Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I wouldn't stress too much. I haven't followed his posts for quite a while now.
I promise you - you won't miss him. I don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I am a theist. Duh. Deism is essentially and functionally atheistic. I would agree with that view. I argue against Deism as much as I argue against Atheism.
Yet there are interesting differences. One - the deist can put together a worldview and admit it. The atheist according to its brightest has one doctrine. One thought. And nothing further. So on that basis alone, deism is epistemologically, more dangerous than atheism. Atheism actually is a little bit like the Green's political Party. It has one issue. but it purports to be knowledgable about so much more.
Funny that. I actually find it ironic that atheists insist upon only having one doctrine. It makes it redundant really. But I suppose it's intriguing too since it means they only have one purpose in life. Proving that God doesn't exist. It makes me wonder, whether actually, it is just a little boy or girl crying for help.
Still thanks for the comment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Sorry ....... but I'm just not interested in debating the subject in depth with you,Times I've done so in the past, have indicated to me that you're not interested in a good faith conversation, on the subject of religion.Assuming you are also Willows and that one guy on DDO whose name I forget.Maybe I'm mistaken about your stance on religion, or past identities,But I don't think I am.
He's not Willows. Willows has a different psyche.
And he's an Aussie too. He also despite his hatred for all things religious, is able to discuss things rationally at times.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Slifer the Sky dragon could be creator God. Or maybe it is Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomachache.Yeah, that sounds about right.
Hey, anything is possible for a Hindu. It's not like you believe in absolute truth anyway. So for you, perhaps Slifer is your creator. Or maybe even Mbombo?
In the Hindu religion - it's all about rainbows. And snakes.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Since Zeus is rumoured to have been born on the Island of Crete, we can safely assume he did not make the heavens and earth and therefore is not the Creator God.
Still, good guess.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I also find it funny that God appeared and talked to people in the past, but doesnt talk to people today and doesnt show himself anymore to anyone on Earth.
Who says God doesn't talk to people today and doesn't show himself anymore? Or are you really crying in your drinks because God has chosen not to talk to you or show himself to you? I suspect that is the real problem. You want God to jump to your tune. To do your bidding. And when he doesn't, well, you just go the old line that he must be fake. It couldn't be you, could it? So, It must be God or those people who believe in God. Well, that's good logic, anyway. LOL @ the simplicity of such simpletons.
Could those old stories of God appearing in cloud be just old people's rambling tales. People in ancient times did tell lots of lies and invented all sort of religions. If there was just one God, you would expect 1 religion, not 3000 different ones.
Anything is possible I suppose, but how likely or probable or reasonable is it that these are just stories? People in modern times tell a lot of lies and invent all sorts of myths. Like, the Big Bang Theory. Or the theory of Evolution. Or that there are not just two genders. Or that if you feel you are a man, you must be. Or that the ends justify the means. Or that there are no absolutes.
I take the view - that if there were just ONE GOD, there would be lots of copycats. And counterfeits and lo and behold, so there are.
The fact that there are lots of different religions doesn't necessarily imply that there is no genuine one. If something is good and true and people like it, there is always going to be innovative people who want to control it. And if they can't then well, they will make their own. I think that is potentially the reason we have over 3,000 different religions. I think the way to spot the genuine one is -to look for the God you cannot control. The one who REFUSES to be seen and heard UNTIL he wants to be seen and heard.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Perhaps therein you might find your answer, Harikrish.Why do I feel joy when you call me Harikrish?
Perhaps it is because we all rejoice when we don't have to hide anymore. And our true face is revealed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Thanks again for your response.
I could quote a definition from the shorter or larger catechisms if you wanted. But for me - the definition of God is not actually relevant to the proving of god.If the goal is to have a rational dialog, it is not possible to have a conversation about whether something exists if you don’t define it.
Ok.
I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.
II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. WCF chapter 2.
I'm not sure how that is going to help since I didn't attempt to prove that this God exists. But for me - I am happy to work with this definition.
I understand your point about someone proving one aspect of your definition wrong not disproving the concept itself, but without a definition we don’t even know what the concept is. It has to start there. If the person you’re interacting with is being intellectually honest that’s not going to be a significant hindrance.
As I said above, I think the concept of god is different to the definition of god. And to be honest I think EVEN providing a definition is going to a distraction to what we have been discussing. For I intentionally did not want to define god, since god is for many people a variety of things. This range of definitions is and has been difficult to define for good reason. It is a little bit like many things. For example, the concept of love. Everyone defines love differently. But does the fact that someone define love, and then that definition is refuted, actually deal with what love is? And the answer is no. The idea of love is abstract, not concrete, and therefore definitions need to be vague. the concept of God is abstract or is it concrete? I'd suggest something altogether different, spiritual. Yet that is neither concrete nor abstract and at the same time it is both. Like faith. Faith requires reason to underly it or it turns into mysticism. Blind faith is - stupid or mysticism.
how does an agnostic form a conclusion that god's existence is not knowable? It requires some form of definition of god, which most agnostics would not want to admit or concede.I have no idea where you are getting that last part. Again, without a definition there’s nothing to discuss.
Agnostics cannot admit to a definition of god. If they do then they admit they can know something about god.
Agnostics are not the ones asserting a god, so I don’t understand why you think accepting a definition as provided by the theist asserting it for the sake of conversation is an admission.
agnostics by their very definition are not denying or admitting the existence of god. And yet by their very existence, they are admitting that someone else has a definition of god, of whom they reason they can't possibly know. This last sentence must be true or else their very existence, agnostics is pointless. Also I don't quite understand your last part of your sentence. Would you reword for that me please?
But to the first part, agnostics assert that god is unknowable based on the general definition of god most frequently asserted. The details differ tremendously throughout the religious community, but generally speaking a god is said to be an all powerful being that exists outside of space and time. The problem is that we don’t have access to what if anything lies beyond space and time, so without having access to it we could never know if anything could exist there let alone does.
Ok. that first sentence makes sense. I'm not sure how general it is or how valid it is, but as a sentence and a thought it makes sense. Your second sentence is probably accurate as to a general conception of a monotheistic god. It doesn't apply to the rest of religion. It also doesn't really describe the sense in which most liberal - the general population of the church, would define God. Most liberals would deny God is omniscient and they would deny he is all-powerful. Ask the late Bishop Spong. A good representation of most of the academics and liberals in the Episcopalian, Lutheran, Uniting, and potentially the Roman Catholic Churches. God is not all powerful. I accept that a small amount of evangelical Christians probably hold to this view. those who haven't moved onto universalism. And I also accept that most Muslims would hold to this definition. As to the Jewish folk, that's hard to say. They seem to be more a mix of the Liberals and the Atheists these days. But they certainly in the OT hold to a monotheistic all powerful God.
I would also think that God not only exists outside of time and space but within it as well. Hence, if this part of the Agnostics reasoning - which you indicate it is - then their assumptions are going to always come to the conclusion that nothing within time and space would be able to assist in knowing God. This assumption of course - is an interesting one since it again implies "knowledge" about God.
since it is a self contradictory statement and it proves - ipso facto that god exists. At least on a philosophical level at a 100% level.A contradictory statement is nothing more than a statement that is logically inconsistent with itself. That does not prove the existence of anything.
