Question for freethinkers

[reverendjeremiah]

The Greatest Story Ever Told meets Wild Things.

Wait, those two are connected ...


360 degrees of Jesus Bacon.

If Jesus was made of bacon..then I would SERIOUSLY consider re-joining Christianity

[The Grand Nudger]

Give it time...lol.

[tackattack]

I just now caught the phrase "the bible encourages a thirsting for knowledge". Surely you jest?

No, I don't jest too often.

---

Prov 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Prov 10:14 Wise men lay up knowledge:...
Prov 12:1 Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.
Prov 14:18 The simple inherit folly: but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.
Prov 18:15 The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.
Prov 19:2 Also, that the soul be without knowledge, it is not good;
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee...
1 Cor 1:5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
Phil 1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;

---

For just a few. Then ther's always one of my favorites.. Luke 10:27 He answered: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Seems using your brain is fairly important... a shame there is ignorance and stupidity in the world, but with the lage numbers of believers, it's only understandable that some fall under being "Christians". I'm sure we can quibble on the percentage, but clearly it's a Biblical principal to seek knowledge.

[Godscreated]

I agree that those disasters happen but I don't believe he is evil and I still love him and that's faith.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV)

If it is the Christian version of deity that you speak, your Bible refutes your position.

Was reading through this post and saw that you were using your cherry picked verse from Isaiah 45:7, this must be your strongest defense against a loving God, you seem to use it often. You asked me to try and explain that verse in the "Debunking Christianity" post in the "Christian" section and I did but never heard back from you, You should read what I posted so that you might come to an understanding that God did not create evil as you are so determined to try and prove.
Thanks,
Godschild

[Anymouse]

Was reading through this post and saw that you were using your cherry picked verse from Isaiah 45:7, this must be your strongest defense against a loving God, you seem to use it often. You asked me to try and explain that verse in the "Debunking Christianity" post in the "Christian" section and I did but never heard back from you, You should read what I posted so that you might come to an understanding that God did not create evil as you are so determined to try and prove.
Thanks,
Godschild

I'm not trying to cherry pick, that is just one of the most obvious of the Bible's verses, one which actually says it. Throughout the Bible are acts of evil (destroying every living thing for the "sins of man" - presumably trees and lions and wolves and guinea pigs were not included in that evil), slaying all the men and cattle and keeping all the virgins for the soldiers, &c ad nauseum.) Both Testaments are full of stories of evil done either by God, or in God's name.

After all, if it is your immortal soul which is in the balance, what is that compared to a little injustice to save you from eternal torment? (Inquisition, religious intolerance, all those things Middle Eastern religions are famous for). Some of the greatest injustices of the past (and today) have been done in the name of "love."

Rather than the Golden Rule, which is faulty, I'll stick to the Rede: "If you harm none, do what you want." It is more ethical, more moral, and doesn't even require a belief in a deity (an atheist can follow that particular code).

James

[The Grand Nudger]

The kind of knowledge with god as the premise, god as the argument, and god as the conclusion. In other words, no knowledge.

[diffidus]

Is personal accountability a simple line which, once crossed, indicates full readiness for the vicissitudes of life? I see it as a growing thing which evolves through experience, and I don't feel that a text can grant that experience. How can god be experienced by an unbeliever?

Ok an originating point that grows.. I'm fine with that. I'm not following where your "text can grant that experience" fits into the conversation, but perhaps I missed it from an older post. To answer your question "How can god be experienced by an unbeliever?" I would say:
Pride is definately an obstacle, the Bible talks about it at length and almost every prayer, request, please that I can find is done from humility. Some will have to see to believe (as in John 20:26-29) but some intuit with more than their 5 material senses that there is a God. Seeking to define what that is, is a good starting step to further experiences. Seeking or thirsting for knowledge of him is a step in the right direction.

@Rhythm
No I don't think that would be correct. There is a common Christian train of thought, that emotionally and intellectually new believers who have received Christ are like infants in their understanding. The Bible encourages thirsting for knowledge and developing into an adult mindset and getting nurtured from more substantial information rather than "spiritual milk". It at no time eschews one from personal accountabiliy which, for me, is a major signifier of maturity.
@Rythm (second post)- I still see a lack of sound thought that produces a source of absolute moral authority displaying a sense of moral justice that isn't as well developed as it's creations.

