Christ's birthday

[solarwave]

chatpilot: So your parents gave you the right to life not just life (they are two different things). So you are saying that if you have a right to life it is actually wrong for someone to kill you which is absolute morality, so from where does morality come from?

If you then say there is no right to life outside of God that means God is justified in giving or taking life whenever He wishes since our right to life relies on Him. So ether the God of the bible isn't evil based on OT deaths or He is evil but He also exists.

chatpilot second post: Are you equal to God then? Do you think on His level? Would you understand all He understands? Consider that lower IQ people probably couldn't understand Quantum Theory and all its equations why do you think that you compare to God? To say man can't understand everything God does doesn't make man small, it just makes God very big. I know saying God is mysterious seems like saying 'I dont know' which is why I try not to say that, but wouldn't it be wierd if finite humans fully understood a timeless God?

Darwinian: Christians are in love with Christ and our relationship with Him leads us to believe the bible is true. 'Mental gymnastics' - a great phrase lol. As for me I am happy to change my interpretation of the bible so it makes sense with evidence. I think its better to do that and be a theistic evolutionist than be a creationist thought I do understand why they believe what they do.

EvidenceVsFaith: There is reason to believe in God, try going to church with an open mind and search for God.

[Edwardo Piet]

EvidenceVsFaith: There is reason to believe in God, try going to church with an open mind and search for God.

"There is reason to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Try going to church with an open mind, getting down on your knees and solemnly asking to be touched by the FSM's noodly appendage".

EvF

[chatpilot]

Morality is dictacted by the society which you are born into not god. In some societies cannibalism was an okay thing but to us that would be appalling. So where was your god to tell these ancient tribal ancestors that cannibalism was immoral?

A more modern example is how in some societies adulthood is not determined by a specific age but by the way your society or tribe interprets adulthood.

[Craveman]

There is reason to believe in God, try going to church with an open mind and search for God.

A lot of people have, that is how they ended up becomming atheists.

[fr0d0]

Morality is dictacted by the society which you are born into not god. In some societies cannibalism was an okay thing but to us that would be appalling. So where was your god to tell these ancient tribal ancestors that cannibalism was immoral?

A more modern example is how in some societies adulthood is not determined by a specific age but by the way your society or tribe interprets adulthood.

Morality is discerned through our innate understanding of God. You talk like it's something we didn't dream up Chatty. Make your mind up!

[solarwave]

chatpilot: Why do you have a problem with God killing people in the OT then?

[rjh4 is back]

What makes you think there's a God in the first place, that is mysterious? You believe in God when there's no evidence of him, when we question him you more or less say he "works in mysterious ways".

Agnostic atheists say they don't know that God doesn't absolutely exist, because that's a logical fallacy - the Negative Proof fallacy. Agnostic atheists such as myself, can't know that - so we accept that we can be wrong.

That's different to believing in something, at least ostensibly without any evidence and then when questioned simply saying that it's "mysterious" - if it's that bloody mysterious, if it's so mysterious that you basically can't seem to give any evidence at all, why do you think he exists?

As I said, what makes you think there's a God in the first place, that is mysterious?

EvF

First, it seems to me, EvF, that you are taking things out of context. When I said I didn't know, I was not talking about God in general or the issue as to whether God exists, I was merely saying that I do not know all the reasons why God does what He does or allows what He allows. I do not see much difference in that than someone who puts all their trust in the scientific method and then concluding on some point that they do not know. (Or do people who put all their trust in the scientific method have all the answers to all life's questions?)

Second, you sound like a broken record in saying that Christians believe in God without evidence. I thought we covered that. I do think there is evidence for God. Before I mentioned the fossil record. Now I will mention the universe. It exists as does life in the universe. That fact is evidence. You look at this evidence and say that it is evidence of the big bang, abiogenesis, and common descent. I look at this evidence and say that it is evidence of God. So to say that I believe in God without evidence is not an accurate statement. You could certainly conclude that I believe in God based on evidence that you do not accept as evidencing God. The situation is similar to a hung jury in a murder trial. All the jurors hear the same evidence. Some conclude from the evidence one thing and some conclude something else. But I think it is not rational to say that one decision is based on evidence and one is not. The fact is that Christian and atheist have all the same evidence. To a very large degree, the facts are the facts. I think where we really differ is in our conclusions from those facts based on the filters or presuppositions we run them through to interpret the facts. Now I'm sure over the years you have heard many reasons/evidence that people use for believing in God. To say that all of them then believe in God witout evidence I think is to redefine the word "evidence" to your own liking instead of using it in the usual sense.

Because we are not claiming anything but you are. We don't know what caused the universe and we admit that because we lack knowledge on that subject. You on the other hand claim that some supernatural being that is non-temporal created everything without a shred of evidence to back up your assertions. If you claim there is a god despite total lack of evidence, then it is expected that you should know something of it that may of caused you to believe in it, no?

See my response to EvF above as I think it applies here also.

