What's the moral difference?

[God-free]

1.) An armed robber approaches you. He puts his gun to your head and says he wants your money. If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you.

2.) God approaches you. He claims to be all powerful and wants you to place all of your trust in him. If you do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to paradise. If you won't/can't do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to a place of torment.


Do you see a moral difference between these two scenarios? If so, please explain your reasoning. Thanks.

[RealFakeHair]

1.) An armed robber approaches you. He puts his gun to your head and says he wants your money. If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you.

2.) God approaches you. He claims to be all powerful and wants you to place all of your trust in him. If you do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to paradise. If you won't/can't do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to a place of torment.


Do you see a moral difference between these two scenarios? If so, please explain your reasoning. Thanks.

Having a gun put to my head before I can promise you I take God's Word of Salvation any day. Yes, GF there is a difference!
Try something else

[God-free]

Thanks for responding, RealFakeHair. The problem with your response, though, is that you have not explained your reasoning. Simply saying, "Yes, GF there is a difference!", tells me nothing at all.

[RealFakeHair]

Thanks for responding, RealFakeHair. The problem with your response, though, is that you have not explained your reasoning. Simply saying, "Yes, GF there is a difference!", tells me nothing at all.

Well okay, wait until you have a gun put to your head and then get back to me, until them have a nice day.

[God-free]

The experience of having a gun put to ones head isn't the point. All you've managed to do is to leave me wondering why you responded in the first place if you had no intention of answering the OP.

[God-free]

Is there no one who can answer the OP?

[RealFakeHair]

Is there no one who can answer the OP?
Your intellect is far too superior to ours. We can never satisfy your inquisitive nature, it is nature isn't it?

[God-free]

You've already made it clear that you have no answer to the question in the OP. And, now, you seem to want me to know that you have the ability to use sarcasm. Why?

[RealFakeHair]

You've already made it clear that you have no answer to the question in the OP. And, now, you seem to want me know that you have the ability to use sarcasm. Why?
Me play nice in sand box, you too?

[God-free]

I've been nothing but nice. You, on the other hand...

[RealFakeHair]

I've been nothing but nice. You, on the other hand...
Speaking of, "on the other hand." One must have the hand of faith, or else it becomes a marry-go-round.

[God-free]

This is getting old fast. My OP asks a perfectly reasonable question. Are you able to answer it? Or are you just unwilling?

[RealFakeHair]

This is getting old fast. My OP asks a perfectly reasonable question. Are you able to answer it? Or are you just unwilling?
Only because you are still here. I will give you courtesy answer with a question. "How can a blind person paint a picture of the sunrise over the ocean?
You are asking a person of faith to question God, and it is offensive at best. Second you are asking us to question God in the same way Bo Bird-Dog, question the Army after he swore an oath, and deserted his post.
If you have questions of God, I suggest you asks Him.
I hope this answers your question, but I have my doubts.

[God-free]

Only because you are still here. I will give you courtesy answer with a question. "How can a blind person paint a picture of the sunrise over the ocean?
You are asking a person of faith to question God, and it is offensive at best. Second you are asking us to question God in the same way Bo Bird-Dog, question the Army after he swore an oath, and deserted his post.
If you have questions of God, I suggest you asks Him.Like I said, my question is perfectly reasonable. If you're offended by it, I can't do anything about that. Don't you, as a Christian, have a responsibility to defend your faith (1 Peter 3:15)?


I hope this answers your question, but I have my doubts.

You're right to have your doubts. I'm still waiting for an answer.

[RealFakeHair]

Like I said, my question is perfectly reasonable. If you're offended by it, I can't do anything about that. Don't you, as a Christian, have a responsibility to defend your faith (1 Peter 3:15)?

I just did. You can't understand, because you have not faith in Almighty God. That's okay, however you need to talk to God, for your answer, no human can.

[God-free]

You have not answered and it's clear you will not. Good day.

[God-free]

Anyone else want to give this a go?

[cheachea]

1.) An armed robber approaches you. He puts his gun to your head and says he wants your money. If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you.

2.) God approaches you. He claims to be all powerful and wants you to place all of your trust in him. If you do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to paradise. If you won't/can't do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to a place of torment.


Do you see a moral difference between these two scenarios? If so, please explain your reasoning. Thanks.




I suppose that no matter what my response is to this question it won't be good enough for you, but I'll try to give it a go so to speak.

The Lord, The Creator of All Life has offered you a gift that you can either reject or graciously except. His Only Begotten Son as a sacrifice for Sin has been offered to you. You can freely receive this or you can reject it and receive the punishment that awaits all those who reject the only way of salvation and forgiveness of Sins that is Through Christ Jesus Our Lord.

* In your first part you have a sinful fallen human wanting your money or they will shoot you. Some of the differences in-between the 2 parts would be that The Lord is offering you this gift Your Entire Life, and you/the person is rejecting this gift There entire life. That's a lot of time compared to maybe less than a minute of someone robbing you in exchange for your money.

* The other thing that I would point out is that comparing Eternity in Paradise or Eternal Torment with a robbing scenario is really short sighted. The Lord is offering Right Now in Real Time the chance of Salvation for All those that believe on His Son The Lord Jesus Christ. As each day p***es another chance flies by to be received into The Kingdom of God. That's A lot of Time Right There. Compare that to less than a minute of a Robbery.


God IS TRYING TO Get People To GO To Heaven but people love darkness rather than light. He really doesn't want people to go to Hell, but he has given us all a choice. Choice is a beautiful thing. In the end it won't be God's fault people rejected salvation. It will be the fault of the individual.

I probably didn't answer your question as well as you wanted me to, but I did try too.

[God-free]

Hello cheachea. Thank you for actually addressing the OP. My focus, in this thread, is only on the moral difference, if any, between the two scenarios so I’m not going to get into anything that isn’t strictly related to that. (I'd be happy to discuss anything else you'd like in a dedicated thread. Post it in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum and I'll be there. :) )

In each of the examples, we have someone who wants something specific from you and threatens to inflict a penalty on you if you don’t comply. In a moral sense, I see no difference whatsoever between them. Apparently, you do see a difference but I’m confused as to what you think it is.

Both, the robber and God, have offered positive results for you if you do as you’re told. In the God scenario, you say this is a gift. Is the robber’s offer a gift as well?

[alanmolstad]

there is a connection here.....between the robber and god...from a point of view to be sure.


But lets go back to the beginning and look at how this all got started.

God made man.
God put man in the garden to tend to it's care.
God told man that he could enjoy all the food found on the trees of the garden he was tending and careing for.
Then God told the man not to eat of the tree smack in the middle of the garden...do that and die.


So what we have an a type of contract between God and man.
Where man tends a garden and gets to eat and live off food from the garden.
But also part of the contract is the prohibition against eating one food on sentence of death.

This is not really the type of an agreement you enter into with a robber, but it does look a lot like the arrangement you might make with a King or owner of the land you live on and work for.




Now how did this contract end up?
Well the man violates the part of the contract about not eating one food, and thus he is sentenced to death...
The problem is that right after this the man begins to reproduce.
And the "death" that came because of the contract violation and the fact that the man reproduced after the violation, the death of this single man was p***ed on to his children...over and over....year after year...child after child.

All born after the same sentence of death p***ed on due to the violation of the contract.

all doomed.
The whole human "experiment" is a total FAIL.

Thus enter into the story the person of Christ...who is not only 100% man, and so under the same sentence as the rest of the men, but also 100% God.

In the person of Christ the whole of humanity has the opportunity to be "redeemed' under the the same contract that the first man was under...
For as we read, there was even at the start the understanding in God's eye that only He would be able to make whole the broken contract between God and man.



So yes to be fair, to some who are unbelievers it does look from their point of view that "God holds a gun to man's head, "Believe in me or else""
But from another point of view what we are seeing is a rope being tossed down to ones who have fallen into a deep dark pit.

[God-free]

there is a connection here.....between the robber and god...from a point of view to be sure.


lets go back to the beginning and look at how this all got started.

God made man.
God put man in the garden to tend to it's care.
God told man that he could enjoy all the food found on the trees of the garden he was tending and careing for.
Then God told the man not to eat of the tree smack in the middle of the garden...do that and die.


So what we have an a type of contract between God and man.
Where man tends a garden and gets to eat and live off food from the garden.
But also part of the contract is the prohibition against eating one food on sentence of death.

This is not really the type of an agreement you enter into with a robber, but it does look a lot like the arrangement you might make with a King or owner of the land you live on and work for.




Now how did this contract end up?
Well the man violates the part of the contract about not eating one food, and thus he is sentenced to death...
The problem is that right after this the man begins to reproduce.
And the "death" that came because of the contract violation and the fact that the man reproduced after the violation, the death of this single man was p***ed on to his children...over and over....year after year...child after child.

All born after the same sentence of death p***ed on due to the violation of the contract.

all doomed.
The whole human "experiment" is a total FAIL.

Thus enter into the story the person of Christ...who is not only 100% man, and so under the same sentence as the rest of the men, but also 100% God.

