What is "FAITH"

[Brian37]

Your god is everything good, yes? Spending eternity apart from everything good would be torment, no? Sugarcoat it all you want. Your god unnecessarily created a place of eternal unpleasantness. That is love?


You're just making vacuous assertions to try and explain your previous vacuous assertions. It's all platitudinous nonsense that only conveys sentiment and no substance. Unless you can provide something of meaning, I'd say this discussion has played itself out.

Those who embrace evil deliberately refuse God. They freely choose that God is not for them; that they don't want it.

No I reject claims of invisible friends by any name because there is ZERO evidence for such claims, yours or any.

Do you "chose" to reject Thor making lightening? Do you "chose" to reject claims of the Egyptian sun god Ra?

No, just the opposite. You "chose" to buy a comforting placebo superstition rather than face reality.

I am no more evil for not believing in your God than I am evil for not believing in Mickey Mouse.

[Consilius]

...you are suggesting is that there is no objective moral standard, but the entire world is subject to your views...

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying this out loud. Yes to the first, no to the second. You see, I don't believe there will ever be an objective moral standard, but the entire world is certainly not subject to my views. That would be overly presumptuous of anyone, myself included. That's why God is an asshole if he thinks he can dictate morals to people.

So you are the ultimate authority that chooses what right is and what wrong is to yourself. Others also have the right to choose what is right and wrong for themselves, no matter what it may be. They may be criticized, but any action taken against their personal moral code would be infringing on their moral independence.

I don't believe any one set of morals is equal, since morality is defined by people. The morals being presented will be judged by others as well, based on their worth.

Even if lying is okay to you, and I'm assuming it really isn't, I'm not wrong to criticize you, for being critical is a right that I have. However, if lying is deemed a better virtue, it doesn't matter if I criticize you, for only I will agree with myself.

What's great is when we both agree on a set of morals, when we set the standard together, working towards what we deem the common good, would you agree? For instance, I brought up Hitler. I think it's safe to say that both you and I would condemn his actions.

Now, using the same reasoning that would bring someone to the conclusion that Hitler is a bad guy because of his atrocities, why not god too? Why does the god of the bible get a pass on his atrocities?

If the Quran sets up a standard for morals just like the Bible does, why then, do the Muslims not get a pass for their atrocities? Aren't they following the guidelines of their holy book just like you are? What makes that any different from you?

Why would their be a monopoly of certain morals unless there was value in them? How would we judge that value?
Try this. I think you believe I'm trying to tell you that morality streams forth from my religion, which isn't true. We all agree that some things are right and others wrong because we live in a world where morals are evolutionarily beneficial. What we consider to be right or wrong is not open to all interpretations, rather, we roughly agree on some general principles because they help us survive as a species.

So then why was slavery okay? Why was oppression of the blacks okay? Was that also always wrong? How is that any different from the antisemetism of the Nazi party?

Black slavery was never a good thing, but acceptable to the slavers, because their abuse of the blacks helped the New World economy. It was a deviation from what we consider moral that had to be corrected. Wasn't the slave market still booming when the abolitionist movement came along? Slavery would still be very useful to the world at present, yet we all agreed to stop it for some reason.

That's an interesting way to look at the Pentecost scene, but it doesn't change what I said. It actually supports it. What are you getting at here? Are we just exchanging interesting Bible stories now, or do you have a point? If it's the former, then we should start a new thread for that.

What I was trying to say is that a number of people probably knew about Jesus, but didn't speak publicly about him or found churches. The apostles themselves needed specific instruction to do so, and they said it came from a post-Resurrection Christ.

So it wouldn't comfort you to think that a person that raped your daughter and got away with it was going to hell after this life?

I suppose it wouldn't matter anyway if he repented of his sins before he died. Heh, you could throw a big reunion in heaven with the former Rapist. I mean, him being there is a just thing in the eyes of Yahweh.

And no, I don't have sadistic fantasies of ANYONE in hell, because no one naturally deserves it.
And, as a Catholic, I believe that those who die with sins on their heads need to suffer for a while before they can enter heaven, pure. Take the repentance thing up with another Christian.

That's called special pleading. You can use science to prove your presupposition of a virgin birth all you want. But if you try to explain it with parthenogenesis, you're forgetting that it takes the miracle out of the event, and replaces it with something that occurs naturally (however rare a case that may have been). You can be done here if you want, but I'm never done exposing bullshit excuses for a false book.

Contradiction my ass.

What's been proven is that parthenogenesis is possible in the human body. Whether or not it happened to a Jewish virgin 2000 years ago, announced, is what we should wonder about.

God doesn't love us if he has his son spouting bullshit like this:
Matthew 19:24
"..It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

So god loves everyone...unless you're rich. Or homosexual. Or a woman. Or a pagan.

I'm reminded of the verse that explains that god made certain people as vessels of wrath in order to juxtapose the good and the bad in the world. How thoughtful of him!

Romans 9:22
"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:"

According to Romans, it's implied that he made such people on purpose. God is sometimes like a little imp from myth that enjoys making mischief in the world.

Wow! Matthew 19:24! We haven't seen THAT verse before! Well, I guess this is it.
Now, seriously, you know you can just ASK the Christians who hold up that Bible rather than making isolated condemnations. If we believe everything in that book is true, don't you think we'd be able to explain it? You know, the 2000 year old, Middle Eastern, translated, copied, edited version?
Jesus Christ spoke very much to poor Jews under Roman rule. Many of the rich were oppressive landowners or abusive generals who picked on them. From a different perspective, the materialistic Romans would have a lot of letting go to do if they were to prioritize their value of God over everything else.

