CHISTIANS PLEASE EXPLAIN

[Carnavon]

I submit to you that hell, an infinite punishment, has no corresponding finite crime through which it could be deserved; there is literally no crime I could commit that would cause me to deserve to suffer eternally, least of all the crimes I'm actually being "convicted" of here, which include being born human chronologically after Adam, and not believing in a deity for which there is no evidence. Do any of those things seem like sufficient reason to light me on fire? Would you feel comfortable doing that to me for those things?

“no corresponding finite crime through which it could be deserved”. That is your personal view and having a very lax attitude towards holiness and also a very limited appreciation of the extreme nature of sin. Our standards of “holiness” is really kindergarten stuff.
“Believing in a diety for which there is no evidence” You are not expressing a view consistent throughout even atheism about the existence of a “deity” or “supernatural being”. Our friend Richard Dawkins suggests little green men that seeded life, accepting that some higher intelligence (forbid it may be God) was behind this extremely complex universe.
Will I light you up? Well, let us put it into perspective. Millions of unborn babies are killed annually without them having a say or any choice in the matter. You have a choice my friend. At present you choose to be “lighted”, although I doubt whether any unborn would voluntarily choose to be killed. Would you have ?

If someone has been in a car accident and, in their panic, they begin to flail around and prevent the medics from doing their job, they restrain the patient in order to save his life.

The plain and simple truth is that you are confronted with God and you can reject or accept Him. As simple as that. That is the choice before you. At present you reject Him.
You are offered a gift that you do not by your own merit deserve. This unmerited gift will protect you from harm’s way. You ignore it and harm comes to you. Now you blame the person offering you the gift for not “forcing” you to accept it? Yet on the other hand you do not wish to be a “puppet”? It is illogical. Or would you not mind being a “puppet?
It is so funny. Christians are accused of “wanting to force their views on others”, yet at the same time you want them to. Can you see the lack of logic? You really want Christ to “force you”?

Because I am rationally incapable of accepting claims for which there are no evidence simply because a figure contained within those claims threatens me while smiling beneficently.

You are wrong. There is sufficient evidence for a rational man – as proven by a great number of scientists being believers. I would suggest that not believing (on an intellectual level) is not rational. Do some objective research on any field you wish where the Bible can be objectively tested. The easiest I suppose is history and archaeology. There is not one piece of conclusive evidence that the Bible facts are false. Questions yes, but no conclusive proof – not even one – where the Bible has stated something as fact. Test it. Quite a few have been “false alarms" – such as the claim that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch – later proven false. No mass exodus? Recent satellite infrared technology suggests otherwise.
You warn your child that touching a live electric wire is threatening? You can clearly see your bias? Will you remove the child? You want God to forcefully convert you?

There's no logic in accepting Jesus, and all the arguments you bring up for such a thing are fallacious; it is only because you've already chosen what you want to believe, that you don't see that. Furthermore, don't presume to tell me the reasons I've come to the decisions I have.

Sorry if I sounded presumptuous. It was not my intention.
True, Accepting Jesus is not logical. If it is purely based on logic, it would be worthless. It is a spiritual matter, through the work of the Holy Spirit. You can believe the whole Bible from beginning to end, accept every fact as the truth and yet be unconverted. It was John Wesley that wrote "I went to America to convert the Indians, but, oh, who will convert me?"
Jesus said to Nicodemus “ Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Joh 3:3

Don't preach, Mister Passive Aggressive.

Yet you want me to? See analogy of paramedic.

Still not big on demonstrating your religious claims, are you?

My claims all rest on the Bible – which I have found to be truthful and comforting – as opposed to threatening. If there is anything in there that you wish to dispute, I will be happy to answer. Just a suggestion – why not look at the basis for right and wrong – which you seem to use for your arguments. What is your basis for suggesting something is right or wrong?

[Ryantology]

I know you get a lot of fundies here, and you probably get used to debate based on different assumptions. So can I make this clear: No-one died. It's a story. People die in stories all the time. No-one gets upset.

Do you believe that Jesus died on the cross for the salvation of mankind?

No one died. It's a story.

I'm curious to know the methodology of your cherry-picking.

---

[quote='Carnavon' pid='588599' dateline='1390378082']“no corresponding finite crime through which it could be deserved”. That is your personal view and having a very lax attitude towards holiness and also a very limited appreciation of the extreme nature of sin. Our standards of “holiness” is really kindergarten stuff.