In the person of Christ the whole of humanity has the opportunity to be "redeemed' under the the same contract that the first man was under...
For as we read, there was even at the start the understanding in God's eye that only He would be able to make whole the broken contract between God and man.Hello alanmolstad. Am I correct to ***ume that you take the Adam and Eve story literally? If so, I'll take what you've written here and make a separate thread to address it. It won't be right away, though. I have some things to do this morning but I will get to it sometime today.


So yes to be fair, to some who are unbelievers it does look from their point of view that "God holds a gun to man's head, "Believe in me or else""
But from another point of view what we are seeing is a rope being tossed down to ones who have fallen into a deep dark pit.It does, indeed, look like God is saying "Believe in me or else." It looks that way to me and to some believers I know who don't believe the same things about God that you and cheachea seem to.

[alanmolstad]

Hello alanmolstad. Am I correct to ***ume that you take the Adam and Eve story literally? I attempt to make use of the story in my post to help describe how I look at the relationship God has with both humanity and the whole universe in general.

The way I see it, and from what Im looking at in the text, it seems to resemble at many points a "contract" or a "covenant" between two parties....
The relationship that we read about between the man and the Lord in Genesis seems like a case of a violated contract, with yet a hint of redemption there in it as well.

But I dont disagree that to some unbelievers, that the message they hear about seems to them to be a case where a Crazy guy with a gun holds it to humanity's head and demands worship or else.....

[God-free]

I attempt to make use of the story in my post to help describe how I look at the relationship God has with both humanity and the whole universe in general.

The way I see it, and from what Im looking at in the text, it seems to resemble at many points a "contract" or a "covenant" between two parties....
The relationship that we read about between the man and the Lord in Genesis seems like a case of a violated contract, with yet a hint of redemption there in it as well.

But I dont disagree that to some unbelievers, that the message they hear about seems to them to be a case where a Crazy guy with a gun holds it to humanity's head and demands worship or else.....Thank you for explaining your point of view and for seeing the reason in mine.

[alanmolstad]

always happy to be of service....

[cheachea]

I know this is off topic a little bit, but I just wanted to say that I'm glad you are here God-free.

I also wanted to recommend some individuals you might find helpful/interesting.


* Dr. William Lane Craig: You might enjoy some of his debates.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8



* And Dr. Ravi Zacharias

[cheachea]

This is another person you might find interesting : Chris White.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe_6pOSzAB0

[God-free]

I know this is off topic a little bit, but I just wanted to say that I'm glad you are here God-free.

I also wanted to recommend some individuals you might find helpful/interesting.


* Dr. William Lane Craig: You might enjoy some of his debates.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8



* And Dr. Ravi ZachariasI watched the Craig/Hitchens video. I don't have time right now to indulge in Ravi Zacharias. Is there something about them that you wish to discuss?

[God-free]

This is another person you might find interesting : Chris White.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe_6pOSzAB0Does this video demonstrate Jesus as the son of God? Or, does it simply demonstrate that a man known as Jesus existed? I ask this because I don't necessarily deny that Jesus existed. I just don't believe he was a god or the son of a god.

Please post a separate thread if you wish to discuss this.

[God-free]

always happy to be of service....Just wanted you to know that I have posted a thread here (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3405-Adam-Eve-God-and-quot-The-Fall-of-Man-quot) about the Adam and Eve story.

[Christodoulos]

1.) An armed robber approaches you. He puts his gun to your head and says he wants your money. If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you.

2.) God approaches you. He claims to be all powerful and wants you to place all of your trust in him. If you do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to paradise. If you won't/can't do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to a place of torment.


Do you see a moral difference between these two scenarios? If so, please explain your reasoning. Thanks.

from a purely Christian perspective ,I can see many differences.

The robber,in this case, wants something from you that doesn't belong to him. So morally he has no right to take it ,but by force.

In the other scenario, God has a claim on what was his to begin with and never belonged to the person he approaches.

in other words , you can't blame someone for exercising his right to the free use of private property.

and that's one of several moral differences.

[God-free]

In the other scenario, God has a claim on what was his to begin with and never belonged to the person he approaches.

in other words , you can't blame someone for exercising his right to the free use of private property.

and that's one of several moral differences.Proof of ownership required.

Seriously, it sounds like you're an advocate of slavery.

[Christodoulos]

Proof of ownership required.

Seriously, it sounds like you're an advocate of slavery.

irrelevant to your challenge....... pure deflection.

[God-free]

irrelevant to your challenge....... pure deflection.Call it whatever you like. You’ve answered the challenge and now I’m exploring the details.

Your answer suggests a slave owner/slave relationship of which you seem to approve. Personally, I think slavery is highly immoral. And since we’re dealing, hypothetically, with living, breathing, thinking, feeling persons, then the excuse you give for God makes no moral difference between the two scenarios and, in my opinion, makes the second scenario even more repugnant than the first.

[Christodoulos]

Call it whatever you like. You’ve answered the challenge and now I’m exploring the details.

Your answer suggests a slave owner/slave relationship of which you seem to approve. Personally, I think slavery is highly immoral. And since we’re dealing, hypothetically, with living, breathing, thinking, feeling persons, then the excuse you give for God makes no moral difference between the two scenarios and, in my opinion, makes the second scenario even more repugnant than the first.

you seem to enjoy your own biased opinions and I don't really care how you feel about slavery.

[God-free]

you seem to enjoy your own biased opinionsYes, I’m biased. I prefer moral behavior over immoral behavior every time.



and I don't really care how you feel about slavery.Obviously.

[Christodoulos]

Yes, I’m biased. I prefer moral behavior over immoral behavior every time.


Obviously.

Moral behavior can't be arbitrary .. You seem to think it is.

[God-free]

Moral behavior can't be arbitrary .. You seem to think it is.Actually, I don't. However, since you brought it up, isn't God's morality the very definition of arbitrary?

[alanmolstad]

Actually, I don't. However, since you brought it up, isn't God's morality the very definition of arbitrary?I would say that God's morality is the definition of perfection....

However we are warned that God's ways of thinking are not human ways....
Thus while we can read and grasp what the Bible tells us God is doing , we may never know this side of heaven's gate the answer to the "why?" question.

In the book of *** we see the great "WHY?" question asked of God, and in God's answer we dont see the type of startement most of us were looking to see from Him.
We dont get an answer that wraps up everything in an easy to understand sum-total.

God's answer is to just point out how different He is, and from there we simply have to trust Him.

[disciple]

I would say that God's morality is the definition of perfection....

However we are warned that God's ways of thinking are not human ways....
Thus while we can read and grasp what the Bible tells us God is doing , we may never know this side of heaven's gate the answer to the "why?" question.

In the book of *** we see the great "WHY?" question asked of God, and in God's answer we dont see the type of startement most of us were looking to see from Him.
We dont get an answer that wraps up everything in an easy to understand sum-total.

God's answer is to just point out how different He is, and from there we simply have to trust Him.

I agree. In the book of Habakkuk, the prophet opens by asking God in light of all the evil and violence, why He doesn't act against it? God's answer in Chap 1 vs. 5 is"“Look around at the nations; look and be amazed! For I am doing something in your own day, something you wouldn’t believe even if someone told you about it." As believers we are sometimes perplexed by God's actions as well as His inaction in certain situations. Honestly, His ways are mysterious and misunderstood but they are always right. Sounds like an excuse but even believers must admit we don't understand much of what God does and allows. In Habakkuk Chap 2 we are told that "the just shall live by faith". Its good advise.

[God-free]

I would say that God's morality is the definition of perfection....And I would heartily disagree.



However we are warned that God's ways of thinking are not human ways....
Thus while we can read and grasp what the Bible tells us God is doing , we may never know this side of heaven's gate the answer to the "why?" question.

In the book of *** we see the great "WHY?" question asked of God, and in God's answer we dont see the type of startement most of us were looking to see from Him.
We dont get an answer that wraps up everything in an easy to understand sum-total.

God's answer is to just point out how different He is, and from there we simply have to trust Him.If God’s way of thinking is so much different than our own that we can‘t understand his reasoning, then on what basis do you simply trust him? How can anyone know that God is actually trustworthy?

As for poor old ***, this is only one of the many great examples of God’s immorality to be found in the “good” book.

[alanmolstad]

all we know about God is through revelation it is not a matter of thinking things through and coming up with a determination

[God-free]

all we know about God is through revelation it is not a matter of thinking things through and coming up with a determinationRevelation, of the sort found in religion, is unverifiable. Why in the world would anyone not think it through in order to determine whether or not it's trustworthy?

[Christodoulos]

Revelation, of the sort found in religion, is unverifiable. Why in the world would anyone not think it through in order to determine whether or not it's trustworthy?

all things that are verifiable are not necessarily spiritual.
you're taking a very sop****ric approach to all this.

Religion or God belief has been incrementally adding to man's human experience.

Things that are trustworthy are scientific . Religion is based on faith on something greater than one's self.

You may have a serious ego problem.