Yes, it is a statement. yet it does prove something. It is not a scientific proof - it is a philosophical proof. It proves that the concept is valid. or invalid. Otherwise - we would choose not to use statements. And some people do I suppose. Yet reason and logic are one of the axioms of our society. As I said above, I hold to the view that this demonstrates god exists. It doesn't prove or define or show or reveal what god is. I concede that not having a definition therefore makes it very difficult to take that any further since it demonstrates not more than a concept. But it also demonstrates that agnosticism itself is a self-contradiction and that means that people ought to be theists or atheists. Personally, I would prefer to talk to an atheist or a theist. Even if we don't have a concept of definition. An agnostic by definition ought to be one who does not exist. And by their own definition, they actually reduce themselves to one or the other.
what is the purpose of an athiest wanting to define God? The primary reason is to disprove he exists. Not to explore whether God exists - but to disprove.Some atheists may only be interested in disproving your god assertion, that’s irrelevant to the fact that we cannot have a rational discussion about whether something exists without a definition of it.
Things exist - whether we have a definition or not. As I said, take love. take hate. Take any emotion. We can sort of define it. What about conscience. what about courage. Again, all have some kind of definition - but not concrete - not something that can't be refuted. And since they can all be refuted, like evil, then do they cease to exist? What is evil? Is it the absence of good? What is good? reducing everyone to definitions - that are concrete and immovable does not therefore prove it exists.
But to your greater point here, the way we go about removing bias is to focus on our methodology for determining what’s true so that we can check ourselves against it. This is why we study epistemology, logical fallacies, etc. Anyone sincerely interested in truth will recognize that the only thing we should pride ourselves on is our ability to stick to valid logical principals in our evaluations and decision making. i.e. If you can show me the error in my thinking, I’ll correct it regardless of what that means for me or my stated position.
bias is a problem. I don't believe it is possible to remove bias - especially in the area of religion. The question I think needs to move to how do we test or measure religion? The world has lots of different standards for obtaining proof. Even court rooms have - several kinds - beyond reasonable doubt, on the balance of probabilities, etc. there is scientific proof - there is mathematical proof, there is anecdotal evidence, circumstantial evidence, intuition. What is the standard required? And who is going to determine what that is?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It looks like you have just quoted Hebrews 1:1-3.
Perhaps therein you might find your answer, Harikrish.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Because that is your name. Or at least one of your aliases.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Problem of evil would only be a problem for all-good God.
Actually, the problem of evil fades into nothingness unless there is a God who is perfect and holy. Did you notice how I intentionally did not describe God as an all-good God? The Bible never describes God as all-good. Although it does say God is good. And he is the epitome of goodness. But that is not the same as you have described God. For all-good suggests never doing anything that is subjectively bad for someone else. And we all know that what is good for humanity generally might not be good for a person individually. For example, banning Nazism might be good for humanity generally, but for those who advocate for it, it is not good. Or putting a criminal in prison is good generally for humanity, but for the individual criminal, it is not good.
Nevertheless, the even more poignant reason for why your opening sentence is ridiculously flawed is that evil can only be defined if we have something to measure it against. Otherwise, evil is really only a word that means - something I dislike or find offensive. Evil requires good to exist in order to give it definition. You, as a king and yang expert from your inner person Hindu religion ought to understand that principle. Strange that you have embraced Western Culture in Canada, and yet now want to refute the very thing that you see is valuable. Still a matter for you.
However, Christian God is not all-good. He is not even more good than evil.He is almost pure evil.So the fact that evil exists is a clear proof that evil creator exists, and everything points to Christian God being the evil creator.
Again, you seem to have such a warped view of good and evil that it taints your entire conversation. And though you embrace the Western Culture, the Hindu in you remains strong. The Hindu gods are a variety of evil whereas the Biblical God, the God of creation and salvation for humanity, is holy and just. Full of mercy and grace. But also one that tells the truth and DOES NOT LIE. Hence, if you break the law, he will judge you. Of course it is also perfectly logical that a person who is without a measuring stick of good and evil, will be relatively speaking - speaking from his own dislikes as discussed in the first point above. Hence, given that you are absent of moral good, it is totally reasonable that any good you see in God would be evil. Hence - the more evil you see in God, is just the reflection of evil you personally are yourself. Hence, clear proof is a bit of a misnomer for you as you don't agree with absolutes.
Some of you might say "But Bible says God is good".Son, thats called lying. God who sends bears to kill children clearly wouldnt have problem with lying that he is actually good. After so many murders in the Bible, God committing the sin of lying is really not even a surprise.
Yes, that is exactly how a sinful person would argue. A moral person would look at the story itself. Consider the CONTEXT. Realise that the kids or adult children were acting and behaving. Analyse what was going on and determine what the appropriate response is. This is clearly not murder. Bears are animals not humans. Even if they were agents of God, how is it unlawful? God is above the law - not subject to it. Your paradigm is all screwed up.
Also, God said: "I made humans in my own image".Well, humans are mostly sadists and liars. So it is very likely that Christian God is sadist and liar. He lied that he is good to torture humans even more.
Yes, indeed God did make humans in his own image and likeness. Yet in the midst of that - humanity rejected God, and decided to make their own rules. I suppose there is something divine about making your own rules. Yet that is where your logic sucks. It is the human's rejection of Gods and embracement of their own moral system that has led to humans being sadist and liars. And cruel and sick. This is what happens whenever people reject God and his standards. Being made in God's image wasn't the problem it was rejecting God that was the problem.
Another reason why problem of evil is not a problem for Christian God is that Christian God could be incredibly stupid. He might not even understand that what he does is evil. We cant exclude the possibility that Christian God is mentally retarded.
Whatever. Spoken by a Hindu about Christianity. No bias is there?
I mean think about it, how can all powerful smart God limit himself to dealing with human problems. It's like me trying to regulate life of ants in my backyard. Would a smart person do that?
It's not like that. God doesn't regulate humans like that. And I doubt any religion suggests that their gods do. God has delegated authority to work in life, through States, through Families, and through Churches. Yes, that's showing my view. And whenever these institutions fail to regulate their own institutions properly, it filters into the rest of society. And in the world there is much corruption - from sin, but also because the harmony and balance between these institutions has become unbalanced and unstable. The church foolishly didn't regulate its priests. It foolishly stopped what it was supposed to be doing. The State decided it would become big and take over everyone's else role and the family well - that's disintegrating, isn't it? what is a man what is a woman. what are the roles in a family? What is a family? Lots of issues. God's delegation needs to be revisited doesn't it? And there is suggestion that he is. Is climate change really just God's judgment on earth. Was the pandemic a result of God not being pleased with people. Is Russia and China's rise part of the fall of the West as it is judged for not being the light it could have been? God will not be mocked. Yet, this is what covenant theology reveals.
Another reason why problem of evil is not a problem for Christian God is because Christian God can change definition of good and evil. For example, he can define good as anything that pleases him, making all human suffering good.
that's not God that is post-modernism. Look at the Houses of Parliament - they are redefining what is male and female and what is good and what is evil. The BiBle remains consistent throughout its history. That's why it is called outdated, and conservative. not because it changes definitions - but because it refuses to change its definitions. One example will suffice. Marriage is between a male and a female. Not between two consenting adults. Tell me dear HAriskrish, who changed? Was it the Bible or was it the world around it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The agnostic premise is this: Nothing about God can be known. And it is a useful statement as it is essentially the starting premise for most scientists and atheists. And even for some theists.This is a self-contradicting statement. It proves God exists on a logical and philosophical level. It says - for those who can't figure out how it is self-contradictory the following:The one thing we can know about God is that we can know nothing about God. It is akin to another famous self-contradiction. There is absolutely no such thing as an absolute.If you are claiming this proves God exists it would really be helpful to start by defining God.
thanks for the response. I am attempting to prove a god exists. Not any specific god. To define God is flawed on many levels. One reason is - that if I get the definition wrong, and someone proves my definition doesn't exist, doesn't actually prove that God doesn't exist. On the other hand, one wonders why an atheist needs a definition to prove God doesn't exist. That would sound reasonably prejudiced.