You confuse predestination with foreknowledge. God knows some sinners will never repent, along with everything else there is to know in the universe. But he tolerated them for a while (longsuffering) before he had to come down on them in anger (shewing his wrath) and proving his authority to others (making his power known).
"The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished." Numbers 14:8

---

Those who embrace evil deliberately refuse God. They freely choose that God is not for them; that they don't want it.

No I reject claims of invisible friends by any name because there is ZERO evidence for such claims, yours or any.

Do you "chose" to reject Thor making lightening? Do you "chose" to reject claims of the Egyptian sun god Ra?

No, just the opposite. You "chose" to buy a comforting placebo superstition rather than face reality.

I am no more evil for not believing in your God than I am evil for not believing in Mickey Mouse.

Since when is being a Hindu evil? Or a Muslim? Or an atheist?

[Faith No More]

Those who embrace evil deliberately refuse God.

Only when you redefine "evil" as "deliberately refusing god."

They freely choose that God is not for them; that they don't want it.

How do I freely choose that something which has no valid evidence for its existence is not for me?

[Consilius]

Evil is the absence of good. It is chosen by people who do not want good, which I am equating with God.
It's the refusal of not the Judeo-Christian deity, but of good itself that makes one evil.
Does that clear it up?

[Bad Writer]

Wow! Matthew 19:24! We haven't SEEN that verse before! Well, I guess it's it.

Hardy har?

Now, seriously, you know you can JUST ask the Christians who hold up that Bible rather than making isolated condemnations. If we believe everything in that book is true, don't you think we'd be able to explain it? You know, the 2000 year old, Middle Eastern, translated, copied, edited version?

Wai in de fuk do you even try to uphold it, if that's what you think about it? You say something like this, which is a good example of critical thinking, and then you come down from your progress with what you say next.

Jesus Christ spoke very much to poor Jews under Roman rule. Many of the rich were oppressive landowners or abusive generals who picked on them. From a different perspective, the materialistic Romans would have a lot of letting go to do if they were to prioritize their value of God over everything else.

You again justify what he's saying. And if your justificiation is valid, then that means that anything Jesus says, since it's all to the Jews anyway (he refuses to teach the Gentiles, of course), should be taken with a grain a salt by anyone else that reads it. (Unless he/she is a Jew.)

You confuse predestination with foreknowledge. God knows some sinners will never repent, along with everything else there is to know in the universe. But he tolerated them for a while (longsuffering) before he had to come down on them in anger (shewing his wrath) and proving his authority to others (making his power known).
"The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished." Numbers 14:8

Please understand that I wouldn't post a Bible verse if I didn't know what it meant. I suppose you prove a good point to everyone reading this: that the Bible is too confusing to be understood plainly.

But, in all seriousness, the term "Vessels of Wrath" is meant as predestination, and it is not incumbent upon his foreknowledge. You can't read that any other way, but I don't care if you do because the Bible is unreliable anyway. At any rate, it just shows that your God makes these people guilty. He's obviously insecure (he is a jealous god, after all) that he comes up with all kinds of ways to show his power to his supposed creations. This verse especially justifies me in thinking he's a dick. Luckily, I don't think he's real, so I'm not at all threatened.

I am no more evil for not believing in your God than I am evil for not believing in Mickey Mouse.

Since when is being a Hindu evil? Or a Muslim? Or an atheist?

You JUST said that those who don't believe in god is evil. What the fuck, Consilius? You're lacking consistency, and this debate is getting tired because of it.

Are we evil if we don't believe in your God? It's a yes or no question. Remember that you and I both decided that morality is subjective to that individual (at least that's what I gathered from previous posts), so now we're asking you what you really think on this matter. Please answer honestly so that we can stop stalling.

[Faith No More]

Evil is the absence of good. It is chosen by people who do not want good, which I am equating with God.

Exactly, which renders your previous statement a redundancy.

It's the refusal of not the Judeo-Christian deity, but of good itself that makes one evil.
Does that clear it up?

No, because when you equate good with the Judeo-Christian deity, you once again have a redundancy.

[fr0d0]

Those who embrace evil deliberately refuse God.

Only when you redefine "evil" as "deliberately refusing god."

We didn't need to redefine it. That is the original definition from the bible and active believing Christians.

You did because you misunderstand what the Christian God is. You have to address the subject of you want to talk about the subject.

[Faith No More]

We didn't need to redefine it. That is the original definition from the bible and active believing Christians.

You did because you misunderstand what the Christian God is. You have to address the subject of you want to talk about the subject.

I'm not misunderstanding. I'm saying it's bullshit you can't substantiate.

We have a concrete definition of evil, which exists only as a concept anyway, and hijacking that as a synonym for rejecting your god is redefining it.

[fr0d0]

So we are talking about your path to conversion rather than addressing the subject of Christianity as it stands.

Cool. I'm glad we're clear on that.

[Bad Writer]

We didn't need to redefine it. That is the original definition from the bible and active believing Christians.

You did because you misunderstand what the Christian God is. You have to address the subject of you want to talk about the subject.

I'm not misunderstanding. I'm saying it's bullshit you can't substantiate.

We have a concrete definition of evil, which exists only as a concept anyway, and hijacking that as a synonym for rejecting your god is redefining it.

Oh...man... I'm going to have to go with the Christians on this one. I don't think he was redefining it at all. Evil as a concept still applies, but I think they simply meant that rejecting god is an evil act, but not necessarily an act that makes it evil incarnate.

Unsubstantiated claims abound still, so I'm tracking that, at least.