[God-free]

all things that are verifiable are not necessarily spiritual.
you're taking a very sop****ric approach to all this.All things that have been verified have never turned out to be anything but natural.
Realistic, critical, and practical are better descriptors of my approach but, of course, you're en***led to your own opinion.


Religion or God belief has been incrementally adding to man's human experience.
Yes, it has, with both good and bad results. If a cost-benefit ****ysis were to be done, I wonder how religion/God belief would fare. Somehow, I doubt it would fare well.


Things that are trustworthy are scientific . Religion is based on faith on something greater than one's self.
Yes, I understand that. I’m trying to figure out why anyone would believe and place their trust in something/someone, without examining the claims being made about it so they can determine its veracity and trustworthiness. I understand why heavily indoctrinated people won’t question their beliefs, especially those who never knew they could. It’s the intelligent adults who don’t/won’t question their beliefs that have me baffled.


You may have a serious ego problem.Nice.

[Christodoulos]

All things that have been verified have never turned out to be anything but natural.
Realistic, critical, and practical are better descriptors of my approach but, of course, you're en***led to your own opinion.


Yes, it has, with both good and bad results. If a cost-benefit ****ysis were to be done, I wonder how religion/God belief would fare. Somehow, I doubt it would fare well.


Yes, I understand that. I’m trying to figure out why anyone would believe and place their trust in something/someone, without examining the claims being made about it so they can determine its veracity and trustworthiness. I understand why heavily indoctrinated people won’t question their beliefs, especially those who never knew they could. It’s the intelligent adults who don’t/won’t question their beliefs that have me baffled.

Nice.

If you're looking for a belief system that can be verified in real terms then you won't find it in any religion.

But those who do believe because they have faith in God, based on the spiritual values they can understand ,are willing to accept , and feel are important ,then
that's the making of a religion.

The question isn't simply : "does this work for you".

.What god free atheists will never accept are the consequences of the world becoming a god -free zone.

And that's the problem I have with them.

Remove the Christian Faith from the Earth and mankind will revert back to his primal past. And with it all the barbarism and bestiality that existed during mankind's

earliest existence will once again appear and consume the earth. All that is of beauty ,reason and light will disappear and eventually life itself

will die out. The earth would again orbit the sun ,mindlessly and without reason.

[disciple]

If you're looking for a belief system that can be verified in real terms then you won't find it in any religion.

But those who do believe because they have faith in God, based on the spiritual values they can understand ,are willing to accept , and feel are important ,then
that's the making of a religion.

The question isn't simply : "does this work for you".

.What god free atheists will never accept are the consequences of the world becoming a god -free zone.

And that's the problem I have with them.

Remove the Christian Faith from the Earth and mankind will revert back to his primal past. And with it all the barbarism and bestiality that existed during mankind's

earliest existence will once again appear and consume the earth. All that is of beauty ,reason and light will disappear and eventually life itself

will die out. The earth would again orbit the sun ,mindlessly and without reason.

It is not what man does that steers the course of the earth. God is the Lord of history. God was sovereign in creation, God is sovereign in the historical process. And God’s just as sovereign in how it all ends as He was in how it all began. God is going to end history because He began it and He’s responsible for everything that happens. So there is a divine control over history. And may I say at the same time, there’s a divine plan in history. Things don’t happen by accident. They’re a part of God’s plan. Because, you see, it’s God who sees the end from the beginning, because it’s God who knows the times and the season. God knows exactly what He’s doing, the clock of God is never off one split second. Every single thing happening in this world today is happening right on schedule because God has a divine timetable and the result will be His Kingdom.

[God-free]

If you're looking for a belief system that can be verified in real terms then you won't find it in any religion. I completely agree.


But those who do believe because they have faith in God, based on the spiritual values they can understand ,are willing to accept , and feel are important ,then
that's the making of a religion.

The question isn't simply : "does this work for you".Please define "spiritual value" and then tell me the difference between that and "human value."




.What god free atheists will never accept are the consequences of the world becoming a god -free zone.

And that's the problem I have with them.

Remove the Christian Faith from the Earth and mankind will revert back to his primal past. And with it all the barbarism and bestiality that existed during mankind's

earliest existence will once again appear and consume the earth. All that is of beauty ,reason and light will disappear and eventually life itself

will die out. The earth would again orbit the sun ,mindlessly and without reason.Well, now you’re just scaremongering. This doesn’t surprise me, though, because that’s one of the ways religion spreads itself around. It instills fear in people and then preys upon those fears.

I would happily accept the consequences of the world becoming a god-free zone. Are you not aware that among the world’s top ten peaceful nations are a high percentage of the world’s least religious countries?

[John T]

1.) An armed robber approaches you. He puts his gun to your head and says he wants your money. If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you.

2.) God approaches you. He claims to be all powerful and wants you to place all of your trust in him. If you do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to paradise. If you won't/can't do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to a place of torment.


Do you see a moral difference between these two scenarios? If so, please explain your reasoning. Thanks.

There is no one who can answer your two questions as posted because they are based on the creation of a false equivalence, which is an error of logic. In other words, your two questions are comparing apples to lug nuts. Here is why.

By definition of the term, an armed robber who is also a human being (please excuse the tautology, but it is necessary here) has the purpose in mind to do harm to another human being.

By definition of the term, God is a non human, Who occupies a different time realm and space than does a human. Further, you compound the error by not attributing any sort of definition about his/her character, nor do you ***ign any abilities to your amorphous God. Because you are expecting the reader to "fill in the blanks" about your "God" you created, your God is nothing more than a concocted word and that creates another logical error called the "straw man argument".

Until and unless you address and define the God in your argument, there is no way that any rational being can address what you are stating. Yours is a vacuous and sop****ric construction which you created, having no basis in reality in a futile effort to bolster an over inflated ego.

As a result, your OP is a perfect example of what Paul stated in Romans:


Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature...

.
And her is the reason why you cannot really understand the things of God. Scripture calls you "spiritually blind".
.


2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
.
Regretfully but from my experiences, I have to admit that it is my opinion that "humility" is a word that is missing in the vocabulary of every atheist.

[Christodoulos]

I completely agree.

Please define "spiritual value" and then tell me the difference between that and "human value."

Well, now you’re just scaremongering. This doesn’t surprise me, though, because that’s one of the ways religion spreads itself around. It instills fear in people and then preys upon those fears.

I would happily accept the consequences of the world becoming a god-free zone. Are you not aware that among the world’s top ten peaceful nations are a high percentage of the world’s least religious countries?

Human values are spiritual values.
The atheists in all countries seem to think that morality dropped out of the skies.
This is just as true with individuals. You say you are a moral person ,right?
But were you born a moral person ... All morality is an inherited sum. And if you trace it back it stems from religion and a belief in something greater than oneself.

I'm not scare mongering . I'm telling you exactly what would happen if the Christian Faith were to slowly roll back and all you had were free thinking atheists. The basic human morality would slowly evaporate because there would be no solid basis on which to pin it.

In time, man would revert to a basic bestial vegetation until merciful death would end his existence.

The best proof is to view what happends in areas or in parts of american culture where Christian Faith is forced to retreat.
Shooting in public schools is just one of many areas I can point to with certainty.

[God-free]

There is no one who can answer your two questions as posted because they are based on the creation of a false equivalence, which is an error of logic. In other words, your two questions are comparing apples to lug nuts. Here is why.

By definition of the term, an armed robber who is also a human being (please excuse the tautology, but it is necessary here) has the purpose in mind to do harm to another human being.

By definition of the term, God is a non human, Who occupies a different time realm and space than does a human. Further, you compound the error by not attributing any sort of definition about his/her character, nor do you ***ign any abilities to your amorphous God. Because you are expecting the reader to "fill in the blanks" about your "God" you created, your God is nothing more than a concocted word and that creates another logical error called the "straw man argument".

Until and unless you address and define the God in your argument, there is no way that any rational being can address what you are stating.It surprises me to find, on a Christian site, that God needs to be defined by me so that you can know who/what I’m talking about. It should be obvious that I’m talking about the anthropomorphic God of the Bible who, I strongly suspect, was created according to the manners and customs of the authors,and was given extraordinary powers intended to astonish and amaze.

You said, “…an armed robber who is also a human being…has the purpose in mind to do harm to another human being.”
That’s an incorrect representation of the OP.

The robber and God each have the same purpose (i.e. to reach a desired goal). That goal is to get something from someone that the person may or may not be willing to give. Both, the robber’s and God‘s, threats to do harm are the coercive tool they’re using to compel the person to comply.

There is no relevant moral difference between the two scenarios. If you think otherwise, please explain what you think the difference is.


...Yours is a vacuous and sop****ric construction which you created, having no basis in reality in a futile effort to bolster an over inflated ego.Of course it’s not based in reality! It’s based on the God character depicted in the Bible. If you want to talk about over inflated egos, I’ll be happy to do that in another thread. Perhaps we could start by discussing the notion many theists seem to have that the entire universe was created just for them. Now, THAT’S something someone with an over inflated ego would believe.