But what is god? God is one level a concept and on another level, a super evolved human with supernatural powers, on another level, there are many gods, who are superhuman, and on another level there is the idea of a god who created people with freewill and another one who didn't. For me, the essence of God means authority and creator. I could quote a definition from the shorter or larger catechisms if you wanted. But for me - the definition of God is not actually relevant to the proving of god.
Beyond that, the agnostic premise is not that nothing about God can be known. This is wrong in two ways:1) Agnosticism is the position that God's existence is not knowable. This is as I just stated, a position (aka conclusion), not a premise. How one arrived at that conclusion is another question and ultimately unique to each individual.2) It's a contradictory statement because you structured it that way. When you say nothing about God can be known, you're saying it as if it's a given fact that God exists. Well of course, of one presumes to know that a God exists while also presuming to know that nothing about said God could be known, that sounds like a contradiction. But that position is by definition, not agnosticism or atheism.
I understand that the agnostic view was - "nothing of God can be known". You seem to be suggesting that it is a position and that God's existence is not knowable. I am not sure how that changes things. After all, how does an agnostic form a conclusion that god's existence is not knowable? It requires some form of definition of god, which most agnostics would not want to admit or concede.
Yes, I intentionally put it as a contradictory statement. I admit it and will continue to do so - since it is a self contradictory statement and it proves - ipso facto that god exists. At least on a philosophical level at a 100% level. Well beyond reasonable doubt. Of course - it doesn't prove which god exists.
Lastly, even if we accept your premise, how does those prove a God exists?
I think I explained that again. Still if not satisfactory - ask me again.
what would be acceptable evidence to prove that such an actual God exists? Who will fit the criteria and the measurements for such an equation? Someone who believes in that God or someone who doesn't. Both persons are going to be either biased in favour or biased against. That is unavoidable and therefore produces a dilemma. There is no such thing as an unbiased person in this situation. Someone who is neutral. It, therefore, means that according to our own scientific methodology that such a study would never achieve an unbiased result.Bias is not the arrival of a conclusion that differs from someone else's, it's a cognitive phenomenon where one's starting presumptions impair the individual's ability to follow valid and consistent logical processes to it's conclusion. Or more simply, it's what causes one to lead the evidence rather than follow it.The idea that we begin with a belief, and then find a methodology to fit said belief is itself a description of bias. To claim that is unavoidable is to claim it's not possible to think about this logically.The evaluation of any existential claim must begin with an epistemological methodology. We then follow that methodology to arrive at our conclusion. If you're arguing that this is biased against God then you're arguing against logic itself, which is untenable.
I accept that bias is an issue. It neither proves nor disproves. What it does do is create a situation whereby what truth is - becomes impossible to know. and that unfortunately is an unhelpful scenario. Hence why I suggest that in the case of God and I suspect quite a few other areas as well, such as left and right-wing politics, abortion, etc. requires a different methodology. I don't know how that is going to look - and I suspect you are correct that if it is not done properly -then it begs the question. but sadly bias is there in every person on some subjects. For example, what is the purpose of an athiest wanting to define God? The primary reason is to disprove he exists. Not to explore whether God exists - but to disprove. And that bias sadly needs to be ejected somehow.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I think that's probably true, we knew what we would experienceThen that makes Christianity redundant, unnecessary to believe in. It excludes the option of hell, as no one would consent to go hell eternally.
What does consent have to do with Hell? Can you imagine a judge asking a criminal? Hey Sir, you committed a crime against the state and against the victim. Our Laws state that if a person does that and is found guilty in the court that they must be punished. The law says I can give you up to 20 years maximum. But because we also believe in consent - I need to ask you this question. Do you consent to be punished to prison?
And lo and behold, the criminal turns around and says - No. I don't consent. Does that make prisons redundant?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Some religious folks have suggested that all evil is beneficial.
Who says this? I'm not denying some people say this, but who are we talking about and why are they saying this, if they are?
All evil that we experience carries some benefit for us, they say.
Again who says this? And does this mean that the evil done to us - must give us - singlular a benefit or plural a benefit? And is there a difference?
However, with that idea, we reach a bit of a weird situation.
Arguments of Straw often leave people with weird conclusions.
Let's say you have a rape victim. Can you seriously argue that being raped was beneficial for her?
Perplexing question. What is a benefit? Does it have to be significant? Can it be just something she has learnt or a new way of responding to pressures? Let's say a girl is raped because a man has taken advantage of her being drunk or taking drugs. If the victim, say because of the rape, decides she will never take drugs or get drunk again, is that beneficial for her? If she learns that trust is something that has to be earned, is that a beneficial thing?
Of course, from a pluralistic point of view of benefit for the society, having a young woman raped at a college, might persuade people at the college to introduce new beneficial laws protecting - not only that girl in the future but others too. This may never have happened in that particular girl was not raped.
Because then you would basically be arguing that the rapist was actually helping her, acting in her interest and in God's interest.
I think that is false conclusion. Benefits done to a person never justify the wrong or evil done. The ends don't justify the means. But this doesn't mean of course that evil done - can't produce positive and helpful benefits.
How can you condemn a rapist while claiming that rape is beneficial?
Rapists ought to always be condemned. No one is actually arguing that rape is beneficial. They are arguing that the result of such a rape - such an evil - can lead and often does lead to positive benefits. Interestingly, there is link here to Keynes' demand side economics v supply side economics. Keynes said - create a war and it will lead to a boom in construction and benefit the society. I always call this broken window economics. And personally I disagree with the theory. Yes, it works, but it is not the best way forward. Rape is not good and ought to be condemned. Yet despite its evil, the response to it doesn't have to be evil. One of my best friends, is the result of a rape. Her father raped her mother and she was conceived. I happen to think that Tina (not her real name) is a positive benefit from that rape. The rape ought never to have occurred. but it did. The mother kept the baby, adopted her out. The girl grew up and is now one of NZ's most popular and successful businesswoman.
Now, some folks like to throw around "free will". However, that contradicts with God's omniscience.
It depends what you mean by free will.
If God knew that certain person will commit rape, why would God create such a person? It's God's action of creating a rapist that made the rape happen, which makes God guilty.
that is one argument. But it depends on what you mean by free will and also what you understand by the difference between first and second causes.
So God wasnt simply "letting it happen". He was helping to make it happen. It's like me opening a cage with wild bear in it, and then when bear attacks people, responsibility would be mine.
See my last response. It's a good question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Proving that an actual GOD exists, is not currently possible.....This is logical.It's all word play.Or mind games Trade, as you rightly suggest.The best that we can really suggest though, is that we assume everything has a cause.And GOD has become a widely used label for a potential cause.
That is where I think you are incorrect.
To not prove something scientifically, is not the same thing as not proving something exists. That is not the same thing at all. And that would be terrible logic and anti-scientific to think so.
The fact that we can prove something philosophically or logically is EVIDENCE and acceptable evidence. Do we need to prove that an actual God exists? Well, until we accept the premise that god does exist, then the question is where do we start? And what would be acceptable evidence to prove that such an actual God exists? Who will fit the criteria and the measurements for such an equation? Someone who believes in that God or someone who doesn't. Both persons are going to be either biased in favour or biased against. That is unavoidable and therefore produces a dilemma. There is no such thing as an unbiased person in this situation. Someone who is neutral. It, therefore, means that according to our own scientific methodology that such a study would never achieve an unbiased result. And the person who believes or doesn't believe will still find that the other party is biased.
