said the scripture you quoted says murder and rape, so you are doing some double talk here kiddo. If you will go back and read what I said you will see the word could, that means a suggestion. Oh yes, I made a suggestion not a statement of claim as you did, you said it was murder, I said God could, big difference don't you think.

Well, the issue isn't the words, but what they depict. Is it, or is it not true, that the words within the bible depict your god telling his people to go into a town and end the lives of everyone there but the virgin women, and then to give the virgin women to other people to have sex with? Is that not what that passage depicts?

So, when I say "murder and rape" those acts are literally in the book, aren't they? No matter what words are used to describe them, there is killing and nonconsensual sex there, no?

The difference is that you have no basis at all for claiming god used space anasthetic on the children that got killed there. I have... well, what the words say. Funny how that works, isn't it?

You don't read between the lines you actually change what it says and when you get called out on it you stumble all over yourself trying to defend the indefensible. I made nothing up, I gave an assumption you must be careful how you read things, your misinterpretation of scripture and what I said make you look quite silly.

See above. This is kindergarten argumentation, GC.

Now you're making yourself look plain stupid, the Israelites are all over history, this being true makes it true you're bigoted against them, sorry but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

The Isrealites, maybe. But the account in your storybook certainly never happened the way it describes, and therefore I'm pretty safe in calling the people depicted therein as fictional.

I'm pointing a finger at one who is guilty of misrepresenting the verses he quoted, you still have not proven anything you've claimed, you are stumbling around hoping for a solution to your self made problem. Hey you're hoping, isn't that something only Christians do, are you beginning to see the light. I can only hope so, and that is true.

Fun fact: ignoring what I say isn't the same thing as me not saying it. I show you exactly what the words say, that people had their lives ended and their daughters were traded away like chattel, and you're all like "yes, but that's not murder or rape!" despite the fact that those actions are the definition of murder and rape because you are a dishonest coward who, rather than just admitting what your book actually says, is delaying in the hopes that I'll just give up and let you have your way. I won't. You're a liar, or you're a fool, if you actually believe that these acts of killing and the bartering of human beings for sex is not murder and rape.

The only vapid drivel has come from you because, the only thing you care about in this argument is to make the scriptures say what you through your delusional mind want them to say. Real truth means nothing to you, that has been shown again when you accused me of claiming the scriptures said something they do not. If you had only read the word could I would not have had to waste this time trying to explain the real truth to you. Please be more careful in the future so we can avoid this time wasting you bring us to, or maybe yet it would be better if you just ignored our discussions on what scriptures really say.

Whenever a christian apologist says the words "real truth" I just start laughing. Your own words stand as a monument to the fact that you have no idea what truth is, where it concerns the reality of what's in your little snuff book.

[Statler Waldorf]

Every single argument you make which assumes God exists is meaningless if he doesn't. You can't make a valid point until you establish that God exists.

Sure I can, you’re trying to make valid points assuming He does not exist, so I am allowed to assume that He does, we’ll play by the same set of rules.

Nope. It's an appeal to solipsism and nothing else. You're telling me that if I refuse to believe that images my mind generates are anything but mental glitches, I can't believe anything my senses tell me. If that really is true, then I may not even be sitting here typing this post.

No, I am telling you that if God didn’t exist you wouldn’t be able to trust your senses.

The flaw in your argument is that, with special physiological exceptions (and discounting solipsism), we all experience sensory input in mostly the same way.

How do you know this without using your senses? You’re assuming your senses are reliable in order to prove your senses are reliable?

You derive your 'truth' about God from a source nobody in their right mind should ever trust as anything more than a literary artifact from a simpler time, when people made up wild and crazy explanations for phenomena they did not understand.

How do you know if someone is in their “right” mind or not?

Why would God create something and then hold it in such low regard as to suggest that the only thing stopping him from abusing it is that he feels too gracious to do so? It reflects poorly on his own craftsmanship.

His might and grace both glorify Him, and that’s the purpose behind creation, why did you ever have the hubris to think it was all about you?

Where are these originals, and how are you certain they actually are original and legitimate?

Scripture spread so quickly geographically that it makes it possible to obtain the original reading through textual comparisons.

God can know everything about everyone and still be evil.

How are you defining evil?

How closely does the KJV approximate infallible?

It’s not too bad, but we have better translations now based off of earlier manuscripts.

[Anomalocaris]

I still can't understand why any human being could observe the behavior of statler wordork and conclude there could still exist some small void in the solid sphere of bone that makes up his puppet head with which he could accommodate some small degree of enlightenment.

[Ryantology]

Sure I can, you’re trying to make valid points assuming He does not exist, so I am allowed to assume that He does, we’ll play by the same set of rules.

As you are making the positive claim, it is up to you to prove it. To have the viewpoint that something is not there when there is zero evidence that it is, is not irrational.

