[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<<…i’m asking a question here, that’s all…[/quote]Alright, fair enough, but it sure seems like you’re trying to figure out a way to commit what we would call the unpardonable sin in an effort to convince us of how certain you are of the idiocy of our beliefs. I was simply saving you some time. If not then I’m wrong. Sorry about that.
…no harm, no foul…
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Why? All kinds of reasons, I am sure none that will be convincing to you.
- Support, really.[/quote]
No disagreement here. As I mentioned, the legal system takes care of this to some extent. But I completely agree that if a guy knock a girl up he needs to man up and support the child of his own free will without the need for child support enforcement.
I agree again. I’ve said many times that I feel that kids do better when both parents are around. However, I don’t think a kid raised by a single parent is doomed. Hell, my parents got divorced (and they were Catholic - one of the reasons for my cynicism and skepticism that religion instills all these wonderful moral values people claim it does) and I turned out okay. Perhaps ironically, one of the reasons I believe in making my marriage work is because I know how much it sucks when your parents split up and don’t get along and I don’t want my child to go through what I had to go through.
Community values certainly have some influence but I don’t think it has nearly as much influence as people think. I’ve met people who came from “good homes” who turned to drugs and crime. I’ve met people from “bad homes” who were great. In fact, I know a guy who has a successful consulting business while his two brothers are in prison. Same home environment, same community, radically different results. Something more is going on here than “I’m gonna do what my friends do.” I don’t know what that is. Differences in intelligence? A natural predisposition to not give in to peer pressure (a nature vs. nurture debate)?
Keep in mind that I have a daughter who is rapidly approaching her teen years so sex and pregnancy are large issues for me - I’m not exactly a champion of the “free love” movement. However, based on my experiences, I know that being overprotective won’t work, I know that telling her that having sex before marriage is a sin won’t work, but I’m also not concerned that she won’t go and do something stupid just because one of her friends does it. Why? Because I’m teaching her to think critically and to think for herself.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:- Because most times when people are sleeping out of wedlock they use birth control and that goes against G-d’s will for the purpose of sex.
[/quote]
This is mainly a Catholic thing. I don’t know of any other major religion that prohibits birth control. And I think even among Catholics something like 90% ignore the rule and use birth control, so this entree is not that popular at the Catholic cafeteria.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
No but you are missing the point. Zeus sets things up to seem like he doesn’t exist as a test of our faith. You are too closed minded with your dogma. If you had a personal relationship with Zeus like I do then you would see how obvious it is. Also, the universe can’t have come from nothing so obviously it was caused during the war between the Gods and the Titans.
[/quote]
I got the point, but you cannot have a relationship with something that does not exist. Has no relevance what so ever, it’s just a Red Herring. We weren’t discussing the existence of Zeus, we were talking about God.
Because one doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean the other doesn’t exist.
It’s really simple, we know “stuff” exists. We know it came from some where. It either came from something or nothing…It’s really that simple.[/quote]
Even were we to suspend logic for a moment and accept that as proof of a god, it is not proof in any way of your god so it adds nothing to the argument about Christianity.
Zeus is just as likely to exist as YHW. As a far wiser person once wrote. We are both Atheist, I just believe in one less god than you do.[/quote]
Asserting creative properties to nothing is a total suspension of logic. I am not trying to prove Christianity. That’s a different argument. Believing in God is required first before any conversation about religion can commence. That is putting the cart before the horse.
Zeus may exist for all I know, but he is not the creator of all existence and all that is in it, therefore I do not care if he exists or not and it’s still a red herring. Throwing logical fallacies at me does not invalidate the argument.
Who ever this far wiser person who said that, is an idiot. I am not discussing all possible things that may exist or may not. I am talking about the creator, the uncaused-cause, first cause, the prime mover. If you want call that Zeus, then we are talking about the same thing.[/quote]
So you agree that the Cosmology argument tells us nothing about the existence or otherwise of the Christian God. Yet you repeatedly bring it up in arguments about your Christian God. Back to the drawing board then. There is no more proof of the existence of your god than any of the literally thousands of other gods that have been believed in throughout mankind’s history.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Answer me this, sincerely: Why is it, that when something, at face value, is thought to be good, it is said to be proof of the existance of god and his benevolence… yet when something, at face value, is thought to be bad, and either the proof of the nonexistance of god, or lack of his benevolence, another interepretation entirely must be made in order to preserve both?