As a result, your OP is a perfect example of what Paul stated in Romans:

<snip>

.
And her is the reason why you cannot really understand the things of God. Scripture calls you "spiritually blind".
.
<snip>
Please provide me with a demonstrably valid reason to take these verses seriously.


Regretfully but from my experiences, I have to admit that it is my opinion that "humility" is a word that is missing in the vocabulary of every atheist.That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it. In reality, atheists are as capable of humility as anyone else. They simply won’t humble themselves to anyone’s notion of a deity without reasonable justification.

[Christodoulos]

There is no one who can answer your two questions as posted because they are based on the creation of a false equivalence, which is an error of logic. In other words, your two questions are comparing apples to lug nuts. Here is why.

By definition of the term, an armed robber who is also a human being (please excuse the tautology, but it is necessary here) has the purpose in mind to do harm to another human being.

By definition of the term, God is a non human, Who occupies a different time realm and space than does a human. Further, you compound the error by not attributing any sort of definition about his/her character, nor do you ***ign any abilities to your amorphous God. Because you are expecting the reader to "fill in the blanks" about your "God" you created, your God is nothing more than a concocted word and that creates another logical error called the "straw man argument".

Until and unless you address and define the God in your argument, there is no way that any rational being can address what you are stating. Yours is a vacuous and sop****ric construction which you created, having no basis in reality in a futile effort to bolster an over inflated ego.

As a result, your OP is a perfect example of what Paul stated in Romans:


Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature...

.
And her is the reason why you cannot really understand the things of God. Scripture calls you "spiritually blind".
.


2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
.
Regretfully but from my experiences, I have to admit that it is my opinion that "humility" is a word that is missing in the vocabulary of every atheist.

"Regretfully but from my experiences, I have to admit that it is my opinion that "humility" is a word that is missing in the vocabulary of every atheist"

I can agree with that 100 percent.

I've known more than a few and they all have that one singular trait . ..

I would just call it an overactive ego.

[God-free]

Human values are spiritual values.Then what is spiritual and why do you equate that with human?
If you were to ask me where human values come from, I’d tell you they come from humans.


The atheists in all countries seem to think that morality dropped out of the skies.
This is just as true with individuals. You say you are a moral person ,right?
But were you born a moral person ... All morality is an inherited sum. And if you trace it back it stems from religion and a belief in something greater than oneself.What you said about atheists is just silly. Some of them would likely give you an evolution related explanation. What I can tell you is that a study published in Psychological Science, has shown that babies are “disturbed by displays of injustice” indicating an innate sense of fairness. Study co-author Stephanie Sloane said, “We think children are born with a skeleton of general expectations about fairness and these principles and concepts get shaped in different ways depending on the culture and the environment they’re brought up in.”
Religion may have developed and ins***utionalized their own moral systems, but that in no way means that religion invented morality. Also, a belief in “something greater than oneself” isn’t necessary to be moral. This is demonstrated by the existence of all the good and moral atheists on the planet.



I'm not scare mongering . I'm telling you exactly what would happen if the Christian Faith were to slowly roll back and all you had were free thinking atheists. Do you really believe that Christianity is the only thing in all the world that’s keeping the human race from running rampant? That’s simply not true. The fact is that good people will be good and bad people will be bad. Imperfect as they are, there are systems in place to separate the bad guys from the good and we can modify and improve those systems as needed.


The basic human morality would slowly evaporate because there would be no solid basis on which to pin it.

In time, man would revert to a basic bestial vegetation until merciful death would end his existence.

The best proof is to view what happends in areas or in parts of american culture where Christian Faith is forced to retreat. I think you’re letting your imagination get the best of you. There’s a clear and compelling correlation between a largely nonreligious population and societal well being. Your predictions of what a nonreligious world would look like are unnecessarily gloomy.


Shooting in public schools is just one of many areas I can point to with certainty.There are lots of reasons for increases in violence among children.
Genetics and environment, poor parenting, exposure to violence, social and economic factors, to name a few. To declare that THE reason is the lack of Christian faith is unjustifiable.

[John T]

It surprises me to find, on a Christian site, that God needs to be defined by me so that you can know who/what I’m talking about.

This is your OP, and it is you who began to use the term, "God". Therefore, it is up to you to define the terms of the debate, otherwise no LOGICAL discussion is possible.


It should be obvious that I’m talking about the anthropomorphic God of the Bible who, I strongly suspect, was created according to the manners and customs of the authors,and was given extraordinary powers intended to astonish and amaze.

It should be obvious that you do not know the God of the Bible. If you want to discuss Him as He reveals Himself in the Bible, I will be happy to accommodate you; on the other hand, if you want to vacuously pontificate your nonsense, you will have the forum to yourself.



You said, “…an armed robber who is also a human being…has the purpose in mind to do harm to another human being.”
That’s an incorrect representation of the OP.

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by God-free http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=158781#post158781)

1.) An armed robber approaches you. He puts his gun to your head and says he wants your money. If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you.

In the face of what you originally stated (second quote) your first quote above is stating a condition contrary to fact.


The robber and God each have the same purpose (i.e. to reach a desired goal).

You seem not to be able to remember nor learn from your errors of logic because you repeat them again. That is because by the very definitions of God, and man, they occupy different realms.


Both, the robber’s and God‘s, threats to do harm are the coercive tool they’re using to compel the person to comply.
More apples and lug nuts



There is no relevant moral difference between the two scenarios. If you think otherwise, please explain what you think the difference is.

I did, but you did not comprehend what I posted.


Of course it’s not based in reality! It’s based on the God character depicted in the Bible. If you want to talk about over inflated egos, I’ll be happy to do that in another thread. Perhaps we could start by discussing the notion many theists seem to have that the entire universe was created just for them. Now, THAT’S something someone with an over inflated ego would believe.

Again, this is more evidence of your failure to learn from the grevious errors I pointed out because you are creating another strawman argument.


Please provide me with a demonstrably valid reason to take these verses seriously.

Ah! Yes. this is the "prove to me..." canard. BOTH of us know that this is a simple ruse to say that you are "rational" when in fact we both know that because you have hardened your heart to such an extent that there is nothing in the universe that would cause you to believe that there is indeed a God, and that He has revealed Himself in the Bible.


That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it. In reality, atheists are as capable of humility as anyone else. They simply won’t humble themselves to anyone’s notion of a deity without reasonable justification.

The Bible speaks of what you said there in a precise manner. Surely, there will be a time when you will bow your knee before Jesus Christ:
.
Philippians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he [Jesus Christ] humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

.
This is meaning that every thing that ever lived from frogs to donkeys, and beyond will bow to Jesus. My point being that if you think that you are smarter than a frog or a donkey, you have the opportunity to bow now at the name of Jesus Christ willingly, or later on, at the judgment seat, you shall be compelled to kneel. The reason for that compelled kneeling is that there is no other name than that of the Lord Jesus whereby anyone can be saved, and your failure to do so on earth will result in that compelled kneeling, followed by a painful eternity.

As a result, your irrational and sop****ric argumentation is a perfect example of what Paul stated in Romans:
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature...
.
And here is the reason why you cannot really understand the things of God. Scripture calls you "spiritually blind".
.
2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:


4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

.
For one reason or another, you seem not like the Scriptures that I posted because you neglected to respond to them. That is your choice, BUT in my posting them, you will never have the excuse before God to say, "No one ever told me the truth about Jesus Christ!!" I did exactly that.

So far, your argumentation consists of logical errors and rhetorical nonsense. It is void of any facts. I ask you have you EVER looked at the internal consistency of the Bible in an honest manner? Really, I guess not because you have surrounded yourself with an impenetrable wall of resistance whereby you decided in advance that you will reject everything that has any spiritual value. Are you aware that there are many former atheists who have decided to take an honest look at the internal consistency of the Bible and found that what the Bible says about itself is internally consistent?

One of those former atheists was Simon Greenleaf, a Law Professor at Harvard, who wrote the still-used rules for admittance of evidence in the United States Federal Court. Beginning with that framework, he applied the Rules of Evidence to the accounts in Acts and the Gospels of the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ. He wrote a book about that called An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists:by the Rules of Evidence... Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3ASimon%20Greenleaf) has it for free if you have a Kindle; otherwise it is less than $10.00 if you go onto the linked website.

I urge you to consider reading that, then make an informed decision. As of now, all your objections are rhetorical blathering, and have nothing to do with any facts. If you wish to continue in your pompous bombast after reading that, it is your choice, but if you wish to be rational about your reasons for rejecting the stringent rules of evidence that are applied to the resurrection, you will need to come up with a stronger reason than, "I do not like that." to over rule the great evidence for the resurrection that Greenleaf presents from only the Bible.

By reading that book, you have nothing to loose; however if you choose to not read the book, and reject out-of-hand the evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus then your objections will be noted as not consistent with facts, and that your continued objections shall be noted as the pompous blathering of a person who is not in touch with facts, but prefers living in his own castle in the air.