No, I am telling you that if God didn’t exist you wouldn’t be able to trust your senses.

What makes you certain you can trust your senses if God exists? There are tons of people who come to very different answers using the same methods you use.

How do you know this without using your senses? You’re assuming your senses are reliable in order to prove your senses are reliable?

Appealing to solipsism again.

How do you know if someone is in their “right” mind or not?

Belief in things nobody can sense or justify without circular reasoning or appealing to solipsism is a good indication that they are not. Mental asylums all over the world are full of visionaries.

His might and grace both glorify Him, and that’s the purpose behind creation, why did you ever have the hubris to think it was all about you?

It must not do much to glorify him if he, himself, has so many problems with what he made.

Scripture spread so quickly geographically that it makes it possible to obtain the original reading through textual comparisons.

Then, where do you get off justifying your beliefs based on 'original' scripture when you have no idea what the originals actually said? Nonexistent also is proof that scripture is actually inspired by divinity. That's just something you take for granted and don't question.

How are you defining evil?

Acting in malice. Doing things for the sheer thrill of watching humans suffer. That is the only interpretation available to one who interprets scripture literally.

[Godscreated]

I've gone back and read the complete story of the events you have quoted, I wanted to make sure that I remembered the story correctly, I had forgotten a few things, but nothing to your advantage. I'm getting tired of arguing what is plain to read, cherry picking is the only way you know how to try and run down the scriptures, it is pitiful.

Please I'm asking, show where it says murder in the scriptures you quoted, we're all waiting. You are the one making the claim of murder and rape, don't you think it's about time you prove this so we can move on, I mean really this is getting old.

Fine, killing then. I love it; these people are dead, and you'd rather quibble over terminology like a true coward.

Me quibbling, are you serious dude, you're the one who has been insisting it is murder, there is a huge difference in the two.

Listen, dude: you can't ignore the actions by simply blocking your ears until you get the right words.

Let me share the right words with you, OK.

God told his people to go into a town and kill all the people there, I don't care if it calls that murder, killing, or some other invented magic word; he called for people to die.

Really, that's what you see those verses saying, like I said I reread the story and guess what, I could not find where God ordered the Israelites to kill anyone. This is another thing you need to prove to us. By the way what magic words are you seeing?

And true to form, rather than argue the thing I'm actually objecting to, you act like a fucking child and go "murder? I don't see the word murder. Therefore, the act that word describes never took place."

No one has ever said that people did not died in that city, we actually know they did, scripture tells us this. Killing and murder are two different things, you're the one calling the act murder, this is a misinterpretation of the verses.

There has to be punishment for sin...

So, what does Jesus Christ represent, if not god letting go the sins of the people? This is what makes your position so unassailable; you'll make room for this cognitive dissonance in your brain, where if a human committed an act it'd be immoral, but if your god does the same damn thing, you're okay with it.

Christ represents the price payed for all forgiven sin, yes that's right He died for all those who would accept His payment for our sins. The rest will pay for their own sin, so again if God allowed one sin to go unpunished then at your judgement you would be screaming bloody murder. God is just and that should give you reason to pause and think.

Your first mistake here is calling God a person, He is above all. Those women were sinful and I assume God was punishing them through marriage to their conquerors seems a reasonable assumption. he could have removed His mercy and left them to fend for themselves.

So, once again, you can assume things that aren't present in the text, but if I do the same thing in a way you disagree with, it doesn't count? So why should your assumptions count either?

You made a positive claim, that's a bit different than an assumption, my reasonable assumption came from knowing scripture, you however make claims from your own delusions just as scripture says about those who lean own their own understanding of God.

Take this away from it, those men would want virgins for their wives, the culture then made that most desirable. These women were coming into child bearing age also another desirable thing in that culture.

So... they wanted virgins to have sex with? Like I've been saying all along?

Or are you saying that these virgins would willingly have sex with the people they had been sold to after having their entire village razed? Is that the argument you're making?

You know nothing about the scriptures, you like so many others cherry pick verses and then parrot what others have done before you. There is nothing new about what you do or say it's the same ol' junk we hear all the time. This is about wives and preserving an entire family of people and you want to turn it into an orgy or some other evil act, well guess what it wasn't an orgy and no matter what you say you can't change it. Your words are worthless on this matter, the family of Benjamin got their wives and the family continues. Oh, by the way they were not sold, you again are wrong, I would think by now you would get tired of being wrong.

---

I am defending what I believe, God's word needs no defending, you have only stated what you want God's word to say so you can complain, so we have not needed to defend God's word, just trying to correct your misrepresentation of God's word. God is very specific in what He wants, if you studied scripture you would see this.

---

You're doing exactly the same thing in the opposite direction; offering an interpretation of the same words, rather than relying on what's there. The difference is, you can't let what's there stand on its own, because what's there is a call to slaughter.