---

I like your analogy of your children with the scissors but you have not quite framed it correctly. Suppose you told your children not to run with scissors and then you see them running with scissors. Do you not stop them immediately to prevent them from harm. You would do it, because you could. You would not sit by idly watching and waiting for them to get hurt. Could you imagine, after the lacerating injury, sitting calmly and saying to yourself - 'well they should have known better - everything has consequences'. And that's the whole point really, namely, that if you could avert the incident, you would, independent of any blame or any percieved natural justice - it is simply this: you love your children and you will protect them from harm under any circumstances as far as you are able - so why doesn't God do the same for His children?

---

Glad you like it. If my son wanted to do whatever he liked and I bailed him out over and over he'd just learn that daddy takes care of everything for him. It's the exact opposite of teaching responsibility and the difference between right and wrong. I do love my children , but I won't protect them from all harm under any circumstance, that would be and irresponsible parent in my eyes. I see God lettting people suffer the consequences of their actions/ stupidity in the same vein.

@tackattack

I find it hard to believe that you would allow your children to die from an event that you could prevent using the rationalisation that 'everything has consequences and that they should have known better.' According to your argument, this is precisely what God has done in the case of the children of Aberfan.

Apart from being a diminishingly weak argument (I think, deep down, your intuition tells you that there is something wrong with it) I could have chosen a random natural disaster that was an 'act of God' in which innocent people have died through no fault of their own. Why should they reap consequences?

The black death in Europe killed up to 60% of the population. It killed rapists and murderers in addition to nuns, monks and the most religious people in the land - those who really had faith in God and prayed religiously were treated in the same way as the most malevolent. It appears that the loving God did not listen to their prayers or lift a finger to help - just as in the case of the children of Aberfan.

Incidently - if your going to use the 'consequences argument' in the case of Aberfan, why did the children suffer the consequences, while the coal board directors, who were ultimately responsible, suffered no consequences whatsoever?

[Godscreated]

Was reading through this post and saw that you were using your cherry picked verse from Isaiah 45:7, this must be your strongest defense against a loving God, you seem to use it often. You asked me to try and explain that verse in the "Debunking Christianity" post in the "Christian" section and I did but never heard back from you, You should read what I posted so that you might come to an understanding that God did not create evil as you are so determined to try and prove.
Thanks,
Godschild

I'm not trying to cherry pick, that is just one of the most obvious of the Bible's verses, one which actually says it. Throughout the Bible are acts of evil (destroying every living thing for the "sins of man" - presumably trees and lions and wolves and guinea pigs were not included in that evil), slaying all the men and cattle and keeping all the virgins for the soldiers, &c ad nauseum.) Both Testaments are full of stories of evil done either by God, or in God's name.

After all, if it is your immortal soul which is in the balance, what is that compared to a little injustice to save you from eternal torment? (Inquisition, religious intolerance, all those things Middle Eastern religions are famous for). Some of the greatest injustices of the past (and today) have been done in the name of "love."

Rather than the Golden Rule, which is faulty, I'll stick to the Rede: "If you harm none, do what you want." It is more ethical, more moral, and doesn't even require a belief in a deity (an atheist can follow that particular code).

James

Yes you are and it's more than obvious that you do, you lay out a challenge about the Bible and then you run away when I give you an answer instead of commenting on the answer in some intellegent way, how sad is that. Let's see also how you have changed your idea that was first presented, you first said that God created evil, now you say God does evil, why the change, did you actually read what I posted in "Debunking Christianity" and realize that a better translation actually shed new light on the verse you love to use and ran from your own challenge. As far as I'm concerned there are so many flaws in your Rede and your comments on it that it holds no merit. If you are going to throw out a challenge man up and discuss it.

[Epimethean]

God didn't create evil, nor does god do evil, but enough religiously schizoid fucks ARE evil and DO evil in the name of their imaginary skywizard to keep the whole bullshit rolling.

[The Grand Nudger]

A better translation will always be found whenever an uncomfortable objection is raised. No two believers are reading the same book, even if they only have one book between them.