The entire concept of 'holiness' is really kindergarten stuff. No offense to kindergartners.

You are not expressing a view consistent throughout even atheism about the existence of a “deity” or “supernatural being”. Our friend Richard Dawkins suggests little green men that seeded life, accepting that some higher intelligence (forbid it may be God) was behind this extremely complex universe.

Is your god a little green man? Why is it that Christians latch onto any possible concept of a god (even when it's stretching things as thin as you are now) as 'evidence' that their specific god is real?

Well, let us put it into perspective. Millions of unborn babies are killed annually without them having a say or any choice in the matter. You have a choice my friend. At present you choose to be “lighted”, although I doubt whether any unborn would voluntarily choose to be killed. Would you have ?

You assume we have the choice to believe in something that makes no possible sense to us.

The plain and simple truth is that you are confronted with God and you can reject or accept Him. As simple as that. That is the choice before you. At present you reject Him.

I don't remember seeing any god anywhere. And I certainly wasted a lot more time looking than I like to admit.

You are offered a gift that you do not by your own merit deserve. This unmerited gift will protect you from harm’s way. You ignore it and harm comes to you. Now you blame the person offering you the gift for not “forcing” you to accept it? Yet on the other hand you do not wish to be a “puppet”? It is illogical. Or would you not mind being a “puppet?

Tell me again, objectively, what's the difference between Christian salvation and a mafia protection racket? Do what I say or I'll send you to hell.

It is so funny. Christians are accused of “wanting to force their views on others”, yet at the same time you want them to. Can you see the lack of logic? You really want Christ to “force you”?

I want Christ to establish the reality of his existence to my satisfaction.

You are wrong. There is sufficient evidence for a rational man – as proven by a great number of scientists being believers. I would suggest that not believing (on an intellectual level) is not rational. Do some objective research on any field you wish where the Bible can be objectively tested. The easiest I suppose is history and archaeology. There is not one piece of conclusive evidence that the Bible facts are false.

There are entire fields of science that have put paid to any possible idea that Genesis happened.

Q: How do you know a position is false and specifically designed to avoid being disproven?

A: When the primary defense for it is "you can't disprove it".

True, Accepting Jesus is not logical. If it is purely based on logic, it would be worthless.

As it demonstrably is.

My claims all rest on the Bible – which I have found to be truthful and comforting – as opposed to threatening.

Any person who finds comfort in stories of rape and slaughter and genocide and slavery and spiritual blackmail really needs to be in a padded cell. Like, yesterday.

[Carnavon]

There are entire fields of science that have put paid to any possible idea that Genesis happened.

Please provide irrefutable proof and while you are at at, proof of how it then happened.

---

Notice you did not responded to the challenge to substantiate your view on what is right and wrong, yet feel free to express views using the very concepts of right and wrong.

[pocaracas]

There are entire fields of science that have put paid to any possible idea that Genesis happened.

Please provide irrefutable proof and while you are at at, proof of how it then happened.

If you are requesting that, then I assume it is because you have "irrefutable proof" that Genesis happened... right?

[Brakeman]

“Believing in a diety for which there is no evidence” You are not expressing a view consistent throughout even atheism about the existence of a “deity” or “supernatural being”.

Liar! Atheist means unconvinced of the existence of gods.

Our friend Richard Dawkins suggests little green men that seeded life, accepting that some higher intelligence (forbid it may be God) was behind this extremely complex universe.

Liar! . Citation seriously needed!

The plain and simple truth is that you are confronted with God and you can reject or accept Him. As simple as that. That is the choice before you. At present you reject Him.

Uhmmm.. NO we are not confronted with god, we can't find any physical evidence of a god whatsoever. What we are confronted with are wildly varying claims of vengeful gods from the most unstable minds found around the globe.

You are offered a gift that you do not by your own merit deserve.

If I don't deserve it, then it is unjust to give it to me. Justice and mercy are conflicting ideas.

Now you blame the person offering you the gift for not “forcing” you to accept it?

No, we claim the offer is a sham. Do you reject the offer of three magical wishes by Spongebob Squarepants?

You really want Christ to “force you”?

No, have him stop playing hide and seek first..