Example:
My crops grew very well, this proves god loves me and is kind! I understand the action and the reasoning for it.
or
My crops failed… clearly god must have some reason I cannot see, which still makes him benevolent, but beyond my understanding.
This just shows that Christians aren’t worried about proof, or reason: crops may grow or crops may fail, good or bad may happen, and either they take the good to mean they are right, or the bad to mean they are right.
Then pompously claim that they see proof of god all the time. Well, yeah, if you’re going to twist anything and everything into “proof of god”, you’re going to see it all the time.[/quote]
LMAO - this post just goes to show you’ve never known a farmer or a Christian . . .
My crops succeed = God has blessed my efforts. My crops failed = God has blessed my efforts.
A Christian understands that all of life, every event, has the potential for being a blessing. Nothing is taken as a punishment or a lack of blessing.
My crops failing may have been just the thing needed to get me off my a$$ and back to school, or perhaps convince me to move to Africa and to be a missionary farmer there, or maybe a sign that my counting on a single crop was a poor choice of planning on my part.
Your oversimplistic and misinformed opinions of Christianity are sad to see. . . it’s no wonder you don’t believe in Christianity - you don’t even know what it is . . . .[/quote]
To be fair, the conclusions that he draws are pretty accurate based on the majority of ‘Christians’ that one runs into. Whether Christianity should take the blame for this or Humanity is a different argument though.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< And most atheists remember the time that they believed in God.[/quote]
No they can’t. Atheism is the ultimate self delusion. In Romans 1, which I’ve quoted already a couple times, Paul tells me:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things
There remains in sinful men (and women, in case that isn’t clear) as well as creation at large universal testimony to the God-hood of God. They are contemporaneously everywhere confronted with it and unable to embrace it and yes that is completely just of God. There is no such thing as an atheist and all their protestations to the contrary serve only as the latest in a very long train of testimony to God’s truth. It is non disprovable and therefor not science as I have never claimed it was. In fact it probably is tautological from the standpoint of unbelief.[/quote]
I know I am arguing like a 4 year old but…yes they do.[/quote]
LOL! Sorry man. Didn’t see this before. You will no doubt be unsurprised to learn that I do not concede your point =] [/quote]
I take it your argument is that if they really believed they never would have moved away from God and therefore they were never a true believer. Or have I missed the point?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< And most atheists remember the time that they believed in God.[/quote]
No they can’t. Atheism is the ultimate self delusion. In Romans 1, which I’ve quoted already a couple times, Paul tells me:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things
There remains in sinful men (and women, in case that isn’t clear) as well as creation at large universal testimony to the God-hood of God. They are contemporaneously everywhere confronted with it and unable to embrace it and yes that is completely just of God. There is no such thing as an atheist and all their protestations to the contrary serve only as the latest in a very long train of testimony to God’s truth. It is non disprovable and therefor not science as I have never claimed it was. In fact it probably is tautological from the standpoint of unbelief.[/quote]
I know I am arguing like a 4 year old but…yes they do.[/quote]
LOL! Sorry man. Didn’t see this before. You will no doubt be unsurprised to learn that I do not concede your point =] [/quote]
I take it your argument is that if they really believed they never would have moved away from God and therefore they were never a true believer. Or have I missed the point?[/quote]
Yeah. Everything’s about closeted orientation these days. I guess we get your closet cases and you get ours. Conversion to biological predisposition!
@MikeTheBear:
You’re still missin the point Mike. It’s not simply immediate peers or community. The society at large we now live in actively encourages and overtly rewards attitudes and behaviors that were once considered morally repugnant probably even in most of the “houses of ill repute”.
Kids today are mercilessly pummeled with and saturated in influences and imagery that hijack one of the absolutely primary (and very holy and good) human drives and point it everywhere and anywhere except the confines of a faithful marriage wherein it serves as one of the pillars of stability, not just to that particular family, but to the society as a whole comprised of numerous such families.
Sex was gloriously designed by God to literally drive one man and one woman into each other’s arms resulting in ultimately fulfilling oneness for them personally and an environment filled with quality character influences for the resulting children and by extension the society of which they are a part.
De Tocqueville readily observed that overwhelming Christian influence in early America as my samples from the previous page illustrate. Men guarded the purity and honor of women above practically ALL ELSE according to De Tocqueville. Refusing to allow so much as a questionable utterance to fall from their lips in a ladies presence which in early America men assumed all women were. He says the resulting superiority of their women, in his estimation, is what most accounts for the then rising status of the United States in the 1830’s.