I'm not the one claiming murder, slavery, rape and what ever else you dream of, I do not deny the scriptures say all but the virgins were killed, that would be foolish because it's plainly written for everyone to read. I've never made a different statement as to what the scriptures say.

It doesn't say that and I did not say it did, why would I follow in your misguided footsteps when I have the Holy Spirit to guide me.

Oh, so you didn't say this in your initial post?

Yes, I know people feel pain when they are stabbed, the one thing you can not discount is the mercy God could have and cause these children to feel nothing, omnipotent.

You didn't say that? You didn't speculate on something not in the text in order to justify something that was? The very same thing you later castigated me for doing? That never happened?

Yes I did, however as I have already explained I made an assumption, not a claim as you did, you claimed murder, slavery and rape. I do not have to justify the scriptures, especially against the ridiculous claims you make.

So the only hypocrite here is you buddy boy. Oh, why so bent out of shape, it's unbecoming, please try to do better.

You just got Esqui-slapped, liar.

That's the best you can do, such a child.

You're the one who has said the scripture you quoted says murder and rape, so you are doing some double talk here kiddo. If you will go back and read what I said you will see the word could, that means a suggestion. Oh yes, I made a suggestion not a statement of claim as you did, you said it was murder, I said God could, big difference don't you think.

Well, the issue isn't the words, but what they depict. Is it, or is it not true, that the words within the bible depict your god telling his people to go into a town and end the lives of everyone there but the virgin women, and then to give the virgin women to other people to have sex with? Is that not what that passage depicts?

Without the words we would have nothing, with the words we have an account of what happened and what happened is not what you depict, God did not tell the people to kill everyone in the town except the virgins nor did He tell anyone to give them away for sex.
You have already started to change what you were saying, first they sold the women as one would sale a slave, now you have them giving the women away, so which is it, please explain which and why you have changed your mind.

So, when I say "murder and rape" those acts are literally in the book, aren't they? No matter what words are used to describe them, there is killing and nonconsensual sex there, no?

Yes those words are found in scripture but, not in the verses you quoted, yes there was killing but, as far as non-consensual sex you have no proof from those scriptures that is what happened, so again the proof lies on your shoulders. Instead of proving anything you are digging a deeper hole for yourself.

The difference is that you have no basis at all for claiming god used space anasthetic on the children that got killed there. I have... well, what the words say. Funny how that works, isn't it?

I claimed nothing dear boy, you are now trying to use a lie to defend what you have said, dishonest, dishonest. The words said killed you said murder, you do not even respect the words used, if they do not fit your delusions then they just can't be right, so what do you do change them. I did not change any words and said those children died, and I suggested that God could have intervened and caused them to feel nothing, I did not claim this happened.

You don't read between the lines you actually change what it says and when you get called out on it you stumble all over yourself trying to defend the indefensible. I made nothing up, I gave an assumption you must be careful how you read things, your misinterpretation of scripture and what I said make you look quite silly.

See above. This is kindergarten argumentation, GC.

See Esq. run, see Esq. run off at the mouth, see Esq. make himself look dumb. This is kindergarten argumentation, yet it's quite true, so even a kindergarten argument can defeat your childish... actually now that I think about it a kindergarten argument is all one needs with you.

Now you're making yourself look plain stupid, the Israelites are all over history, this being true makes it true you're bigoted against them, sorry but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

The Isrealites, maybe. But the account in your storybook certainly never happened the way it describes, and therefore I'm pretty safe in calling the people depicted therein as fictional.

"Israelites maybe," man you sure are uninformed, I guess you'll find a way to blame God for that. I am guessing you have proof of your claim it did not happen, don't be bashful tell us, we're waiting. What did not happen was your interpretation of those verses.

I'm pointing a finger at one who is guilty of misrepresenting the verses he quoted, you still have not proven anything you've claimed, you are stumbling around hoping for a solution to your self made problem. Hey you're hoping, isn't that something only Christians do, are you beginning to see the light. I can only hope so, and that is true.

Fun fact: ignoring what I say isn't the same thing as me not saying it.

I haven't ignored what you've said, I have called it misinterpretation and lies.

I show you exactly what the words say, that people had their lives ended and their daughters were traded away like chattel, and you're all like "yes, but that's not murder or rape!" despite the fact that those actions are the definition of murder and rape

You have shown nothing but lies and double talk, killing and murder are not the same. Murder is always killing some one, however killing someone is not always murder. Murder must be proven and you have failed to prove anything up to this point, not only that you're back to making slaves out of these women by their sale. Your claiming rape and murder when the passages you gave said nothing about either, like you said earlier murder and rape are in scripture, and this being so why would they not be used here.

because you are a dishonest coward who, rather than just admitting what your book actually says, is delaying in the hopes that I'll just give up and let you have your way. I won't. You're a liar, or you're a fool, if you actually believe that these acts of killing and the bartering of human beings for sex is not murder and rape.