[alanmolstad]

It surprises me to find, on a Christian site, that God needs to be defined by me so that you can know who/what I’m talking about.

It should be obvious .........

One of the thee most important things we have heard Walter Martin teach on is the importance in defining our terms whenever we are in a conversation over religion.

There is no way to get around the fact that you can **** a lot of time debating and arguing on topics if you first dont stop and set down clearly what "you" mean by the use of a term.

The idea is that I cant control what the other guy does, nor can I force him to use my way of understanding terms, but I can control what i say, and i can make very clear what I mean when i use a term...


Thus, when a person makes use of a term like "GOD" in a discussion it really does help a lot of the person finds a place and time to fully define what he means by the use of the term "GOD"

while we may at times think that "Everyone knows what the term "god" means".....you don't have to spend much time on a forum that attracts as many Mormons as this one does to learn that there is a wide difference between what a Christian like myself means by the word "god' and what others mean.

[God-free]

This is your OP, and it is you who began to use the term, "God". Therefore, it is up to you to define the terms of the debate, otherwise no LOGICAL discussion is possible.I provided my definition, as requested, yet you’re still not satisfied.


It should be obvious that you do not know the God of the Bible.I’m as capable of reading and understanding the Bible as you are. You’re just miffed because my understanding of God doesn’t match yours.


In the face of what you originally stated (second quote) your first quote above is stating a condition contrary to fact.Incorrect. You ***umed the robbers intention was to cause harm. I explained his intention (and God’s) was to get something from someone. The choice of weapon, used to give credence to the threats made to coerce compliance, is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the immorality of the use of coercion to get what is asked/demanded of someone. Is that too difficult to grasp? I hope not because that’s the last time I intend to explain it to you.


You seem not to be able to remember nor learn from your errors of logic because you repeat them again. That is because by the very definitions of God, and man, they occupy different realms.I don’t care if God is a Martian who resides on the moon and considers himself the best belly dancer ever to grace a stage. It’s irrelevant to the moral and ethical observances in THIS realm of existence which is where these hypothetical scenarios are taking place.


Ah! Yes. this is the "prove to me..." canard. BOTH of us know that this is a simple ruse to say that you are "rational" when in fact we both know that because you have hardened your heart to such an extent that there is nothing in the universe that would cause you to believe that there is indeed a God, and that He has revealed Himself in the Bible.You can convince me there’s a God with a demonstration of its existence. Do that and I’ll become a theist.


The Bible speaks of...Again with the Bible verses? I’ve read it and I don’t believe it’s true. I’ve asked you to provide me with a demonstrably valid reason to believe it and all you gave me in return was an accusation of deception (“a simple ruse”, you called it) and of hardening my heart. That’s a failure on your part.



...I ask you have you EVER looked at the internal consistency of the Bible in an honest manner? Really, I guess not because you have surrounded yourself with an impenetrable wall of resistance whereby you decided in advance that you will reject everything that has any spiritual value. Are you aware that there are many former atheists who have decided to take an honest look at the internal consistency of the Bible and found that what the Bible says about itself is internally consistent?I've told you how you can penetrate the "impenetrable wall." Reliable evidence is all I need. And, btw, I am a former believer. I didn't decide in advance to reject religion. All I did was evaluate my beliefs in an effort to justify them. In doing so, I found that my beliefs were unjustifiable. So, yes, I looked into the internal consistency of the Bible. Even if it were internally consistent (it’s not), that doesn’t make it TRUE.

[John T]

I provided my definition, as requested, yet you’re still not satisfied.

You provided your opinion, which is NOT the same as a definition


I’m as capable of reading and understanding the Bible as you are. You’re just miffed because my understanding of God doesn’t match yours.

I am NOT miffed, and you are projecting your prejudice upon me.


Incorrect. You ***umed the [ARMED] robbers intention was to cause harm.

I explained that it is the intrinsic nature of an armed robber to do harm to someone. To think otherwise is to believe a condition contrary to fact.



I explained his intention (and God’s) was to get something from someone. The choice of weapon, used to give credence to the threats made to coerce compliance, is irrelevant.

And I demonstrated that you have created a logical error In case you are unaware, the accurate exposure of an error of logic infalidated the ehtire statement, not just its premise.


What IS relevant is the immorality of the use of coercion to get what is asked/demanded of someone. Is that too difficult to grasp? I hope not because that’s the last time I intend to explain it to you.

And I demonstrated that you have created a logical error In case you are unaware, the accurate exposure of an error of logic infalidated the ehtire statement, not just its premise. I hope that is the last time I need to explain THAT to you.




I don’t care if God is a Martian who resides on the moon and considers himself the best belly dancer ever to grace a stage.

This is another logical fallacy because it is merely a hypothetical concoction coming from your coco.



You can convince me there’s a God with a demonstration of its existence. Do that and I’ll become a theist.

I can demonstrate the degree of your error, but convincing you to believe is another matter due to your predetermined choice not to believe.


Again with the Bible verses? I’ve read it and I don’t believe it’s true. I’ve asked you to provide me with a demonstrably valid reason to believe it and all you gave me in return was an accusation of deception (“a simple ruse”, you called it) and of hardening my heart. That’s a failure on your part.

I really believe this claim of yours is disingenuous . You are not objective, and rather biased, I might add.



I 've told you how you can penetrate the "impenetrable wall." Reliable evidence is all I need.

Of what do you believe that "reliable evidence" consists?


And, btw, I am a former believer. I didn't decide in advance to reject religion. All I did was evaluate my beliefs in an effort to justify them. In doing so, I found that my beliefs were unjustifiable. So, yes, I looked into the internal consistency of the Bible. Even if it were internally consistent (it’s not), that doesn’t make it TRUE.

Pardon but your bias is showing, as well as your many errors in logic.

Is there an event in your life that caused you to begin doubting?

What things did you find "inconsistent"?

[Christodoulos]

Then what is spiritual and why do you equate that with human?
If you were to ask me where human values come from, I’d tell you they come from humans.

What you said about atheists is just silly. Some of them would likely give you an evolution related explanation. What I can tell you is that a study published in Psychological Science, has shown that babies are “disturbed by displays of injustice” indicating an innate sense of fairness. Study co-author Stephanie Sloane said, “We think children are born with a skeleton of general expectations about fairness and these principles and concepts get shaped in different ways depending on the culture and the environment they’re brought up in.”
Religion may have developed and ins***utionalized their own moral systems, but that in no way means that religion invented morality. Also, a belief in “something greater than oneself” isn’t necessary to be moral. This is demonstrated by the existence of all the good and moral atheists on the planet.


Do you really believe that Christianity is the only thing in all the world that’s keeping the human race from running rampant? That’s simply not true. The fact is that good people will be good and bad people will be bad. Imperfect as they are, there are systems in place to separate the bad guys from the good and we can modify and improve those systems as needed.

I think you’re letting your imagination get the best of you. There’s a clear and compelling correlation between a largely nonreligious population and societal well being. Your predictions of what a nonreligious world would look like are unnecessarily gloomy.

There are lots of reasons for increases in violence among children.
Genetics and environment, poor parenting, exposure to violence, social and economic factors, to name a few. To declare that THE reason is the lack of Christian faith is unjustifiable.

you may be fighting your imagination .. in terms of morality and its sustainability in human society.

Lock five best friends in a room with only four bags of groceries to survive on and come back after a week and then talk to me about morality and injustices in the world.

[God-free]

You provided your opinion, which is NOT the same as a definitionThe God of the Bible! If you've read it, you know exactly who I'm talking about. And yes, part of what I said was opinion. So what? I think you're just dragging this out because you like to "hear" yourself talk.


I am NOT miffed, and you are projecting your prejudice upon me.Yeah, you're miffed.



I explained that it is the intrinsic nature of an armed robber to do harm to someone. To think otherwise is to believe a condition contrary to fact.I'm not explaining this to you again.



And I demonstrated that you have created a logical error In case you are unaware, the accurate exposure of an error of logic infalidated the ehtire statement, not just its premise.

And I demonstrated that you have created a logical error In case you are unaware, the accurate exposure of an error of logic infalidated the ehtire statement, not just its premise. I hope that is the last time I need to explain THAT to you.This thread is intended to be a discussion. It's not a formal debate. If you think the God of the Bible is exempted from moral behavior, say so.


I can demonstrate the degree of your error, but convincing you to believe is another matter due to your predetermined choice not to believe.I'm not asking you to convince me to believe. I'm asking for the evidence that would justify believing. Mine is NOT a predetermined choice. It's the only honest choice I could make.


I really believe this claim of yours is disingenuous . You are not objective, and rather biased, I might add.What I said was accurate. I asked you to provide me with a demonstrably valid reason to believe it and all I got from you was accusations.


Of what do you believe that "reliable evidence" consists?If I knew that, I wouldn't have asked you.


Is there an event in your life that caused you to begin doubting?No.


What things did you find "inconsistent"?I don't have that kind of time. Peruse this (http://www.1001biblecontradictions.com/) at your leisure, if you're so inclined.