Tell me my friend, down inside, would you rather have YOUR daughter grow up in that America or one where she might achieve something truly contributory to society and morally praiseworthy like, say an ass shot on T-Nation. (no offense, I’m making a point).
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< And most atheists remember the time that they believed in God.[/quote]
No they can’t. Atheism is the ultimate self delusion. In Romans 1, which I’ve quoted already a couple times, Paul tells me:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things
There remains in sinful men (and women, in case that isn’t clear) as well as creation at large universal testimony to the God-hood of God. They are contemporaneously everywhere confronted with it and unable to embrace it and yes that is completely just of God. There is no such thing as an atheist and all their protestations to the contrary serve only as the latest in a very long train of testimony to God’s truth. It is non disprovable and therefor not science as I have never claimed it was. In fact it probably is tautological from the standpoint of unbelief.[/quote]
I know I am arguing like a 4 year old but…yes they do.[/quote]
LOL! Sorry man. Didn’t see this before. You will no doubt be unsurprised to learn that I do not concede your point =] [/quote]
I take it your argument is that if they really believed they never would have moved away from God and therefore they were never a true believer. Or have I missed the point?[/quote]The point is ALL human beings know God is there because they still bear, warped though it is through sin, His image. Whether they ever attain saving faith or not, enough of Him is revealed in and around them so as to render their claim of atheism a falsehood and their chuckling proclamations to the contrary merely highlight the point. Please reread the above you quoted from me in this light.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
sigh
- You operate from the foregone conclusion that the bible is perfect and god exists, because the bible, which is perfect, says so.
The intellectually honest method of looking at the possibility of the bibles perfection is to start with the belief that it may be the case that the bible is perfect, or it may not be the case that the bible is perfect.
In order to test this, you look at the bible, searching for any inaccuraces, falsehoods, contradictions, etc. When you find some, you conclude that the bible is not perfect (impeccable, inerrent, etc).
For example, the bible says there is a dome above the earth, holding out the waters of heaven, that the sun and moon are set into. This is not fact. The bible is wrong.
So, it is not the case that the bible is inerrent. Therefore, claiming that something else written in the bible must be true, because it is written in the “perfect” word of god, is untrue. Things in the bible may be true or not, but being written in your bible does not inherently make them true or false.
You, however, ignore this because it does not work as confirmation for what you “already know” - that the bible is without error.
-
Intellectual terrorism - you stoop to using fear as a tactic to convert people to your side. If what you were saying was true, you wouldnt need threats of eternal torment from your “omnipotent benevolent” creator.
-
You ignore evidence against your cause and cherry pick evidence for it. As explained with the coin flipping analogy, you twist any outcome of any situation to be proof of your cause, shifting the rules with each step.
You still have yet to answer my question: Why can gods benevolent character be directly observed when you see something “good”, yet “bad” events do not reveal a malevolent character?
That would be intellectually honest: to say gods character can be directly observed by what we see.
However, you take the dishonest approach; that gods character can be directly observed by what we see ONLY when we see something good, however, when we see something bad, gods character cannot be directly observed, but, instead, there must be a deeper or hidden meaning behind his action.
You change the rules back and forth and create double standards in order to preserve a foregone conclusion. That is intellectual dishonesty.[/quote]
LMAO!! This is what you have? OK, letâ??s deal with them in the order that you raised them.
Q 1. You operate from the foregone conclusion that the bible is perfect and god exists, because the bible, which is perfect, says so.
A 1. LOL. No, I don’t. I have explained multiple times in these threads that my certainty in the existence of the Divine came from my study of the Tao and Science. Then, in comparative study of religions, Christianity is the one that has remained true in the face of all assaults, and from there, the textual veracity of the scriptures is settled by unassailable literary and archeological evidence. You got the sequence back-asswards . .
Pick your best examples of textual inaccuracies of scripture and there is an explanation for them . . . every last single one of them - how do i know? I examined every single one them - and in the original languages as well . . . Have you done that?
So I know the Bible is true, because I tested it . . . Have you personally tested it or are you just parroting what someone else has stated . . . who’s being intellectually dishonest now?
Q 2. Intellectual terrorism - you stoop to using fear as a tactic to convert people to your side. If what you were saying was true, you wouldnt need threats of eternal torment from your “omnipotent benevolent” creator.
A 2. Wrong again - I never use intellectual terrorism on anyone! I never use fear to “convert” anyone, because I never try to convert anyone. I explain my views, correct misunderstandings about scripture based on what I know and leave the decision up to the individual. I cannot convert you to Christianity - that is the work of the Holy Spirit. Evry Christian knows this. Salvation is between God and the individual. I have nothing to do with your salvation, other than bearing witness of what He has done in my life through my words and deeds.