The problem, therefore, exists with the methodology itself when it comes to this particular problem. It seems that when it comes to God that there must be an exception to the methodology if we honestly and with any sense of integrity desire to know the answer to this question. Then, that becomes the issue. What is the exception and will both parties accept that? And I would suggest that neither would. Since even in the event an acceptable methodology could be produced, both sides are too tied into their own positions to agree to the conclusions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
For sure.Religion is a sort of scientific hypothesis.We're still awaiting the results though.No GOD proved to exist as yet.But keep saying your prayers.You never know.
Proving God exists is a no-brainer. Proving which God exists is the more difficult part.
The agnostic premise is this: Nothing about God can be known. And it is a useful statement as it is essentially the starting premise for most scientists and atheists. And even for some theists.
This is a self-contradicting statement. It proves God exists on a logical and philosophical level. It says - for those who can't figure out how it is self-contradictory the following:
The one thing we can know about God is that we can know nothing about God. It is akin to another famous self-contradiction. There is absolutely no such thing as an absolute.
Knowing there are absolutes doesn't necessarily tell us what they are. Knowing there is a God doesn't necessarily tell us who it is.
But logic proves it. Is that science? Well, that is another question. It's a philosophical and logical argument. And has yet to be disproved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
That's just silly. Science is ok.
It is just scientists who end up getting things wrong.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
No times three.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
that really doesn't surprise me. Harikrish.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The short answer is no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
In Genesis 1 God created humanity after the trees.
In Genesis 2 God created humanity before the trees.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Given what I know about Christianity, there ARE NO reasons why I would reject it. Every other alternative leads to nothingness and hopelessness.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No, they don't but scientists who don't believe in God contradict a lot of what the Bible says and theologians - some of them contradict a lot of what scientists say.
Science if it is based on true premises, would never contradict the Bible.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
The Afterlife is true. It is true, in my perspective, because the Bible says it is true.
It is also true because it makes sense intuitively. Since God created the world, then he must have done so for a purpose. That purpose seems to have been articulated in the Bible, although some choose to ignore it. This includes the afterlife.
It makes sense because life would be unfair otherwise. Not that life has to be fair or course, but since I believe in God, I also believe in justice, either here in this time or in the afterlife. Since not every justice is righted here, there must be another place to right it.
Life is too short to be all there is.
Jesus' death on the cross would be a classic case of overkill if there was no afterlife.
Even culture begins with a religious position. This can't be a coincidence.
Religion is the result of evolution. The most evolved life form on this planet is religious. The other life forms have not yet evolved to a spiritual life.
If evolution is correct, which it is not, but if it is, then evolution means evolving until we become a higher form of life. Perhaps God is an evolved life form from another planet? ( a nonsense argument but interesting all the same)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Atheists want you to believe that it is all about measurement and reason, if you allow them one miracle.And that one miracle, is the Big Bang. That all things come from probably the most preposterous idea ever, that everything came from nothing, in one big miracle.
Fair point.
Every single explanation for the beginning of the universe is:"Give us one miracle, then we can explain the rest."
Ok.
I thought Atheists didn't have to have faith about anything, because anything can be explained with science.How can you Atheists explain this?
Waiting. I am not an atheist. So will wait for an answer. Nevertheless, you are also incorrect. The Big Bang theory is a hoax. Just like Climate Change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Jesus as just one man improved the world and gave comfort and rescue to many.Thats why I believe he is the true God while God of The Old Testament isnt.
The God of the OT and the God of the NT are the same.
HE is the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
He is the Godhead and the maker of all things.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
For what purpose would a good God create this world?
To bring honour and glory to his Son. To make his son famous.
Because he could.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
All people are evil
yes.
It is good that evil people are punished.
yes.
Evil people must exist in order to be punished.
yes.
Omnibenevolent God would create evil people so that they can be punished for their evil.
Possibly.
So next time you see evil, remember that you deserved it. We all deserved it because we are evil.
I don't agree with this statement. But that is probably due to a difference in relation to definitions. I think it's fair to say that people deserve to be punished for their wickedness. I know that sometimes the Bible says that the punishment God brings is evil. And so that's there in the book. But there is a difference between punishment and evil. They can be the same thing. But not necessarily so. If I get fined, for speeding, that's punishment and I suppose I might see it as an evil thing. But relatively so only. It doesn't compare with the evil of being raped or tortured. But if being fined is "evil", then it reduces the meaning of the word, doesn't it?
Also, there are different kinds of "Evil" or consequences aren't there? There are consequences for a good reason, punishing rapists etc. And there are consequences that are evil. Raping someone. But in one sense, punishing the rapist and raping the girl are both evils. But one is an evil act. And the other is a consequence for the evil person. And which is actually a good. It will hopefully reduce the person from raping again.
You may say: "God created me this way. His fault.".
Romans 9 argument. God is the potter and we are the clay. It's also the Job response. Why are you doing this to me? Who are you oh man, stand up and take it like a man.
God created you evil so that he may punish you. It is what a good God would do. How is he going to punish you for your evil if he doesnt create you evil?
Again it's possible. but the Bible actually says God created us good. Or at least the first two people. It doesn't say they were perfect. Just good. Very good in fact. They were without sin. But they had the capacity to sin. And they had the capacity to not sin.
When given these two options:1. Dont create evil and therefore, dont punish evil2. Create evil and punish evilWe see that in option 1, evil doesnt get punished. Good by definition includes punishing evil. Therefore, creating evil to punish it is the way to go to be all good.
God will judge the world. The wicked will spend eternity in Hell. The ones who recognised their sinfulness and turned to Christ, however, will live. in the New heavens and new earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I'm reading "Jesus Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman. In this book, he describes all the contradictions, errors, and problems with the Bible that students learn while in seminary. Now I know why so many previously faithful Christians end up atheists after going to seminary! If you enter as a fully Bible-believing fundamentalist, apparently seminary will shatter your notions that the Bible is the perfect word of God. So my question is, what about the students who, despite having this knowledge, graduate and become evangelical pastors? I can't help but wonder if these ministers are just con artists, because they have been fully educated about this yet that doesn't seem to dissuade them from believing in the Bible or their desire to spread "the word". It's almost as if they are keeping their congregations ignorant on purpose.
Intriguing scenario. But it like many a scenario paints only one side of the coin.
While it is true that many Christians go to Seminary and come out as atheists or agnostic, there are many others who don't. There are many who are convinced by the truth of the Scriptures and the arguments for it and go on to defend and maintain and assert the faith.
What Mr Ehrman doesn't express in his booklet is that there are a range of seminaries. And while there are many very liberal colleges, there are many that are not. There are scholars and academics who don't believe in God and teach their students not to believe in God and or the bible. Yet there are many who have excellent teachers who do believe in God and who are also quite averse to the various issues within the Scriptures.
I have been to both types of colleges and I have witnessed the agendas of both types of academics. Thankfully, I went to a believing college first before I went on to do a postgraduate degree in the other. And while I am sure that the second college probably took the view I was brainwashed in the first college, they admitted me and took my money and then gave me the appropriate qualification upon graduation. They didn't mark me down or punish me although I expressed views contrary to the typical liberal theological approach.
And more than that - after graduation I remained at this second college as an academic for some time in a part-time role. They were happy to permit me to teach their students.
The other thing that Ehrman doesn't consider is that in most evangelical congregations, the people are reasonably educated. They have a resistance to authority and don't like the church telling them what to believe. It's one of the reasons there are so many denominations in the world. Most denominations are evangelical, not liberal. Liberals tend to not care about doctrine focusing on other things.
So to the question about whether some are conmen? Perhaps some are. But not the evangelical ones. The liberal ones who attend - are wolves in sheep's clothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I know this is addressed to DavidAz but I wouldn't mind attempting to discuss this as well.
It seems to me that the question is about how can a Christian really experience Heaven, knowing that some of his family are in Hell.