[God-free]

you may be fighting your imagination .. in terms of morality and its sustainability in human society.I only fight my imagination on the rare occasions when it tends to run wild.


Lock five best friends in a room with only four bags of groceries to survive on and come back after a week and then talk to me about morality and injustices in the world.Wow. You have a shockingly low opinion of people.

[Christodoulos]

I only fight my imagination on the rare occasions when it tends to run wild.

Wow. You have a shockingly low opinion of people.

I believe in a God who redeems people not worthy of redeeming. It's not a LOW opinion of people ,it's the way it is.

[God-free]

I believe in a God who redeems people not worthy of redeeming.Why do you believe that? And who are the people you're referring to?


It's not a LOW opinion of people ,it's the way it is.Those 5 best friends you spoke of would, more likely than not, manage to stretch those 4 bags of groceries in such a way as to make sure no one went without during their week of captivity. It probably wouldn't be that hard to do. But, the reason I said you have a low opinion of people is because the challenge was a pretty mild one. You gave me the impression that you would expect them to be at each other's throats.

"The way it is" is that people aren't perfect and never have been. That doesn't mean we're all terrible people. This idea from religion, that people are desperately wicked and every part of them (mind, will, emotions and flesh) are corrupted, is one of the things I despise about it. It's simply not true. I'd go so far as to say that to teach these things amounts to mental and emotional abuse. It's intended to crush a person's self-esteem so that they'll latch on to "salvation" being offered. It's akin to a doctor cutting you with his scalpel just so he can sell you a band aid -- a very expensive band aid it is, too.

[John T]

The God of the Bible! If you've read it, you know exactly who I'm talking about. And yes, part of what I said was opinion. So what? I think you're just dragging this out because you like to "hear" yourself talk.

Yeah, you're miffed.
I'm not explaining this to you again.

We are bickering unproductively. Let's cease, OK?


This thread is intended to be a discussion. It's not a formal debate.

Sorry, but to have any resemblance of discussion, it is required to follow the debating principles, foremost is that the one who stated the argument must also define the terms of the argument. A failure to do that will surely result in us talking at each other rather than talking to each other. It is a matter of clarity, and nothing else.



I'm not asking you to convince me to believe. I'm asking for the evidence that would justify believing. Mine is NOT a predetermined choice. It's the only honest choice I could make.
What I said was accurate. I asked you to provide me with a demonstrably valid reason to believe it and all I got from you was accusations.

Alright, your position is NOT predetermined. What in your mind would represent a "demonstrably 'valid' reason" to believe that something I put forth? This is a critical question, so I ask you for specifics, by saying, "If I saw X, Y, or Z, then I would believe."

[Christodoulos]

Why do you believe that? And who are the people you're referring to?

Those 5 best friends you spoke of would, more likely than not, manage to stretch those 4 bags of groceries in such a way as to make sure no one went without during their week of captivity. It probably wouldn't be that hard to do. But, the reason I said you have a low opinion of people is because the challenge was a pretty mild one. You gave me the impression that you would expect them to be at each other's throats.

"The way it is" is that people aren't perfect and never have been. That doesn't mean we're all terrible people. This idea from religion, that people are desperately wicked and every part of them (mind, will, emotions and flesh) are corrupted, is one of the things I despise about it. It's simply not true. I'd go so far as to say that to teach these things amounts to mental and emotional abuse. It's intended to crush a person's self-esteem so that they'll latch on to "salvation" being offered. It's akin to a doctor cutting you with his scalpel just so he can sell you a band aid -- a very expensive band aid it is, too.

I said to check on how the 5 best friends were doing after 4-5 days .. there was no set time mentioned.

I know that you are probably a public school teacher or social welfare worker ;it doesn't really matter.

I don't know how you can be blind to the rest of the world.

If you want a glimpse of the barbarism which exists in today's world ,it's still there ,it's still part of humanity ;and if this is how it is today ,you don't really need a vivid imagination to see what mankind experienced in past ages.

As Christianity retreats ,and it is retreating, all the progress humanity has made to date will recede along with it.

Look at the middle east.. Look at Africa.Look at Asia.

[God-free]

We are bickering unproductively. Let's cease, OK?Happily!


Sorry, but to have any resemblance of discussion, it is required to follow the debating principles, foremost is that the one who stated the argument must also define the terms of the argument. A failure to do that will surely result in us talking at each other rather than talking to each other. It is a matter of clarity, and nothing else.
The OP is an ****ogy (a comparison between two situations that are similar) followed by, what I consider to be, a very reasonable question. The time to define terms, if need be, is during the ensuing discussion. Perhaps I should’ve identified which God I was talking about, but as I explained earlier, I didn’t think it would be necessary on a Christian site.

In my last post to you I said, “If you think the God of the Bible is exempted from moral behavior, say so.” Is that your position? If so, then all I want is for you to explain your reasoning to me and we can take it from there (I know you said something earlier about God occupying a different realm of existence but I still don't see the relevance.). I'd also like to know why a God, who is worthy of worship, would need to resort to this type, or any type, of coercion to get what he wants from us?


Alright, your position is NOT predetermined. What in your mind would represent a "demonstrably 'valid' reason" to believe that something I put forth? This is a critical question, so I ask you for specifics, by saying, "If I saw X, Y, or Z, then I would believe.

A long while ago, during my search for justification for my own beliefs, I had a discussion on another site with a man who turned out to be a preacher. After telling me that God loves me and wants me to know him, the preacher asked what God would have to do to convince me of his existence. I told him that I didn’t know what he’d have to do, but God, if he’s all he’s cracked up to be, would certainly know what would convince me and, as of yet, he hasn’t provided it.

God, if he exists, seems to be engaged in a perpetual game of hide-and-seek. Why won’t he simply reveal himself to everyone? It would surely put a stop to much, if not all, of the conflict in this world.

For me to conjure up something from my own imagination won’t get me any closer to a demonstrably valid reason to believe that the Bible is true and God is real. As a believer (and I’m ***uming you‘re also an adult), I want to know how you justify your beliefs, and I would hope that you‘d be able to articulate it. Who knows? Maybe you’ll be the one to bring me back into “the fold.” It’s not beyond the realm of possibility.

[God-free]

I said to check on how the 5 best friends were doing after 4-5 days .. there was no set time mentioned.Yes, but after only a week, what would you expect to find? Like I said, you gave the impression that you expected that they’d be at each other’s throats (or at least you would expect to find one of the friends dead or dying from lack of food and water). I think people are better than that. Although, I must admit, there are times when I think the world would be a much better place without us in it.



I know that you are probably a public school teacher or social welfare worker ;it doesn't really matter.I’m neither, but it’s nice to be mistaken for those things. Thank You!



I don't know how you can be blind to the rest of the world.Oh, I’m not blind to what’s happening in the world. I’m just not attributing it to what religion calls “the fall of man.” And, I’m certainly not attributing it to the entirety of the human race. To do that is tantamount to a slap in the face to all of the truly good people, religious and non-religious, who are working to make the world a better place. That being said, one would have to be blind not to see that a huge chunk of the world's troubles are due to religious differences.



If you want a glimpse of the barbarism which exists in today's world ,it's still there ,it's still part of humanity ;and if this is how it is today ,you don't really need a vivid imagination to see what mankind experienced in past ages.I’m aware of what humanity has experienced in past ages. That includes an awareness of the role religion has played in so much of it (and still does). Thank goodness for the enlightenment/secularism and the First Amendment of our Cons***ution. Without that, myself and many, many more would probably have been burnt at the stake by now, by the Christians in this country, for the “crime” of nonbelief (basically, thought crime).



As Christianity retreats ,and it is retreating, all the progress humanity has made to date will recede along with it.If Christianity is retreating, it’s likely because people are finally beginning to see through it. I feel safe in saying that the progress we’ve made over the last couple of centuries has occurred despite Christianiy/religion, rather than because of it.



Look at the middle east.. Look at Africa.Look at Asia.Look at the United States! Just this morning I came across this (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/10/15-things-everyone-would-know-if-there-were-a-liberal-media/).
It spells out some of the reasons why the US is experiencing so many problems lately (I‘m looking at you, GOP). It talks about:
- the scarcity of ***s and why

- wealth inequality and why

- who is really making our laws

- the U.S. prison population compared to other countries
and more.
All this is happening in a country where, if you include Catholics, approximately 75% of the population self-identifies as Christian. It’s an eye-opener and I recommend that you read it (it won‘t take long).

[John T]

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by John T Alright, your position is NOT predetermined. What in your mind would represent a "demonstrably 'valid' reason" to believe that something I put forth? This is a critical question, so I ask you for specifics, by saying, "If I saw X, Y, or Z, then I would believe.



The OP is an ****ogy (a comparison between two situations that are similar) followed by, what I consider to be, a very reasonable question. The time to define terms, if need be, is during the ensuing discussion. Perhaps I should’ve identified which God I was talking about, but as I explained earlier, I didn’t think it would be necessary on a Christian site.