So, no, I do not use the threat of eternal torment to do anything. I only explain what I believe, nothing more. No threat, no intimidation - just what I believe. To accuse me of anything else is in itself intellectually dishonest . . .
Q 3. You ignore evidence against your cause and cherry pick evidence for it. As explained with the coin flipping analogy, you twist any outcome of any situation to be proof of your cause, shifting the rules with each step.
A 3. No, I do not ignore EVIDENCE against my cause . . . I do not twist any outcomes. Any evidence offered to me is examined impartially and with any personal assumption of right/wrong ignored - it is only proof that counts in matters of veracity.
I did answer your Question about a benevolent God - the outcome of events cannot be declared at the moment of the their occurence - an event we deem as bad, may prove to be good for us in the long term. I do not use events to prove God’s benevolence. To accuse me of a practice I have never used is intellectually dishonest . . .
So apparently, your accusations are the only thing intellectually dishonest in your post . . .[/quote]
I have to jump in here. Large parts of the old testement are clearly just made up back story as an attempt to legitimise claims made by the Jewish people, others are borrowed folk stories.
Please tell me for instance in your research where you found evidence of the Jews being in bondage to the Egyptians.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< And most atheists remember the time that they believed in God.[/quote]
No they can’t. Atheism is the ultimate self delusion. In Romans 1, which I’ve quoted already a couple times, Paul tells me:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things
There remains in sinful men (and women, in case that isn’t clear) as well as creation at large universal testimony to the God-hood of God. They are contemporaneously everywhere confronted with it and unable to embrace it and yes that is completely just of God. There is no such thing as an atheist and all their protestations to the contrary serve only as the latest in a very long train of testimony to God’s truth. It is non disprovable and therefor not science as I have never claimed it was. In fact it probably is tautological from the standpoint of unbelief.[/quote]
I know I am arguing like a 4 year old but…yes they do.[/quote]
LOL! Sorry man. Didn’t see this before. You will no doubt be unsurprised to learn that I do not concede your point =] [/quote]
I take it your argument is that if they really believed they never would have moved away from God and therefore they were never a true believer. Or have I missed the point?[/quote]The point is ALL human beings know God is there because they still bear, warped though it is through sin, His image. Whether they ever attain saving faith or not, enough of Him is revealed in and around them so as to render their claim of atheism a falsehood and their chuckling proclamations to the contrary merely highlight the point. Please reread the above you quoted from me in this light.
[/quote]
What about people who are not brought up in a religious household? They do not know his image. Or what about people who group up polytheistic (such as Hindus)? They do not know his image, they know many such godly beings.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Tell you what, lets flip a coin. If its heads, god exists and is all loving. If it doesnt, god doesnt exist or isn’t omnipotent benevolent.
Then, no matter what the coin says, you can claim to be right: either you’re proven right by heads, or the tails simply means god refuses to show himself because proof would destroy faith.
Either way you always win and never have to consider the possibilty that you could be wrong.[/quote]
I have faith that the coin will come up heads. My wife and I did this to decide if we should get married. We flipped it once and it came up heads. We flipped it six more times and all of them came up heads.
If I truely beleived that you would start beleiving in God then I would tell you to flip the coin, but I do not think you would beleive. When it came up heads and you would become a mighty warrior for Christ I would tell you to flip the coin.
I say if it came up heads you would say it was just a flip of a coin and it is nothing more than a coincidence. If it came up tails you would say that it proves that God does not exist.
When you get some change today flip the coin. Let God show you who he is.[/quote]
Just flipped. Came up tails.[/quote]
If it did, you wouldn’t have to tell us.[/quote]
The point was to illustrate the intellectual dishonesty with which christians approach the subject.
It is dishonest to claim you see objective proof of something, when the fact is that you will twist any outcome to be “proof”. This is not proof, its wanton confirmation bias.
Oh, and another intellectually weak and dishonest technique: accuse the person of lying.
I’m about done here. Have fun.[/quote]
And so you athiests do the samething, twist anything to prove your point. Choosing to ignore proofs or logical arguments in order to hold fast to your preempted conclusion is what you accuse Christians of doing, but isn’t it yourselves who are doing that with you little “spaghetti-monster” and “sky wizard” analogies. Then, because people who claim to be Christian act poorly, you assert it must necessarily be because of the religion they are apart of.