Is that right?
And that is a good question.
My wife's father died recently. He was a militant atheist. One of the guys who attend my bible study, his wife is an atheist and so are his kids.
Interestingly almost 3/4 of the world's population, that's about 5 billion people don't believe in Jesus or are Christians. And of the many who do confess to being Christian, it is probably in name only. Still, the fact is, is that if the Bible is correct, then many people will reject Christ and end up in Hell. And the question then arises as you put it, how can one enjoy heaven and be joyful and thankful, knowing that others are suffering torment in Hell forever?
You make 4 suggestions as to how people deal with this.
- (A) No, don't be silly. We're going to give you perfect copies of those people, except they're going to be Christians this time! (And thereby would not be copies; would you know? Would you not eventually notice your Jewish wife is a Christian now?)
Interesting perspective. I suppose some people might think this. Yet there is no evidence of any such thing occurring in the Bible. It's what I would call a false hope.
- (B) It only seems bad now. When you get inside, we're going to wipe your mind and all your earthly memories, you won't think about them at all! You're going to spend eternity singing praises to god and not remembering anything about your family, friends, or life, but it's really going to feel so good, you won't care about them at all. (In this version of heaven, the entirety of YOU isn't in heaven; the part that loved your family, the part that had friends, the part that experienced your entire life is gone and replaced with a hymn singing angel instead)
I also see how some people might think this. Again there is nothing in the Bible that supports such a position. I think is would be like "escapism". Exactly the opposite of what heaven is like. There is no point in praising God unless it is in truth.
- (C) Well, I'm afraid those are the rules. All the good deeds and other stuff, it's all canceled out by the fact they didn't believe in Jesus, and the rules are pretty clear. Sorry man, should have done a better job evangelizing I guess. (Now if you remember them at all, you spend eternity in sadness except you're in heaven)
It should inspire us to be more courageous in sharing the message. And it's true that God has the final say in who comes into his house. just like you in yours. But this sort of attitude is foreign to what the bible says. In fact, the Bible seems to suggest from the beginning, that God is always inviting people to come to him. Bending over backwards in many occasions.
- (D) No, of course not. They're good people, they lived good lives, so they can get in. (Except now Christian heaven isn't just for Christians, because they're letting in two Jewish people and an atheist who do NOT believe in Jesus)
Universalism. Interestingly there are many Christians who believe this. Personally, I take the view that the vast majority of people will end up going to heaven than to Hell. But I still think that many will end up in Hell.
For me, your question is a good one. But I think it is also one that is based on assumptions that not everyone has.
Although it is certainly true that we desire that most people end up in a good place rather than a bad place. And we certainly desire that our family members and people we love end up in a good place with us. But that is a desire and it gives us nice warm cuddly feelings.
But I wonder if that is really our true desire or not. I am sure that Hitler's mother would like Hitler to end up in heaven if she went there. At least on one level. But on another level, if she knew how evil he was, would she also think it was fair for him to be punished justly for his offences? And I think that the same is true for most of us. On one level, we want all of our loved ones with us wherever we are. (I wonder if we were in Hell, would we want our mother and wife with us or would we be happy that they are in heaven far from where we are)
Heaven and Hell are not just places of rewards and punishments. They are also places of relationships. What I mean by that - is that heaven is God's home. Hell is a place of eternal death - separated from God. I know my father-in-law hated God with all of his breath. He didn't want a relationship with God and didn't want to spend time with him here on earth. And couldn't stand the thought of spending eternity with him. Why would I or my wife want him to spend eternity in a place he didn't want to be? He made a choice. Of course, he decided God wasn't real and that heaven and hell didn't exist. Yet he also made a choice, that if God did exist, then he would prefer to be in Hell than with God. The fact that he was wrong about what Hell is like is a matter for him. He can't change the fact. It is not a place where there is ANY fun. It won't be pleasant. It will be absolutely terrible and that's why we might find it difficult to think about.
I think that sin clouds our eyes now on this earth. Even those who believe. Yet I also think that God's grace restrains people from how evil they can be on earth. Hitler was evil. But he could have been more evil. Mussolini was evil as were Stalin and Marx. But they could have been even more evil. God's grace restrains them. Yet when we get to heaven, we will see people as they really are and how they want to be. And in Hell people won't be restrained by grace anymore, they will become consistent with their natures.
There are a couple of reasons. Not good ones. But helpful for me.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
1. Does God want you to become a cult leader and commit mass suicide?
No.
2. Does God want you to murder your entire family when things get tough to spare them the pain of this life?
No.
3 does God want you to live a life that sucks by avoiding fun things like orgies or tattoos or pork all because the next life will make the shitty life you have all worth it?
This is a complex question that needs to be broken down to make sense and for us to provide an answer. It is also a leading question.
It assumes that how we live in this life is relevant for the next life.
It assumes that doing things like getting tattoos, having orgies, and pork are fun things.
It assumes that God desires people to have sucky lives.
It assumes that anything in this life is comparable to the next one.
Since this is addressed to me as someone who believes in the next life, and not to someone else who believes in the next life, I make the following observations.
How we live in this life is dependent upon our beliefs in this life. I suggest that although it is often argued that people in this life do or don't do certain things in order to get a better life next, this is a false view. It may well be that some people do think like that and try to live their lives such as to give them the appearance or the feeling of a chance for a better next life. Yet, this is self-delusion.
The way we live in this life is entirely dependent upon our current beliefs. If we believe that good works will get us to heaven, we will try and do good works. If we don't believe that good works will get us to heaven, we may well still do good works if we think good works are a good thing. Atheists for example, at least some of them, do good works not for heaven, but because they think doing good works is a good thing. Also, probably because they are hedging their bets. Just in case they are wrong, and if they do more good works than bad, they figure a Good and just God wouldn't reject them or send them to Hell. Nevertheless, they still live in this life based on their beliefs.
The Christian Protestant Position is that good works are irrelevant to salvation. How we live in this life will be shaped by what we believe. Yet, it doesn't make one iota to the destiny we face. It is our relationship with God that determines our destiny, not how we live our lives. Of course, our lives will reflect what our relationship with God is like. If we have a good relationship, then our actions will be more healthy and if we don't have a good relationship, then our actions will reflect whatever we choose to believe. Hence the wide variety of people on the earth with such diverse views.
The second assumption is simply preferences built on what we believe is fun or not fun. I think life is more than just about having fun. Fun is fine. But since my relationship with God is important to me, then I am more inclined to do those things he desires of me. In the OT tattoos were forbidden for Jewish people. The reason was that at the time such tattoos were a sign of ownership to slave owners, pirates and to foreign gods. In the NT tattoos are not forbidden since the law no longer applies in the way it did in the OT. In the NT Christ opened the doors and let more than the Jews enter. He gave Gentiles the right as well. Hence OT Jewish laws did not apply to the New Covenant.
Personally, I don't have a tattoo. Probably because I am squeamish and don't want the pain. Also they are very hard to take off. And if the artist makes a mistake they are stuck for ever. Furthermore, have you ever seen how disgusting even good tattoos look on old people? Getting a tattoo is not sinful. It's not against the law of God in the NT. But is it fun? I think it is a preference. And that I have had plenty more fun without it. Besides these days, it makes me cool not to have a tattoo. I am unique. Everyone else has one.