When I say I don't know I mean I don't know I don't go off and attribute my lack of understanding to some invisible guy in the sky and his desire not to reveal it to me.

I think you, like EvF and Ace, took what I actually said out of context.

OK, Apologies, rjh4. My post was not meant in a nasty way but merely as friendly banter! I really don't mind to continue with the debate...

No problem. I did not take it as nasty.

OK, do you believe in the whole Bible then? Have you truly read the OT? You are saying that we would never know the reasons why God does certain things. This is a nice excuse to hide behind when God does inhumane things. There are many stories in the OT where God is portrayed as sexist, warmonger, promotes slavery, homophobic, egotistical, etc. In my eyes this is NOT an all-loving God and I do not wish to ever worhip this God (not that I believe in him in the first place). It is easy for you Christians to hide behind "God is to complex for us to understand". If that is your reasoning, why believe anything in the Bible?

Have I at least convinced you that there ARE many inconsistancies in the Bible? This seemed to be your whole argument...

Yes I believe in the whole Bible. Yes I have truly read the OT, a couple of times in whole. No you have not convinced me that there are many inconsistencies in the Bible. (I'm sure you are not surprised by this.) What you may have established is that if one holds God to the same standards as God holds for us or you hold for yourself and others, you could consider God and the Bible as being inconsistent. From your point of view then, you think the inconsistency has been established. However, I think your whole point of view of holding God to the same standards as God holds for us is irrational. If God exists, created the universe, created man, and told us how we should behave, then God and what He told us is the standard for everything else. What you want to do is turn things around on God. It is like a two year old complaining to his father because the father won't let him drive the family car. "Well you drive and I am a human like you, I should be able to drive too. You are being inconsistent and irrational." You tell me. Is the father really being inconsistent and irrational? I certainly don't think so. The two year old is not in a position emotionally/physically to drive or to make good judgements in driving. So I think it is in an analogous sense that God and the Bible are not inconsistent or irrational when it tells of God doing certain things that he told us not to do or you think God should not have done.

[chatpilot]

fr0d0 wrote: "Morality is discerned through our innate understanding of God. You talk like it's something we didn't dream up Chatty. Make your mind up!"

My mind was made up a long time ago. God has nothing to do with morality nor is morality innate through your so called understanding of god. Society and cultures dictate what is moral and what is not.

solarwave wrote: " chatpilot: Why do you have a problem with God killing people in the OT then?"

rjh4 said it for me in his reply to Craveman when he referred to our "holding God to the same standards as God holds for us is irrational. " But I don't think it irrational and in fact I hold this god to the same standards of the rest of us for the simple reason that he is supposed to be our heavenly father and lead us by example. Not only does the biblical gods murdering of millions disturbs me, it's the unjust murder of those millions. Sin is a biblical concept that has no place in the real world outside of religion. So god killing people for disobedience is irrational especially when you think of him as a father. No father would kill their children for mouthing off or hitting them. That is immoral and unjust.

Also, the biblical god killed millions just to prove to his "chosen people" that he was the one, the only, almighty god. But those other cultures and people whose land was usurped by force by the Hebrew's never had a chance to see what god can do and convert. Instead god preferred to have his people exterminate them and enslave their women. If you ask me if the bible is true then the Jews have only reaped what they have sown courtesy of Adolph Hitler. I am not justifying the Holocaust but if the biblical concept of reaping and sowing applies then the Jews were just getting back what they have given.

[rjh4 is back]

Not only does the biblical gods murdering of millions disturbs me, it's the unjust murder of those millions.

How do you know God was being unjust? Do you have all the facts?

No father would kill their children for mouthing off or hitting them. That is immoral and unjust.

I think you are wrong here. I think there are societies where fathers would do this. Furthermore, based on your own view of morality, your label of them as immoral and unjust only has meaning for you and those who think the way you do. It (your label of them as immoral and unjust) would be meaningless to those in the society which thinks those things are ok as they would just think you are crazy.

But those other cultures and people whose land was usurped by force by the Hebrew's never had a chance to see what god can do and convert.

I think you are wrong here again. Joshua, Chapter 2, tells of Rahab and her family which did have a chance to convert, did, and were then saved from the destruction. Why would you think it was any different for the rest?

[Violet]

How do you know God was being unjust? Do you have all the facts?

The bible gave the justifications for his acts. Those justifications are not just.

I think you are wrong here. I think there are societies where fathers would do this. Furthermore, based on your own view of morality, your label of them as immoral and unjust only has meaning for you and those who think the way you do. It (your label of them as immoral and unjust) would be meaningless to those in the society which thinks those things are ok as they would just think you are crazy.

There are these societies... and while this may be a moral of the society: that does not make it just.

I think you are wrong here again. Joshua, Chapter 2, tells of Rahab and her family which did have a chance to convert, did, and were then saved from the destruction. Why would you think it was any different for the rest?

Oh, one family? I see... save one family... destroy all the others. All of the others you created specifically to destroy, and the one family you created specifically to save. Or do you not think that he is omni_____?