You are wrong. There is sufficient evidence for a rational man – as proven by a great number of scientists being believers. I would suggest that not believing (on an intellectual level) is not rational. Do some objective research on any field you wish where the Bible can be objectively tested. The easiest I suppose is history and archaeology. There is not one piece of conclusive evidence that the Bible facts are false. Questions yes, but no conclusive proof – not even one – where the Bible has stated something as fact. Test it. Quite a few have been “false alarms" – such as the claim that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch – later proven false. No mass exodus? Recent satellite infrared technology suggests otherwise.

Liar-fer-jesus.. Some scientist retain their brainwashing and remain believers because of cognitive dissonance, never because of physical evidence. Satellite imagery does not show any evidence of an exodus, there isn't even any evidence of jewish slaves in Egypt in the first place. You are so ill informed it is totally laughable. I suppose you are a Ron Wyatt follower too!

[/quote]

[Esquilax]

“no corresponding finite crime through which it could be deserved”. That is your personal view and having a very lax attitude towards holiness and also a very limited appreciation of the extreme nature of sin. Our standards of “holiness” is really kindergarten stuff.

Given that I don't think holiness nor sin are real, I'd say I have the laxest possible attitude toward them. More importantly, since we weigh the severity of wrongdoings by the harm that they cause, and nothing we do could harm god by definition, then sin- defined as an offense against god- is nonexistent anyway. Your god is just having a continuous diva moment, there.

“Believing in a diety for which there is no evidence” You are not expressing a view consistent throughout even atheism about the existence of a “deity” or “supernatural being”. Our friend Richard Dawkins suggests little green men that seeded life, accepting that some higher intelligence (forbid it may be God) was behind this extremely complex universe.

A common quote mine, but not a true one: Dawkins suggested panspermia- your "little green men"- as a possible scenario that would involve a creator of life, not the one he actually subscribes to. That answer was later taken out of context by creationists in order to misrepresent his position as the one you've posited here. Here, read it from the horse's... blog. It's down the page a little ways.

Will I light you up? Well, let us put it into perspective. Millions of unborn babies are killed annually without them having a say or any choice in the matter. You have a choice my friend. At present you choose to be “lighted”, although I doubt whether any unborn would voluntarily choose to be killed. Would you have ?

That's a red herring, for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it doesn't answer my question. I correct you on simply phrasing this as a fair choice, and your response is to... phrase it as a fair choice again. If you're not going to do anything more than insist your position is right and not address my responses, why bother?

The plain and simple truth is that you are confronted with God and you can reject or accept Him. As simple as that. That is the choice before you. At present you reject Him.
You are offered a gift that you do not by your own merit deserve. This unmerited gift will protect you from harm’s way. You ignore it and harm comes to you. Now you blame the person offering you the gift for not “forcing” you to accept it? Yet on the other hand you do not wish to be a “puppet”? It is illogical. Or would you not mind being a “puppet?
It is so funny. Christians are accused of “wanting to force their views on others”, yet at the same time you want them to. Can you see the lack of logic? You really want Christ to “force you”?

Don't preach at me. Secondly, who created the harm that I'm being saved from? Who constructed the metrics by which I can be exposed to that harm at all?

Without god, I'd have no risk of that harm at all! Root cause: god. Him "saving" us from it is simply repairing damage he himself caused, and then shifted the blame onto us.

You are wrong. There is sufficient evidence for a rational man – as proven by a great number of scientists being believers.

Recent polls suggest that the number of scientists who believe in god are statistically less than the general public, dipping as low as one third in some studies: Wrong again.

I would suggest that not believing (on an intellectual level) is not rational. Do some objective research on any field you wish where the Bible can be objectively tested. The easiest I suppose is history and archaeology. There is not one piece of conclusive evidence that the Bible facts are false.

Also incorrect: for one, there's no historical records of large numbers of Jewish slaves in Egypt. There's civilizations older than the bible claims the earth is. etc etc...

Hell, just try to find me a contemporary reference for Jesus. You can't do it.

Questions yes, but no conclusive proof – not even one – where the Bible has stated something as fact. Test it. Quite a few have been “false alarms" – such as the claim that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch – later proven false. No mass exodus? Recent satellite infrared technology suggests otherwise.

You are going to have to do more than claim things without references.

Oh, and incidentally, it's not up to us to disprove the bible. It's up to you guys to prove it's true; that's why I'm so interested that your only response here is to say we can't disprove it, and therefore it's true.

You warn your child that touching a live electric wire is threatening? You can clearly see your bias? Will you remove the child? You want God to forcefully convert you?