Orgies were forbidden in the OT and also in the NT. Marriage is between a male and female and not polygamy. One partner. Sexual behaviour outside of the marriage is forbidden. It is sinful. But your suggestion that orgies are fun is simply a presumption on your part. I hate the idea personally. I wouldn't find it fun at all. I accept some people might find it fun, but mostly males. Most females I have met who have been involved in orgies do so because they want to fit in and look cool. I have had many come to me afterwards and regretted what they were doing and had done. Some had all sorts of STDs - others had been ripped and hurt. Most not respected. Of course there are always going to be some that like it. Men, at least some men, think it is cool. But not everyone thinks it is fun. It's interesting if you read the NT letter to the Corinthians, the church in that time had people who were involved in orgies. Corinth of course was the sex capital of the world at the time. Some of them would be having orgies during church. Pretty bizzarre stuff. But let me say, it's not the unforgivable sin. The important thing is to get your relationship with God right, and then your behaviour will start to reflect your beliefs.
Pork of course was forbidden to Jews in the OT. In the NT Peter was told things had changed since Jesus came to break down the walls so that Gentiles could enter the covenant. And along with this was permission to eat pork. So in the NT pork is fine. I'm not sure whether it is fun or not fun. But it tastes pretty good to me, so far as it is a pig that has lived pretty much on the range as opposed to in a shed.
Your third assumption is well just an assumption. I take the view that the purpose of humanity is to worship God and to enjoy him forever. In other words, God wants us to enjoy life here in this present time and in the future. The best way to enjoy life is in a relationship with God and enjoying the benefits of that relationship. God doesn't want people to have sucky lives. It is just that he knows the best way to have a good life and many people don't agree with God's view. Adam and Eve didn't like it - so they ate the fruit. They wanted to do it themselves and look what that did for them. Prior to that time, they lived in a beautiful garden, naked, with beautiful people and lots of brilliant things. After that, after they decided to do things their own way, rejecting God's way, they. got a desert to live in. They had to wear animal clothes and leaves. And they had to work with thistles and endure pain and all sorts of crazy things. Me, I can't go back to the garden because of their blockhead desire to want to have fun. And ironically most people who like fun without the rules end up in prison for some time. Whether that be with fall cement walls, or depression, or drugs, or trapped in a violent relationship or whatever.
And finally, the next life - whether it be heaven or hell. Neither are comparable to where we are now. Heaven is much better. Think of the Garden -it's a glimpse of what we know Heaven will be like. And Hell. think of the misery of a prison cell. Hey that's where all the fun people will be. In a prison. Having fun. Or at least they think they are.
But getting there has got nothing to do with how you act today. It's about your relationship with God. That's the important thing - well for a protestant Christian anyways.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
LOL @ you attempt at humour. I haven't added anything to the bible. I have merely indicated that persons under 20 are children. And that as such - consent is an issue.First you said that you havent added anything to the Bible. Then in another sentence you say "consent is an issue". Show us where the Bible says that. Show us where the Bible says that children cant consent.I am not making Christianity look bad. You are doing a fine job all by yourself. Even as a Hindu. And I never indicated anything along the lines of what you said.Did you or did you not say that people under 20 are not to be held accountable for their actions? Common, tell us.
I said that there is the example of the Israelites who were 20 and under - in the time of Caleb and Joshua, who were not held accountable for their generation's sin. Everyone else - above the age of 20. Those who knew their left hand from their right hand - perished in the desert. this is an obvious reference referring to the distinction between adulthood and childhood and responsibility and the lack of it.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
But let me give you a clue. In the first five books of the Bible.Sorry, we are not dealing with clues here. Give us the verse.
No.
Try the book of Exodus.Okay, show us which verse in book of Exodus tells us that rape is wrong.
You find it.
The definition of rape is "no consent"Now show us where the Bible says that children cant consent.
I already did. And there is a difference between giving consent and understanding what consent is as an adult. This is why in our nation that children under the age of 15 can't consent to sex. Even if they can consent - the law deems it is an impossibility.
They didn't have glass windows in the times of the bible. So silly comparison. And besides the argument is not that it did not happen. It is that such an action would be illegal. And the illegality is on the part of the child, but the adult.You say that Bible says that child's actions are caused by the child. Now explain where does the Bible say that "not being held accountable" means "not being able to consent".Also, dont forget to give us the verse regarding the age of accountability.
Of course, intention or consent is part of the issue. sin requires an intention. Even if it is a reckless intention. An accident is not consent or an intention. But people can be made to do things unlawfully. Again, it is your assertions and I have simply refuted them.. Refute means "disagree or contradict".
Correction is not the same as holding some accountable.Accountable by definition means being guilty of something wrong. Therefore, why does the Bible say that children who are not guilty of anything should be punished for something they are not guilty of?
whatever. You want to make something of something when it is not there. There is no example of any adult in the bible marrying a child. Or having sex with a child. When you produce one, then perhaps I will give some consideration to being more plain. You have your computer. And you have google. You can look things up as easily as me. Probably more easily, since you don't have a job and can't find one.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Please stick to the topic.Persons over here under the age of 16 are considered to be stupid to think for themselves and are at it like rabbitsAnd younger people under and over the age of 16 think that adults are stupid.And some people will f**k anything that moves.A bit like GODDO and his penchant for raping virgins.And Jesus's propensity for boys only clubs.How old was Mary by the way?
The Bible NEVER tells us how old MARY was when she conceived Jesus. She was betrothed to Josephus which means she must have been old enough within the culture to be promised to him. Being promised to him doesn't tell us how old she is. Nor does it say that they need to be married or have sex until she is much older or not.
Some commentators, not all, and not most, suggest she was as young as 12. Others put her at a much older age. She was travelling several hundred miles away to visit her auntie. Such a distance for such a time doesn't support her being as young as 12. (Some people suggest 12 since boys at that time were expected to enter their manhood by reciting the Talmud. What is today commonly called Bar Mitzvah.)
Commentators KNOW that there is no age for Mary. So they seek to rely upon the cultural norms of the time. This is mostly guesswork since there are NO records of what they did at the time. It is speculation based on the cultures of other countries around Israel and not Israel itself. Interesting since Israel was unique in its own culture. For example, the Romans gave Israel special treatment in relation to worship since their culture UNLIKE the rest of the WORLD was monotheistic. It is also based upon later known cultural trends in relation to arranged marriages.
We do need to understand the difference between what we consider an adult in our time and what was considered an adult in those times. As I have said elsewhere, that culture did not have what we call adolescents. They had children and they had adults. When a boy was old enough to be considered a man? Perhaps 12. As noted above. But also as noted previously, at the age of 20. What about girls? We just don't have enough information. People like to speculate. It makes the bible seem evil if the child is 12. But that is all it is.
We simply don't know. But the commentators - as a whole seem to range from 12 to 20. Personally, I err towards the older age. But I also note that I don't take an arrogant approach to these matters since I recognise our culture in the 21st century is not the measure of how cultures did their own thing in other generations.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Does other life exist elsewhere?Maybe, maybe not.
We are talking about intelligent life. And the answer is NO. There is no intelligent life out there. Not the tiniest amount of evidence. Just wild speculation built upon the false premise of evolution.
Is Christianity necessary?It is for some.
Well I suppose that depends upon what it is necessary for. Is it necessary to be a Christian to win the football final? Nah. Is it necessary to be a Christian to be a brain surgeon? Nuh. Is it necessary to be a Christian to go to heaven? Yep.
Are you aware of just how vast the universe is?We haven't even got past the Moon yet.Give ET a chance.
If that is an argument, then perhaps you might give God a chance too. But you won't. After all, if we as humans know perhaps as little as .00001 % of a 1% of all possible knowledge, then anything might be possible. Do you see how Ironic it is that you want me to give ET a chance but you won't give God a chance?
And this proves the Christian God and disproves evolution.Sound theory for sure.......LOL.
If you had read what I said, I ACTUALLY indicated it wouldn't prove God for many people. Atheists aren't looking for evidence for God. They're looking for excuses to do whatever they want to do. Without the guilt.