There is a complete ignorance of the fact that the world is in fact a better place because of Christianity. Tremendous good has also been done by many many Christians, but that stuff isn’t sexy. It doesn’t get the headlines, it’s much more fun to pick at only the bad.
You cannot say te same thing for atheism. Who has been driven to do good by atheism? Who has desired to be a better person because there is no God? Nobody has been better for being an atheist, atheistic beliefs don’t help your fellow man, it merely an absolution for the most part.
You put trust in your five senses, I have put trust in something that has never failed me, no I cannot prove it.
We don’t arbitrarily pick out something out of thin air to worship… We worship the creator of existence. While you think existence came from nothingness. The is evidence of something from something all over the known universe. There is not a single microscopic shred of evidence of something from nothing…Which really sounds crazier?
My curiosity is this, what requirement do you have to believe. Is there anything that would convince you God exists? If there is not what’s the point? Atheism doesn’t make sense to me…You could convince me if you could prove it.
Greetings from Sin City! It’s 95 degrees and only 9:15 am…ouch. It was 103 when I landed at midnight![/quote]
Not that old argument again. Firstly, a number of so called amazing things done in the name of Christianity were just done in the name of Christianity because Christianity had the money and was contracting (works of art etc)
Secondly, people don’t do things in the name of Atheism. It doesn’t work like that. And please don’t go down the route of blaming atheism for Hitler, Stalin etc becuase that is a very short argument and you lose.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
- Order. Basically, its as if the universe was fine tuned for our existance. I can elaborate if anyone wants.[/quote]
This is the anthropic fallacy - the idea that the universe was created “just for us.” It’s like a puddle saying “this hole in the ground was created just for me.” It’s the other way around - life adapted to it’s environment.
Several theories on this, one being that we may live in multiverse, and several universes smaller universes known as “membranes,” each with physics that are very different, crashing together produce the energy needed to create a Big Bang. This is the M-theory.
However, even if we don’t know what came before the Big Bang, all this shows is that we don’t know what came before the Big Bang. This is the argument from ignorance fallacy - “We don’t know what did it, therefore God did it.” It’s also called the “God of the gaps” argument - if we can’t explain it, God did it. These are not valid proofs of God.
That’s not the law of entropy. The law of entropy states that things tend toward disorder, energy is required to restore order, and that ultimately all energy will eventually dissipate. Thus, things are kept well-ordered by energy. However, cosmologists are no longer certain that the universe will ultimately suffer a “heat death” where all available energy will be used up. There’s all the issues of dark matter/dark energy which I don’t have time to explore.
As for the “first cause” argument, even if it can be shown that the first cause of the universe was some supernatural deity, this does not prove the existence of the God of Christianity or any other religion. At best, this may prove the existence of a Deistic God that started the universe but now no longer intervenes in human affairs.
The whole “God will not reveal Himself to you because you are a sinner” is a cop out by believers for avoiding the reality that there is no evidence of a God. At best, it shows that God is a petty, malicious, self-absorbed being. If I were an all powerful entity and decided to create little creatures on a little planet, why in the world would I need these creatures to worship me? People who are insecure require others to tell them how great they are, i.e., they need worship and praise. If I held all of the power in the universe, why would I need to be told how great I am? I’m already all-powerful! And if I gave my creatures a set of rules to follow and some of them broke those rules, sure I might be “upset” by this. This is assuming that I would even bother to give them a set of rules (I might) and if I, as an all-powerful being, could even get upset or have any other emotion. However, assuming I could get upset, I’d pretty much forgive them very quickly. No need of going through the trouble of having a “son” by virgin birth and later watching that son suffer a horrible death by execution. I’d just wave my hand and everything would be good. And here’s another thing - I wouldn’t purposely try to “set up” any one of my creatures by sending a talking snake to try to convince them to break one of my rules. The Garden of Eden was simply one big set up. Only a mean and petty being would do something like that. My rules would be simple: “Here’s a planet, here are some creatures and plants for you to eat. Be kind to each other and try not to blow things up. You’ve got free will - think things out for yourselves. And don’t bother me on Sundays because that’s when I go skiing. Even in the summer. I can make snow in summer because I’m all powerful. Now enjoy your lives.” I would definitely be a much cooler God than the one in the Bible. [/quote]
Thank you for neatly summing up what I have written over the last 20 pages.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
<<< What about people who are not brought up in a religious household? They do not know his image. Or what about people who group up polytheistic (such as Hindus)? They do not know his image, they know many such godly beings.[/quote]The following applies to every single human being born after Genesis 3 which means everybody without exception save for Christ Himself:
From the 1st of Romans nasb:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I have to jump in here. Large parts of the old testement are clearly just made up back story as an attempt to legitimise claims made by the Jewish people, others are borrowed folk stories.