I've not been dishonest, nor am I a coward, I've stood up to you and your lies and you can't stand it, I've pointed out all your mistakes and you get mad, you are just being childish about the whole thing.
I really do not care whither you quite or not, it's actually been enlightening to watch you make yourself look so bad, and if you desire to keep on going and we'll watch. There you go again, "bartering of human beings for sex," they were given away as wives, those men got nothing in return for those women.

---

The only vapid drivel has come from you because, the only thing you care about in this argument is to make the scriptures say what you through your delusional mind want them to say. Real truth means nothing to you, that has been shown again when you accused me of claiming the scriptures said something they do not. If you had only read the word could I would not have had to waste this time trying to explain the real truth to you. Please be more careful in the future so we can avoid this time wasting you bring us to, or maybe yet it would be better if you just ignored our discussions on what scriptures really say.

---

Whenever a christian apologist says the words "real truth" I just start laughing. Your own words stand as a monument to the fact that you have no idea what truth is, where it concerns the reality of what's in your little snuff book.

Go ahead laugh all you want, it shows how ridiculous you are, and as for the truth all you have done is to show your ignorance of truth in this discussion. I'm not the one who has made any claims to what those scriptures say outside of what they say, you are the culprit that has done so and you have fail miserably in your attempt to defend the ridiculous statements you have made, you have not defended even one statement in all this discussion, but please go on and try again, failing at scriptural interpretation is one of your best qualities.

[Ryantology]

How would you define 'murder', Godschild?

[Statler Waldorf]

I still can't understand why any human being could observe the behavior of statler wordork and conclude there could still exist some small void in the solid sphere of bone that makes up his puppet head with which he could accommodate some small degree of enlightenment.

I welcome this sort of post, it’s obvious you only resort to personal attacks because you fear my abilities and will not try your hand at actual debate. Thank you, my child

As you are making the positive claim, it is up to you to prove it.

The claim, “you are making the positive claim, it is up to you to prove it” is itself a positive claim, so first you must prove this claim before I will accept it as valid. Please follow your own rules.

To have the viewpoint that something is not there when there is zero evidence that it is, is not irrational.

I agree, it’s not irrational.

What makes you certain you can trust your senses if God exists? There are tons of people who come to very different answers using the same methods you use.

I am the creation of a rational God who desires for me to learn about Him through His revealed word and His creation, therefore I can trust my senses enough to learn about His world and His word. You have no justification for trusting your senses because you believe we live in a Universe that is nothing more than matter.

Appealing to solipsism again.

So? That’s not fallacious. Pointing out that you have to use circular arguments in order to justify your belief that your senses are reliable is completely valid.

Belief in things nobody can sense or justify without circular reasoning or appealing to solipsism is a good indication that they are not.

So you’re not in your right mind because you believe your senses are reliable and yet you cannot prove they are without using circularity?

It must not do much to glorify him if he, himself, has so many problems with what he made.

I see no problems with what He has made.

Then, where do you get off justifying your beliefs based on 'original' scripture when you have no idea what the originals actually said?

But we do know what the originals said, so that question is based on a false premise.

Acting in malice. Doing things for the sheer thrill of watching humans suffer. That is the only interpretation available to one who interprets scripture literally.

Why is that the correct definition of evil? Because you say so?

[Anomalocaris]

I welcome this sort of post, it’s obvious you only resort to personal attacks because you fear my abilities and will not try your hand at actual debate.

As any monkey of your kind would. It does monkeys far sharper than you infinite undeserved honor to be seen debating humans. But it does not do even the meanest human any credit if he was seen debating a monkey.

[Whateverist]

What makes you certain you can trust your senses if God exists? There are tons of people who come to very different answers using the same methods you use.

I am the creation of a rational God who desires for me to learn about Him through His revealed word and His creation, therefore I can trust my senses enough to learn about His world and His word. You have no justification for trusting your senses because you believe we live in a Universe that is nothing more than matter.

And what, pray tell, is the matter with that? Why shouldn't matter matter? Would you concede that we ungodly are in no worse a position than yourself to believe what our senses tell us than you are believing what your special friend tells you?

Just how is it you know your god is rational, is necessary for you to trust your senses and wants you to learn about Him? (Did he tell you himself?)

[Silver]

I am the creation of a rational God, therefore I can trust my senses enough to learn about His world and His word. You have no justification for trusting your senses because you believe we live in a Universe that is nothing more than matter.

You are nothing more than the creation of your parents, and you owe your existence to the combination of their genes.

Considering that we each only have five senses, and god cannot be perceived with either of the five senses, the logical conclusion is that one can only perceive god through delusion. I can very well rely upon my five senses for the justification of trusting the world around me, because anything more is simple fabrication of an overactive imagination.