What was it you just stated?"Merely speculation and wild theory".....That was it.
ABSOLUTELY. And let me repeat it. Mere speculation and wild theory.
Just a bit like a MANGOD who fucks virgins.And then 33 years later nails his son to a post for our sins.Sound f**king theory Trade.
You do realise that whenever you throw out such a pathetic strawman argument that any credibility you might have had goes out with your straw.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God raped anyone, let alone a virgin. Nowhere. Throwing that out there is nothing short of stupid and beneath you. The Bible doesn't teach that. It wouldn't condone that. It simply is nonsense and if you want me to keep responding to you, at least stop with the stupidity and saying things that are patently not true.
I assume you are attempting to categorise Mary's pregnancy as rape by God. But on what basis? That she got pregnant without consent. For it to be rape would involve a penis. OR a finger. Or something that penetrated her vagina. That is RAPE by everyone's definition. This didn't happen. There is no record of it happening in the Bible.
All we have is a virgin, getting pregnant. And even that description "virgin" defies your "rape" allegation. For she remained a virgin EVEN after getting pregnant according to the Bible.
We are told that the Holy Spirit, a being without any physical characteristics of fingers, penis etc. was the Father of the child. Now for me, it is not relevant whether you believe this or not. What is relevant is getting the story correct as it is told to us. And there is nothing here at all about rape or SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.
It is actually very similar in the picture as to the story of Adam in the Garden of Eden. God breathed into him and he became a living soul. In Mary's time, God's Spirit - which incidentally is the Hebrew Word for breath was present. And Mary became pregnant. Adam was the first Adam and Jesus the final Adam.
And her reaction to what happened, shock at first, turned into a wonderful blessing. Very different to people who really do get raped. Rape victims don't sing beautiful songs saying how wonderful they were raped.
I don't particularly care that don't believe in God and think the whole bible is a crock and not worth reading. What I do care is that you don't distort it in order to try and win points. And saying that God raped Mary is a distortion and NOT in the bible. It just makes you pathetic. No offence. but as soon as I read the distortions, I realise you don't actually care about the truth of what it says.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
The Bible doesn't have any recordings of alien or extraterrestrial stories.It does have stories of angels and demons and God and humans. These are heavenly beings. Heaven is a place on Earth. Not off the planet.There won't be any aliens found or discovered. And until there is, it is pure fabrication being made up.Hence - it won't have any impact on Christianity, since it won't happen.But hey if one does turn up, then I will be happy to change my mind. Waiting - waiting waiting.It sounds like you are saying that if one did show up, it would have an impact on Christianity, in what way, and why?
Aliens don't exist. There is no need for Aliens presently. So far, there has been no credible evidence presented. Merely speculations and wild theories. All of which are very entertaining.
This is consistent with Christianity and the Bible.
If aliens did turn up it would throw doubt on the Bible, in my view. It wouldn't throw doubt on the existence of God. It would force religious people to reexamine their views in relation to lots of things. Particularly the meaning of life and remedies to evil. The ironic thing however is that even if ALIENS did not turn up for the next 1000 years, it wouldn't throw doubt on those who want to believe in aliens. And indeed, even when we as humans explore the universe and discover that we are unique in the universe, the only form of intelligent life ANYWHERE, this still wouldn't be enough to convince anyone that God is real. Some people will believe in aliens until God shows them otherwise. Others will not believe in God until they die. And then it will be too late.
The entire view of aliens is actually built on the idea of evolution. If life could evolve here, it must evolve elsewhere. Yet, the absence of aliens is one of the pieces of evidence that proves evolution is false.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
After all, if persons under the age of 20 are not held accountable for their actionsAdding your words to the Bible is strictly forbidden by the Bible itself. You are supposed to know this.Plus, you are making Christianity look very bad, because you are saying that the Bible says that 18 year old who rapes and kills a 2 year-old girl is not to be held accountable for what he did.
LOL @ you attempt at humour. I haven't added anything to the bible. I have merely indicated that persons under 20 are children. And that as such - consent is an issue.
I am not making Christianity look bad. You are doing a fine job all by yourself. Even as a Hindu. And I never indicated anything along the lines of what you said.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
After all, if persons under the age of 20 are not held accountable for their actions, then they cannot be said to consent to sexual intercourse.First, you still didnt show us the verse in the Bible that says how persons under the age of 20 are not held accountable for any actions they do.
correct. I didn't show a verse that said that. I did however give you the credit for the ability to look it up. But let me give you a clue. In the first five books of the Bible. It shouldn't take you too long. Such a scholar and all.
Second, you need to show us where the Bible says that not being held accountable means not being able to consent.
Why?
Third, show us where the Bible says that rape is wrong.
Try the book of Exodus.
Finally, show us where the Bible says that sex with a person who cannot consent is rape.
The definition of rape is "no consent".
If a child breaks a window, Bible will not say that "a child couldnt have broken the window because children arent held accountable".
They didn't have glass windows in the times of the bible. So silly comparison. And besides the argument is not that it did not happen. It is that such an action would be illegal. And the illegality is on the part of the child, but the adult.
The Bible does say to correct children with rod, so Bible obviously doesnt talk about not being held accountable for any action.
Correction is not the same as holding some accountable.
Not being held accountable, even if true by the Bible, does not mean that Bible says it means not being able to do something.
Again, we are not talking about whether bad things happen. Murders happened in the OT, and we all know what the 6th commandment was.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
We don't need indisputable evidence like an alien footage or a face-to-face interview with those beings to confirm alien life, it's just a matter of comparing testimonies and findings from ancient civilizations, and all of them point to the existence of human-like beings that come from the sky which is nothing more than an alien civilization.
Are you really telling me that we don't need indisputable evidence? that's a joke right. Why would such intelligent life refuse to be known to the earth? That's the key, isn't it? You might not need such information, but I would be happy on the basis of just reasonable proof. Besides - using your theory, God must exist. Just compare all the different testimonies from ancient civilisations. And all of the point to God. And the same applies to creation,. All those creation stories. And gee even Noah's floods Lots of comparable stories.
And I understand your worry and fear. I know that these findings could trigger a collective panic among believers and even worst an existencial crisis. So, we should be prepared because the UFO phenomenon are more common than ever and that could only mean that these aliens are planning to show up sooner or later. Even Pancho (the pope) is suggesting the existence of aliens, so I don't know why you refuse to accept the unavoidable
Obviously, you missed my sarcasm, I'm not in the slightest worried. Hmm the inevitable. The unavoidable. Wow, let's just wait and not count before the chickens start hatching.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
The Bible doesn't have any recordings of alien or extraterrestrial stories.
It does have stories of angels and demons and God and humans. These are heavenly beings. Heaven is a place on Earth. Not off the planet.
There won't be any aliens found or discovered. And until there is, it is pure fabrication being made up.
Hence - it won't have any impact on Christianity, since it won't happen.
But hey if one does turn up, then I will be happy to change my mind. Waiting - waiting waiting.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
There does seem to be a certain age - around 20 when children become adults and responsible for their actions.Lol. Mary, the mother of Jesus, got married at around 13yo according to some studies, which was very common back then.
yes, I have read the speculative stories.
I don't give them much plausibility.
After all, this would be the situation in that culture. In Middle Eastern ancient cultures, teenagers did not exist. I am not saying that people didn't reach teenage years but that society was not divided into what we in the modern world understand children, teenagers and adults. Back then they had children and adults. Once a child became an adult in Israel then they were treated as an adult. The question of course is when was that line drawn in the sand? Was it individual based upon the unique circumstances, of the person or was there a set time, such as we do today in modern society?