I don't think god exists, but I'm sure you can understand that I'm saying the hypothetical god you're proposing is vastly out of step with the all moral being you seem to think he is.

True, Accepting Jesus is not logical. If it is purely based on logic, it would be worthless. It is a spiritual matter, through the work of the Holy Spirit. You can believe the whole Bible from beginning to end, accept every fact as the truth and yet be unconverted. It was John Wesley that wrote "I went to America to convert the Indians, but, oh, who will convert me?"
Jesus said to Nicodemus “ Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Joh 3:3

Yeah, not buying it.

Yet you want me to? See analogy of paramedic.

No, I want you to converse with me. I'm an atheist; I'm going to need more than bible verses and claims of spirituality to convince me.

My claims all rest on the Bible – which I have found to be truthful and comforting – as opposed to threatening. If there is anything in there that you wish to dispute, I will be happy to answer. Just a suggestion – why not look at the basis for right and wrong – which you seem to use for your arguments. What is your basis for suggesting something is right or wrong?

What's my basis? Reality and the people in it. Morality is built up around the facts of the world and how we react to it.

No doubt you'll disagree and assert that god is the basis for morality. I don't want to derail the thread going into all the problems I have with that, so my suggestion is to not do that: if you do I'll respond, and I'd hate for us both to waste our time on something that's demonstrably false, like a god given morality.

[Mister Agenda]

A couple of bears killed a bunch of kids, local prophet claims it's God's punishment.

Just like some religious leaders who say God talks to them do today with earthquakes and bad weather.

It's only problematic if you think God really did send the bears, and that makes a lot less sense, doesn't it?

[Chas]

A couple of bears killed a bunch of kids, local prophet claims it's God's punishment.

Just like some religious leaders who say God talks to them do today with earthquakes and bad weather.

It's only problematic if you think God really did send the bears, and that makes a lot less sense, doesn't it?

I'd say it's also problematic that a 'prophet' claims that God sent them, and problematic that people believe that God sent them.

[Vicki Q]

[quote='Vicki Q' pid='588333' dateline='1390343598']

I know you get a lot of fundies here, and you probably get used to debate based on different assumptions. So can I make this clear: No-one died. It's a story. People die in stories all the time. No-one gets upset.

Do you believe that Jesus died on the cross for the salvation of mankind?

No one died. It's a story.

I'm curious to know the methodology of your cherry-picking.

Something's up with the original coding, but I think I get the question.

It's all about genre. If I switch on the TV, and there's a report about aliens invading, how do I know what to do?

If I'm watching BBC News 24, and there's a universal atmosphere of panic (upset newsreaders, footage of world leaders, news staff expressing their hitherto unacted on mutual attraction in the background) then it's time to say goodbye to family and friends.

If it's part of a scheduled science fiction series on Gold, then it's probably time for a nice cup of tea.

With biblical genre, you do the history. You look at criteria, potential sources of the story, evidence...Then you work on a hypothesis that best fits the data.

In the case of Elisha and the bears, I don't see hard historical evidence. The message of the story (“Don't XXXX with God”) is a running theme, and it seems to me to fulfil the same sort of parabolic function as, say, the Good Samaritan.

The Early Church would never have asked the question “Is it true?” of a story. For them, the question was, “What is the truth within this story?”.

The historical evidence for Jesus dying on the cross is utterly overwhelming, by contrast. Criteria of embarrassment, multiple attestation, discontinuity with Judaism...given there's nothing remotely miraculous about a leader of a Jewish sect getting crucified, I can see no good historical argument against.

[Mudhammam]

In the case of Elisha and the bears, I don't see hard historical evidence. The message of the story (“Don't XXXX with God”) is a running theme, and it seems to me to fulfil the same sort of parabolic function as, say, the Good Samaritan.

The Early Church would never have asked the question “Is it true?” of a story. For them, the question was, “What is the truth within this story?”.

The historical evidence for Jesus dying on the cross is utterly overwhelming, by contrast. Criteria of embarrassment, multiple attestation, discontinuity with Judaism...given there's nothing remotely miraculous about a leader of a Jewish sect getting crucified, I can see no good historical argument against.

Indeed, Jesus' crucifixtion is a detail few historians would find objectionable. Unfortunately for us, the early Christians' obsession with the message of the Jesus story overshadowed their interest in the biographical or historical details of Jesus' life and death.