Please tell me for instance in your research where you found evidence of the Jews being in bondage to the Egyptians.[/quote]
Really? Clearly made up? hmmm . . . someone new is parroting again . . .
The work of Professor Bietak at Tell
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[
Secondly, people don’t do things in the name of Atheism. [/quote]
Yes they do.
You can try a defense by bringing up the political/economic circumstances, but then, so can we.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had a special interest in trying to get Christians to deny the existence of God.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I have to jump in here. Large parts of the old testement are clearly just made up back story as an attempt to legitimise claims made by the Jewish people, others are borrowed folk stories.
Please tell me for instance in your research where you found evidence of the Jews being in bondage to the Egyptians.[/quote]
clicked a wrong button somewhere . . .
I was typing Professor Bietak’s work at Tell el-Daba
There is also Hoffmeier book, “Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition”
There was another archeologist group that found evidence of a mass burial site corresponding with the dates the last sign (death of the firstborn) at the site mentioned above . . .
not to mention the archeological evidence fonud in the jordan valley for the re-entry of the Jews back into Canaan at the time of the exodus . . .
Dr. Cohen’s work at Kadesh Barnea . . . and at Ein Hatzeva . . .
Sir Petrie’s excavationa at Fayyium . . .
The works of Dr’s Velikovsky and Courville . . . .
The archelogical work of Professor Wood at Kahun . . . .
as well as new evidence coming out of some the tomb excavations in the Saqqara region as well . . .
WHat was your question?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
On another note…Just how much of an evolutionary/biological dead end has atheism/secularism turned out to be? Children tend to hold onto the faith of their religious fathers, while the atheist doesn’t seem to be able to breed at replacement rates. Isn’t that something? Are we arguing with a Darwinian dead-end, as bizarre as that may sound? Demographically, the righteous really will inherit the earth. [/quote]
I may be wrong but I think that Christians are probably being outbred by Muslims. So we are all fucked!
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
On another note…Just how much of an evolutionary/biological dead end has atheism/secularism turned out to be? Children tend to hold onto the faith of their religious fathers, while the atheist doesn’t seem to be able to breed at replacement rates. Isn’t that something? Are we arguing with a Darwinian dead-end, as bizarre as that may sound? Demographically, the righteous really will inherit the earth. [/quote]
First, where did you get the statistics that atheists are not breeding at replacement rates? At any rate, breeding is irrelevant. Many atheists/agnostics were raised in religions families and were once religious, some very much so. I was raised Catholic, and subsequently determined that it was a bunch of crap. Second, a choice to limit family size is not evolutionary in nature as it is not based on natural selection or adaptation. In fact, I would argue that the humans that are best adapted to modern society are the ones who have rejected ideas that came from the Bronze Age. Statistics on religiosity show that in the U.S., atheists, agnostics, and those who answered “none” for religious preference have nearly doubled in the last 10 years. Religious belief in industrialized nations is decreasing. Sweden is about 80% atheist/agnostic. England about 40%. By contrast, religiosity is increasing at a very fast rate in Third World countries. What does that tell you?[/quote]
Uneducated people have more unprotected sex than educated people?
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< a long post >>>
[/quote]I (and others) have addressed all this already elsewhere in this thread. If you are interested in Christian views please peruse. If not then why are you here? Not that I’m sorry in the slightest that you are, but I’m curious. I have to say again that it’s been like a couple decades since I’ve heard a new argument against the Christian faith. They’re all the same argument in different packages anyway.
[/quote]
You’re right, I don’t get what a person in the modern world would still believe in any of the Abrahamic religions. I could see how a person could be a Deist. For a while I had somewhat of a Deistic belief based mainly on the cosmological argument that the universe required some sort of prime mover. But I never understood the Jesus story. If God wanted to forgive humans, why not just do so? Why the need for what was essentially a human sacrifice of his son no less? I could also see how the Abrahamic religions fulfilled a need to impose law, order, and a sense of morality during the Bronze Age and into the Middle Ages. But why these beliefs survive into the 21st century is a mystery.[/quote]
Because the Jesus story is a made up story taken from a collection of stories and was designed to ‘fulfill’ various conflicting prophesies.