I happen to take the view that they drew a line in the sand at the age of 20. Hence, kids might have been betrothed prior to adulthood, in accordance with the customs of arranged marriages, but not consummated until they were of age.
The problem with this thread is that BK assumes the bible was written by God's inspiration, so he expects to find everything on it, which is ludicrous.
No, the problem with this thread is that the author is trying to get a rise out of people with his racist and bigoted and foolish ideas. It has nothing to do with the truth or not of the bible.
And I think that proves Christianity has no solid foundations. A pedophile could be a Christian and abuse children at the same time given that "the bible doesn't condemn it".
That is an absurd proposition.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
There does seem to be a certain age - around 20 when children become adults and responsible for their actions.The Bible does not say that sex before the age of 20 is wrong, so when saying "responsible for their actions", the Bible does not tell us anything about sex with children being wrong.
Well, I think the argument could be made. After all, if persons under the age of 20 are not held accountable for their actions, then they cannot be said to consent to sexual intercourse. Hence, it would be considered rape. Rape is forbidden.
The Bible seems to indicate that when a nation is cursed and punished by God for its disobedience that its children would be killed by the enemy, or taken into captivity to become slaves at the whim of society and its laws. Hence, it may be arguable that putting children into such a situation is a curse due to their sin.That is about slavery, not marriage. Nowhere does the Bible say that marriage is slavery. Even if it did, the Bible does not exactly condemn slavery.
I never said marriage is slavery. The question must be considered though. How did any such marriage occur? Was it lawful or not? It is clear that ALL unlawful marriages are forbidden by the Bible. And if someone under the age of 20 cannot consent, then clearly it must have been unlawful.
The Bible clearly prohibits sex with one's own children, siblings, mother-in-law, and other close family relationships. It NEVER condones the violation of the vulnerable. It never condones "forcing oneself on another". Yes, there are examples where it happens, but they are soundly condemned.Can you show us where the Bible says that "sex with children is wrong"?
I did above. Thank you very kindly.
I know that Bible says how incest is wrong, but what does the Bible say in cases that arent incest?
Forbidden since they would be unlawful.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Where in the Bible does it say that sex with a child is wrong?
Sex as the Bible defines it is always to be within the marriage covenant between a male and a female. A man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife. Sexual intercourse outside of the marriage covenant, literally or imaginatively is sinful. "even if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart he has committed adultery."
Since every example within the bible of marriage is between adults, it remains silent as to children. (I don't subscribe to the view that Mary was a minor)
There does seem to be a certain age - around 20 when children become adults and responsible for their actions. The idiom, not knowing their right hand from their left", is often used to describe this age. Hence, the example of those within the nation of Israel who did not die in the wilderness did not extend to these children.
What does the Bible say about child marriage?
The Bible seems to indicate that when a nation is cursed and punished by God for its disobedience that its children would be killed by the enemy, or taken into captivity to become slaves at the whim of society and its laws. Hence, it may be arguable that putting children into such a situation is a curse due to their sin.
What does the Bible say about punishment for a man who marries a child and has sex with her?
I suppose the question would be - how did the man go about organising or orchestrating the marriage with a child? Was it by stealing the child? Then it would be death. Was it as a soldier invading another country? Then it may well be a form of adultery. That too may bring the maximum penalty of death. The question also must deal with the age of a child. There is also the question of arranged marriages. Godly parents would desire a godly husband for their children. And someone who would care for her and love her properly. Ungodly parents may well desire a good husband, but then again, maybe they might not have cared, so far as they received payment.
Bible does tell people to obey the government and follow the law of the land, but Bible doesn't say it's mandatory to follow human laws. Some countries allow child marriages. Some dont.
The Bible says to obey governments UNLESS they command you to sin. You don't have to like their laws. You don't have to agree with their laws. You might find their laws frustrating and terrible laws. But Christians are obligated to OBEY the laws of the land they are in - UNLESS the government commands you to sin. Then in accordance with your conscience, you would submit to God. Laws of nations that permit polygamy, incestuous relationships, adultery, pornography, fornication, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, sex with other objects, de-facto relationships, inter alia, are laws that Christians ought to submit to God and not human governments. This would include sex with minors.
The Bible clearly prohibits sex with one's own children, siblings, mother-in-law, and other close family relationships. It NEVER condones the violation of the vulnerable. It never condones "forcing oneself on another". Yes, there are examples where it happens, but they are soundly condemned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Yes. Intriguing. I will give it some thought and come back to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
God hates sin. That is true. But does that extend to the people? That is a further question.There is no reason to assume it doesnt. God can love sinners and hate sinners at the same time. Bible says "hate your enemies" and "love your enemies", basically saying that love and hate arent mutually exclusive.
Yes, there are good reasons not to assume it doesn't. Jesus says to love your enemies. Where does it say to hate your enemies? You are confusing or conflating different ideas here. Love and hate don't have to be mutually exclusive for you still to be wrong. You need to prove your assertion.
I thought that a Hindu would be more flexible and fluid in their position.Hindu?
Why the question mark? Everyone knows who you are. Of course, you might have converted, except your language and attitude demonstrates otherwise. Yes, I know sanctification is a work in progress. Yet there are certain factors that begin immediately, such as humility. Humility is the character trait that you don't seem to understand, let alone exhibit. It is this one character trait that is the key in most cases to distinguishing between the true Christian and the fake. It's impossible to fake humility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The proof for evolution doesnt exist. But lets face it, even if you had proof, I still wouldnt believe in it because I believe in creation.
Ok. Do you believe in creation because there is no proof for evolution? Or do you believe in creation despite there being no proof for evolution?
I believe that the Bible is the word of God.
Really? And why do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, given you are a Hindu? Or are you saying that the Bible is just one WORD of GOD amongst a whole realm of Scriptures that claim to be the Word of God? Would you reject the Hindi and the Muslim and the Buddhist, and the JWs and the LDS's books or writings of revelation?
Therefore, if scientists say the opposite of what Bible says, I prefer to believe the Bible rather than to believe the scientists.
So do you think the world is flat? And that the sun revolves around the Earth? And the earth is the centre of the universe? And that there is a HELL which anyone but those born of the Spirit, through the name of Jesus will end up? Including all Hindus? And do you, therefore, reject Reincarnation?
God hates homosexuals and rapists, but he hates homosexuals more. Thats why Bible commands death penalty for homosexuals. Obviously, God hates trans too, thats why Bible commands the death penalty for those who wear clothes of opposite gender.
One might say that GOD abhors all sinners. There is none that does good. Not one. Besides I was of the view that Christians tend to say "God hates the sin, but loves the Sinner". "For God so loved the World that he gave his Only Son"... . Surely John 3:16 says the opposite of what you are saying? On the other hand, God did hate Esau. And there are numerous places where God is said to hate different people. He does call sodomy a sin. Indeed, it is anathema. Abominable. But is it THE unforgivable sin? And surely, calling something a sin, doesn't mean that he suddenly hates them. Jacob he loved. And Jacob sinned.
In any event, the death penalty is a sanction that provides for God's high value on marriage and fidelity. Rape is obviously outside the marriage covenant. And so is homosexuality, if marriage is between a male and a female. Things are a little more difficult in our day and age since the definition of marriage has been broadened.
But I reject the idea that the Bible says God hates homosexuals and rapists. And transgender people. God hates sin. That is true. But does that extend to the people? That is a further question.
And yes, God says that there are only 2 genders: male and female. So no, a man cannot become a woman. He can merely stop being a man.
I thought that a Hindu would be more flexible and fluid in their position. After all, that is the essence of Hinduism, isn't it? No absolutes. No right and wrong. Just subjectivity. Like their gods. Their many gods.
Created: