A Thread about Religion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
the Iliad and Aesop, et al, get their basic fundamentals from the God of the Bible, the God of Genesis.[/quote]

In accordance with the principle that an extraordinary positive proposition asserted without evidence should be dismissed without evidence: no they don’t.

Now, if you have specific and sufficient evidentiary reasons for which you think the rest of us should accept your claim…[/quote]

Yes, they do. Nothing extraordinary about it. Your suggestion that it is indicates a rudimentary knowledge of Genesis. You don’t wanna be a rudimentarian, do you?[/quote]

There is certainly much that is extraordinary (the term is employed here literally) in Genesis. Satan did speak through the serpent, yes? I would not characterize this as an “ordinary” occurrence, and I doubt you would either. We can do this, but it’s headed back toward whether or not you have any specific evidence for Genesis 2:7, and we’ve done that one before. I’d much rather we turn our attention to the following:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

  • Actually, this is not so absurd, at least on your worldview. Your omnipotent god could have decreed the Holocaust good, yes? And it then would have been so, yes? Sounds like subjective morality to me.[/quote]

You’re smart enough not to have erred like this. You lose a point because you dabbed.[/quote]

Are you suggesting that god could not have done this? Could he not command anything – anything – and thereby make that thing good in the purest sense of the term?

362

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Was just me humbly excusing myself, while letting you know you argued well.[/quote]

Many thanks, ditto, and until next time.

363

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Yeah, see, that’s just completely alien to me. For any action/tool if I have the option to use my left-hand, there is no question question that I’ll be doing just that. Heh, you know that stereo-typical ‘girl throw?’ That’s me throwing with my right-hand. I might as well be Taylor Swift throwing out the first pitch. I even have to bite down on a urge tom make a feminine unnh-tee-hee sound I as make a right-handed throw. Then for a short time after a right-handed throw I desire that my friends I go to the restroom together as a group for some gossip time.
[/quote]

Yep, you truly are full on left-sided dominant.

364

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Are you suggesting that god could not have done this? Could he not command anything – anything – and thereby make that thing good in the purest sense of the term?[/quote]

I’ve seen people argue that this kind of argumentation doesn’t work because it is simply inconceivable that God could ever make the Holocaust/something that is almost universally considered horrid a good act.

I don’t quite agree with it (The flood, Sodom and Gomorrah; I’m pretty sure God is willing to kill anyone who really pisses Him off in rather devastating ways, plus it seems to involve some circular reasoning), but w.e.

365

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Are you suggesting that god could not have done this? Could he not command anything – anything – and thereby make that thing good in the purest sense of the term?[/quote]

I’ve seen people argue that this kind of argumentation doesn’t work because it is simply inconceivable that God could ever make the Holocaust/something that is almost universally considered horrid a good act.

I don’t quite agree with it (The flood, Sodom and Gomorrah; I’m pretty sure God is willing to kill anyone who really pisses Him off in rather devastating ways, plus it seems to involve some circular reasoning), but w.e.[/quote]

I can’t imagine that is what Push mean’t.

366

[quote]pat wrote:

Technically only in the extreme. We’re not supposed to be in the business of casting judgement or gossip. Doesn’t stop it, it still happens.[/quote]

Right, but my question was more on when can a Christian really call themselves Christian?

Is it when they’re baptized and accept God as their lord and savior? Or is it when they do that AND spend a great deal of time studying the OT/NT and truly understand who Christ is?

[quote]pat wrote:
You may have a point. And it may mean something to me and it may even be right. But it’s not grounded, so it would mean less to you than it would to me, despite how strongly you feel about it.
[/quote]

Fine. At this point we’re going to continue going around in circles if we talk about this further.

Let me just leave it at this. I believe that objective morality cannot exist without a belief in some higher power who has the authority to define said objective morality. As such, I don’t get atheists who make any claims to any sort of universal rights/morals.

That being said, I’m not willing to just hand-wave away their claims of morality or state that they’re morally bankrupt(or means little to them)/willing to just switch morals whenever it becomes convenient in the manner that CountingBeans is writing. It seems like a pure academic extension of the above paragraph and meant to fit a certain agenda so that one can prove a point.

[quote]pat wrote:
And if we remove the wooden beam from our own eye?
[/quote]

Is that possible?

[quote]pat wrote:
And nobody else? Please.[/quote]

Ack. You misunderstood. I meant Christians ostensibly have an answer to everything. That answer is God. I didn’t mean to respond to the “everyone needs criticism” part.

367

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Right, exactly the issue at hand.

Now, the Atheist can claim the same true of the believer. Because “there is no God” there is nothing to substantiate their morals either.

So, at best the Atheist’s only argument is “I don’t like what you’ve done, because I think differently”. Which is fine, however, meaningless. It’s a discussion about feelings.

Now if the Atheist was to turn around and claim their moral code was built upon “is there a victim”. Suddenly we have measure, we have substantiation, and we have objectivity (at least to a degree.)[/quote]

Sure. I can’t imagine you’ll find anyone who argues for something passionately without at least having a reason for it. That reason is probably their claim to objectivity. As you wrote, an atheist probably rejects the arguments of a Christian because the atheist rejects the Christian’s claim to objectivity.

All arguments are ultimately based on certain assumptions, and if we reject those assumptions out of hand then you’ll never reach some sort of consensus.

… And now I’m not sure where I’m going with this, because going down the proper road would require pages of writing and I have neither the time nor will to do that.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The bait I’m trying leave here is the "there is no god, so their is no difference between an Atheist and a believer when it comes to answering for mistakes and short comings.[/quote]

Unfortunately for you, I do think God exists, I just haven’t felt His existence yet. So your bait doesn’t work on me.

Might work on Angry_Chicken though.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yeah… And there is a couple billion believers today…

[/quote]

How many of them are willing to be fed to lions over their beliefs?

In any case, to answer your question- I think a proper Christian would rather be eaten by lions than denounce his/her faith.

369

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The bait I’m trying leave here is the "there is no god, so their is no difference between an Atheist and a believer when it comes to answering for mistakes and short comings.[/quote]

Unfortunately for you, I do think God exists, I just haven’t felt His existence yet. So your bait doesn’t work on me.

Might work on Angry_Chicken though.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yeah… And there is a couple billion believers today…

[/quote]

How many of them are willing to be fed to lions over their beliefs?

[/quote]

That’s pretty much it in a nut shell.

The Atheist has no lions to face, and no set faith to answer to. They can simply change with the whim of society and be no worse off for it.

The believer has the choice of the lion or their faith. They get eaten either way if they truly believe.

And that’s really why when Atheists complain about believers it gets stale, very, very fast.

370

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Are you suggesting that god could not have done this? Could he not command anything – anything – and thereby make that thing good in the purest sense of the term?[/quote]

I’ve seen people argue that this kind of argumentation doesn’t work because it is simply inconceivable that God could ever make the Holocaust/something that is almost universally considered horrid a good act.

I don’t quite agree with it (The flood, Sodom and Gomorrah; I’m pretty sure God is willing to kill anyone who really pisses Him off in rather devastating ways, plus it seems to involve some circular reasoning), but w.e.[/quote]

Yes, I’ve seen the same arguments, but they fail both logically and scripturally.

It is not at all inconceivable that god would command such a thing (such a thing being the slaughter of the “innocent” [quotes to account for Christian notions of original sin]):

Infant. Again: infant. Why was it good to kill an Amalekite infant? Well, there are all sorts of reasons that people pretend make it OK and different and shucks, you need the context (the context, in this case, changes literally nothing about the killing of any infant). The correct Christian answer is simple: Because god commanded it, and what god commands is just. Similarly, had god not stayed Abraham’s hand, the latter’s filicide would have been good – because god commanded it.

More important than all of the foregoing are the logical consequences of the alleged nature of god, but I’ll wait for Push to respond.

371

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

That’s pretty much it in a nut shell.

The Atheist has no lions to face, and no set faith to answer to. They can simply change with the whim of society and be no worse off for it.[/quote]

Oh come now. If that is the case then homosexuality wouldn’t exist! Anything that goes against the Judeo-Christian ideology that dominated Western society for centuries wouldn’t exist! Why bother being in the minority and facing prejudice from those who condemn you for not being a Christian if it’s that easy to change your mind?

372

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
the Iliad and Aesop, et al, get their basic fundamentals from the God of the Bible, the God of Genesis.[/quote]

In accordance with the principle that an extraordinary positive proposition asserted without evidence should be dismissed without evidence: no they don’t.

Now, if you have specific and sufficient evidentiary reasons for which you think the rest of us should accept your claim…[/quote]

Yes, they do. Nothing extraordinary about it. Your suggestion that it is indicates a rudimentary knowledge of Genesis. You don’t wanna be a rudimentarian, do you?[/quote]

There is certainly much that is extraordinary (the term is employed here literally) in Genesis. Satan did speak through the serpent, yes? I would not characterize this as an “ordinary” occurrence, and I doubt you would either. We can do this, but it’s headed back toward whether or not you have any specific evidence for Genesis 2:7, and we’ve done that one before. I’d much rather we do this:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

  • Actually, this is not so absurd, at least on your worldview. Your omnipotent god could have decreed the Holocaust good, yes? And it then would have been so, yes? Sounds like subjective morality to me.[/quote]

You’re smart enough not to have erred like this. You lose a point because you dabbed.[/quote]

Are you suggesting that god could not have done this? Could he not command anything – anything – and thereby make that thing good in the purest sense of the term?[/quote]

I’m suggesting that the subjective and the objective merge at the point of the Creator.[/quote]

Ah. Well I would agree if you mean that god’s decrees are at once subjective (vis-a-vis him) and objective (vis-a-vis us). This was pretty much my point – that there is still a subject, and, in some very essential way, the values/judgement are still subjective.

373

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

That’s pretty much it in a nut shell.

The Atheist has no lions to face, and no set faith to answer to. They can simply change their opinion of what is right and what is wrong with the whim of society and be no worse off for it.[/quote]

Oh come now. If that is the case then homosexuality wouldn’t exist! Anything that goes against the Judeo-Christian ideology that dominated Western society for centuries wouldn’t exist! Why bother being in the minority and facing prejudice from those who condemn you for not being a Christian if it’s that easy to change your mind?
[/quote]

There, I added some context.

While I’ll entertain the thought that believing in God may be a predetermined inherent condition, like homosexuality, I won’t be sitting here entertaining the thought that because an Atheist can change their moral code on a whim, that would prevent one from being homosexual.

374

My delayed travel plans are no longer delayed, so it’s been good fellas. Beans, I’ll shoot you an email in the very future.

376

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Technically only in the extreme. We’re not supposed to be in the business of casting judgement or gossip. Doesn’t stop it, it still happens.[/quote]

Right, but my question was more on when can a Christian really call themselves Christian?

Is it when they’re baptized and accept God as their lord and savior? Or is it when they do that AND spend a great deal of time studying the OT/NT and truly understand who Christ is?
[/quote]
Well, I don’t think anybody could pinpoint the exact line of qualification. I would think it’s fair enough to say that if you are not Christian, do not have a working knowledge of Christianity and know little more than a few of some very popular scriptures, then your probably not qualified to question a person’s Christianity. I don’t think even Christians are qualified to judge a persons Christian devotion. We cannot see the heart.
Of course some things are obvious. If you are rapist, tyrant murderer, it’s pretty clear your not living the Christian message.

Fine. At this point we’re going to continue going around in circles if we talk about this further.

Let me just leave it at this. I believe that objective morality cannot exist without a belief in some higher power who has the authority to define said objective morality. As such, I don’t get atheists who make any claims to any sort of universal rights/morals.

That being said, I’m not willing to just hand-wave away their claims of morality or state that they’re morally bankrupt(or means little to them)/willing to just switch morals whenever it becomes convenient in the manner that CountingBeans is writing. It seems like a pure academic extension of the above paragraph and meant to fit a certain agenda so that one can prove a point.
[/quote]
Well in this we agree. Not having a foundation of morality does not mean you cannot recognize moral or immoral behavior. One is just denying the possibility of a foundation for morality and denying the actual existence of objective morality. That does not mean their sense of internal morality is wrong, they just deny it’s existence that from whence it comes.

Is that possible?
[/quote]
Sure I think so. Practicing genuine piety and humility would render one ‘clear’ enough to see. I believe one Christ’s point in saying that is that once your realize how imperfect you yourself are, your realize that you don’t have much room to criticize others. That, however, does not mean no criticism ever. But when you or I recognize how truly fallible, imperfect and weak we all are, and we realize how difficult it is to walk in another’s shoe, there isn’t a lot to pick.
I know this may come as a shock, but I am far from perfect. :slight_smile:

[quote]

[quote]pat wrote:
And nobody else? Please.[/quote]

Ack. You misunderstood. I meant Christians ostensibly have an answer to everything. That answer is God. I didn’t mean to respond to the “everyone needs criticism” part.[/quote]
Ok, gotcha.