In my last post to you I said, “If you think the God of the Bible is exempted from moral behavior, say so.” Is that your position? If so, then all I want is for you to explain your reasoning to me and we can take it from there (I know you said something earlier about God occupying a different realm of existence but I still don't see the relevance.). I'd also like to know why a God, who is worthy of worship, would need to resort to this type, or any type, of coercion to get what he wants from us?

A long while ago, during my search for justification for my own beliefs, I had a discussion on another site with a man who turned out to be a preacher. After telling me that God loves me and wants me to know him, the preacher asked what God would have to do to convince me of his existence. I told him that I didn’t know what he’d have to do, but God, if he’s all he’s cracked up to be, would certainly know what would convince me and, as of yet, he hasn’t provided it.

Well, you can see why I asked the question that I did. Neither the preacher nor I are God, so it is unrealistic that we on our own, will come up with something that will "scratch your itch" when it comes to the "proofs that are acceptable to you".

For example if you knew statistics and were a Mormon, I could show you how a chi square ****ysis proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the Book of Mormon was written by one person, Joseph Smith. But because the Mormons do not like the facts that demonstrate the errors in their cherished beliefs, then they reject that scientific ****ysis out of hand. I want to reduce the same sort of reaction from you, and that is why I asked in advance.


God, if he exists, seems to be engaged in a perpetual game of hide-and-seek. Why won’t he simply reveal himself to everyone? It would surely put a stop to much, if not all, of the conflict in this world.

God is not hiding like a chameleon; He has made his works apparent to everyone:
.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
.



For me to conjure up something from my own imagination won’t get me any closer to a demonstrably valid reason to believe that the Bible is true and God is real. As a believer (and I’m ***uming you‘re also an adult), I want to know how you justify your beliefs, and I would hope that you‘d be able to articulate it. Who knows? Maybe you’ll be the one to bring me back into “the fold.” It’s not beyond the realm of possibility.

Indeed. that is the reason I dialog with you. You stated it, and I will not deny it. Do you think that a discussion on the real nature of prophecy, the rules of Einstein about prophecy and the result that the odds for all of the prophecies about Jesus coming true, are greater than a billion to one would help you understand?

Before I go further, I believe that you MAY not have committed the unpardonable sin due to the fact that that last statement indicates that you want a reason to believe, and as far as I am able, and with help from Holy Spirit, I will be as dilligent as I can.

But let's not get distracted from those in the "peanut gallery". On this particular forum, there will be some who wish to be snarky, and destroy any sort of civil discussion between us. I will ignore them if you agree to do likewise. If need be, this can be moved to another area where only you and I can participate.

[MacG]

1.) An armed robber approaches you. He puts his gun to your head and says he wants your money. If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you.

2.) God approaches you. He claims to be all powerful and wants you to place all of your trust in him. If you do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to paradise. If you won't/can't do that, then when you die, he'll transport you to a place of torment.


Do you see a moral difference between these two scenarios? If so, please explain your reasoning. Thanks.

The major difference that I perceive is that the first scenario is a lose-lose situation for me. A victimization either way and the sinning robber profits either way he still gets the money with me dead or alive. Sure if I give him the money and he is an honorable robber who does not mind witnesses then I get to live in a humiliated state and poorer to boot.

The second scenario offers a way out from ***ured destruction much like someone warning the bridge is out ahead, those who take the detour are saved from the existing peril which lays ahead and likely the 'warner' gains a living friend in the 'warnee'.

That's how I now view that.

In another thread in this post the Garden scene is brought up. While it is true that they were commanded to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God did not threaten them with death but rather warned them of the consequence of such an action. I see it more like a parent telling a kid you can eat anything out of the frige but nothing from under the sink because it will kill you.

and that's how I now view that not that you asked however...

God-Free, I am curious when did you stop believing? Was it about the time someone said something different than what you were being taught at Church? Things just did not add up in your head? If you'd rather you can PM me or if it is none of my business, please tell me so and I will drop it.

Respect and blessings,

MacG

[God-free]

Well, you can see why I asked the question that I did. Neither the preacher nor I are God, so it is unrealistic that we on our own, will come up with something that will "scratch your itch" when it comes to the "proofs that are acceptable to you". Then the only honest conclusion I can come to is that God, if he exists, doesn’t really want me to know him.


God is not hiding like a chameleon; He has made his works apparent to everyone:If God exists then yes, he is and no, he hasn’t. What is apparent to everyone is the existence of things that we see and things that we don’t see. What is not apparent is that those things are the “works” of any deity.


Indeed. that is the reason I dialog with you. You stated it, and I will not deny it. Do you think that a discussion on the real nature of prophecy, the rules of Einstein about prophecy and the result that the odds for all of the prophecies about Jesus coming true, are greater than a billion to one would help you understand?I’d be willing to discuss the odds of this, provided those odds have been calculated by a group of impartial professional statisticians, each with a masters degree, and provided I'm able to comprehend it. It would be interesting to see what kind of experiments they performed, what the ****yzed results were, and if they’d be able to accurately predict future events based on their findings.


Before I go further, I believe that you MAY not have committed the unpardonable sin due to the fact that that last statement indicates that you want a reason to believe, and as far as I am able, and with help from Holy Spirit, I will be as dilligent as I can.It’s not so much that I want a reason to believe. What I want is to know that my beliefs, whatever they are, have a reasonable justification and aren’t merely based on what makes me feel good. In other words, I’d rather be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie. So, if God exists, I want to know that, regardless of my opinions of the way he's depicted in the Bible.


But let's not get distracted from those in the "peanut gallery". On this particular forum, there will be some who wish to be snarky, and destroy any sort of civil discussion between us. I will ignore them if you agree to do likewise. If need be, this can be moved to another area where only you and I can participate.I like the “peanut gallery”. I even like the snarky ones. At first, I’ll simply ignore the first instance or two, but after that the gloves come off. Sometimes a good “snark contest” can be fun. I suppose its entertainment value depends on how easily one is offended (I’m not). I try not to start them but, I figure, if someone starts one with me and winds up angry or with hurt feelings, well, they did ask for it. On the flip side, I’ve been out-snarked before and then life went on. It’s no biggie.

[God-free]

Hiya Mac! Long time no "see". :D


The major difference that I perceive is that the first scenario is a lose-lose situation for me. A victimization either way and the sinning robber profits either way he still gets the money with me dead or alive. Sure if I give him the money and he is an honorable robber who does not mind witnesses then I get to live in a humiliated state and poorer to boot.Interesting. Although, one could look at it as a lose-win situation for you. Sure, you’ve been victimized and lost whatever cash you had in your wallet but you did come out of it with your life. I won’t get into the part about whether or not the robber wouldn’t want to leave a witness because that strays outside of the parameters of the OP. And, since you’ve called the offender a “sinning robber”, I think it’s safe to say that you and I agree that what the robber did is immoral.


The second scenario offers a way out from ***ured destruction much like someone warning the bridge is out ahead, those who take the detour are saved from the existing peril which lays ahead and likely the 'warner' gains a living friend in the 'warnee'.

That's how I now view that.That’s one way to look at it but it doesn’t quite p*** muster. Each scenario presents very similar ultimatums. Just like the robber, God said he wanted something and that if he didn’t get it he’d inflict harm on the person. In applying your view to the OP, the way I see it, God isn’t warning you that “the bridge is out ahead”. What he is doing is threatening to take the bridge out from under you if you don't go his way.


In another thread in this post the Garden scene is brought up. While it is true that they were commanded to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God did not threaten them with death but rather warned them of the consequence of such an action. I see it more like a parent telling a kid you can eat anything out of the frige but nothing from under the sink because it will kill you.

and that's how I now view that not that you asked however...This is something I’d prefer to discuss in the other thread, if you don’t mind. I try not to, but I’ve already managed to allow myself to get into off-topic discussions with 2 others in this thread.


God-Free, I am curious when did you stop believing? Was it about the time someone said something different than what you were being taught at Church? Things just did not add up in your head? If you'd rather you can PM me or if it is none of my business, please tell me so and I will drop it.I’d be happy to discuss this with you, and I don’t mind doing it in an open thread so that others can read it and join in if they want to. Post a thread and I’ll respond when I’m able.

[Christodoulos]

god-free ,can you begin a new thread,one that makes a little bit more sense.

For me it's never been that rewarding debating atheists, it always come down to :he said, she said.

And ,it's not a matter of winning or losing ,but did we communicate our thoughts and beliefs or did we fail...

that's why you need to clarify ..

[God-free]

god-free ,can you begin a new thread,one that makes a little bit more sense.

For me it's never been that rewarding debating atheists, it always come down to :he said, she said.

And ,it's not a matter of winning or losing ,but did we communicate our thoughts and beliefs or did we fail...

that's why you need to clarify ..What part of our conversation are you having trouble understanding?

[MacG]

Hiya Mac! Long time no "see". :D

Yup. long time no typo:)


Interesting. Although, one could look at it as a lose-win situation for you. Sure, you’ve been victimized and lost whatever cash you had in your wallet but you did come out of it with your life.

Except the money the robber took from me was the money I was going to pay my loan shark off with and now he's after me.... :)


I won’t get into the part about whether or not the robber wouldn’t want to leave a witness because that strays outside of the parameters of the OP. And, since you’ve called the offender a “sinning robber”, I think it’s safe to say that you and I agree that what the robber did is immoral.

For now I will stipulate.


That’s one way to look at it but it doesn’t quite p*** muster. Each scenario presents very similar ultimatums.

To me they are very different, The robber will take my life as I know it. God offers me a choice in something which I cannot see after I live out my natural life.


Just like the robber, God said he wanted something and that if he didn’t get it he’d inflict harm on the person. In applying your view to the OP, the way I see it, God isn’t warning you that “the bridge is out ahead”. What he is doing is threatening to take the bridge out from under you if you don't go his way.

The bridge is out for all beyond the bend which we cannot see and not by God's doing. It is a chasm that not not even the Dukes of Hazard can jump in their souped up charger. God warns the bridge is out but there is another way.

This is something I’d prefer to discuss in the other thread, if you don’t mind. I try not to, but I’ve already managed to allow myself to get into off-topic discussions with 2 others in this thread.

We can do that in another thread if you like but it is germane to the discussion of whether God warned or caused the the bridge to be out.


I’d be happy to discuss this with you, and I don’t mind doing it in an open thread so that others can read it and join in if they want to. Post a thread and I’ll respond when I’m able.

I appreciate your openness about that.

[John T]

Then the only honest conclusion I can come to is that God, if he exists, doesn’t really want me to know him.
I am of the opposite oppinion because I believe that the Bible alone is His revelation to us. Otherwise it would not be written over a period of 2000+ years.


If God exists then yes, he is and no, he hasn’t. What is apparent to everyone is the existence of things that we see and things that we don’t see. What is not apparent is that those things are the “works” of any deity.

We will also disagree on that point.


I’d be willing to discuss the odds of this, provided those odds have been calculated by a group of impartial professional statisticians, each with a masters degree, and provided I'm able to comprehend it. It would be interesting to see what kind of experiments they performed, what the ****yzed results were, and if they’d be able to accurately predict future events based on their findings.

In pursuit of a second Master's I studied stats. Even if there was a chi square ****ysis (which measures the difference between what would be expected in a normal distribution, aka a bell curve) done, I doubt that you would be able to understand it. That is because it involves outrageously high numbers such as the multiplication of terms squared. Instead, I will use simple probability as well the use of exponents to create understandable and easily verified numbers, if that is OK with you.


It’s not so much that I want a reason to believe. What I want is to know that my beliefs, whatever they are, have a reasonable justification and aren’t merely based on what makes me feel good. In other words, I’d rather be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie. So, if God exists, I want to know that, regardless of my opinions of the way he's depicted in the Bible.

Feelings are a horrid "measure of truth" because by definition, feelings are subjective, and not verifiable.


I like the “peanut gallery”. I even like the snarky ones. At first, I’ll simply ignore the first instance or two, but after that the gloves come off. Sometimes a good “snark contest” can be fun. I suppose its entertainment value depends on how easily one is offended (I’m not). I try not to start them but, I figure, if someone starts one with me and winds up angry or with hurt feelings, well, they did ask for it. On the flip side, I’ve been out-snarked before and then life went on. It’s no biggie.

I simply meant that there will be some from this forum who will attempt to derail a civil discussion, and we both know that.

Let me preface this with an adaptation of Socrates. Just as the unexamined life is not worth the living, so also is the unaxamined religion not worth the believing. That is because by the very nature of the term "religion", every religion sets out to determine meaning about the cause, nature and purpose of the Universe. Religion gives the answer to the questions like "Why am I here?" and "Why am I as a human, the only creature able to converse with other like humans and speak on an abstract level?" and "Is there anything bigger than me?"

Since those questions cannot be adequately by any science alone, and the answers to those questions above are subjective, it must fall to a combination of both science and of observation to make the case for belief in a sufficiently persuasive manner that rules out chance as a reason for things happening. In other words, if there can be no other explanation for something, such as prophecy being of chance or inevitability, it must be God's handiwork.

Therefore before anyone does any mathematics about prophecy, a strong definition must be established; remember the purpose of the definition is to rule out any possibility of being able to foresee something or of inevitably. The Wright Brothers making a prediction that men will be able to go to the moon, is an expected outcome of manned flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina thus making a case for inevitability. See what I mean?

Are you with me so far?

[Christodoulos]

What part of our conversation are you having trouble understanding?

The part where you define morality.

May I ask this question... Do you believe that Gay sex is the moral equivalent of hetero sex.

please answer with a simple yes or no to begin,
and then start your explanation.

I'm convinced that in today's world, ****s are embracing atheism for no other reason but to grant themselves a license to commit perversions .

[God-free]

Except the money the robber took from me was the money I was going to pay my loan shark off with and now he's after me.... :)LOL!


For now I will stipulate.For now? :confused:


To me they are very different, The robber will take my life as I know it. God offers me a choice in something which I cannot see after I live out my natural life.Is the robber’s gun loaded? The OP doesn’t say one way or the other. They both gave you a choice that promises something which you cannot see (i.e. a bullet from one; a terrible afterlife from the other). They both used coercion as a way to attain their goals.
I know it’s uncomfortable for believers to admit, but there is no moral difference between the two scenarios as they‘re presented. I think your God gl***es are obstructing your view.
The following is a joke but it’s accurate and it's what this thread is about:

Knock knock

Q. Who’s there?

A. It’s Jesus. Let me in.

Q. Why?

A. So I can save you.

Q. From what?

A. From what I’m going to do to you if you don’t let me in.



The bridge is out for all beyond the bend which we cannot see and not by God's doing. It is a chasm that not not even the Dukes of Hazard can jump in their souped up charger. God warns the bridge is out but there is another way.Humorous though it is, this is preaching and doesn’t address the point that God uses coercion in the same way the robber does.


We can do that in another thread if you like but it is germane to the discussion of whether God warned or caused the the bridge to be out.“The Garden scene” has no relevance to this thread’s topic.


I appreciate your openness about that.:)

[God-free]

I am of the opposite oppinion because I believe that the Bible alone is His revelation to us. Otherwise it would not be written over a period of 2000+ years.The Bible is only said to be God’s revelation to us. The same is said about the Quran and other so-called holy books. Neither the belief that it‘s God‘s revelation, nor the length of time it took to write it all down (and not even its popularity) will make it so.


We will also disagree on that point.I’m sure we do. It’s worth noting, though, that not a single thing we’ve learned about ourselves, the earth, or the universe has ever revealed a shred of evidence indicating that a deity had/has anything to do with it.


In pursuit of a second Master's I studied stats. Even if there was a chi square ****ysis (which measures the difference between what would be expected in a normal distribution, aka a bell curve) done, I doubt that you would be able to understand it. ...Perhaps not. We’ll just have to wait and see. However, I am interested in knowing where you found “…the result that the odds for all of the prophecies about Jesus coming true, are greater than a billion to one”. Do you have a link?


Feelings are a horrid "measure of truth" because by definition, feelings are subjective, and not verifiable.I agree that feelings are not a measure of truth and, yet, the reasons I generally get from Christians for why they believe will usually boil down to just that. I’ve even been told outright by some that if it were proved, without a doubt, that God is and always has been a figment of the imagination, they’d reject the proof in favor of the belief.


I simply meant that there will be some from this forum who will attempt to derail a civil discussion, and we both know that.I know what you meant. I guess you’d know better than me since I don’t visit here very often.


Let me preface this with an adaptation of Socrates. Just as the unexamined life is not worth the living, so also is the unaxamined religion not worth the believing. That is because by the very nature of the term "religion", every religion sets out to determine meaning about the cause, nature and purpose of the Universe. Religion gives the answer to the questions like "Why am I here?" and "Why am I as a human, the only creature able to converse with other like humans and speak on an abstract level?" and "Is there anything bigger than me?"I agree that religion gives answers. Answers are easy; virtually anybody can do it. Determining what the correct answer is; that‘s not so easy. There’s only one way to determine whether or not an answer you’ve received is correct and that’s by way of a demonstration of its validity.


... In other words, if there can be no other explanation for something, such as prophecy being of chance or inevitability, it must be God's handiwork.Or it’s something else. The gist of what you’ve said is, “I don’t know what else could explain it, therefore God did it.” To simply insert God wherever there’s a gap in our knowledge is deceptive and misleading. It only serves to encourage believers to stop looking for real answers to their questions.


Therefore before anyone does any mathematics about prophecy, a strong definition must be established; remember the purpose of the definition is to rule out any possibility of being able to foresee something or of inevitably. The Wright Brothers making a prediction that men will be able to go to the moon, is an expected outcome of manned flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina thus making a case for inevitability. See what I mean?

Are you with me so far?Yes, I see what you mean. However, until a statistical ****ysis, of the sort I mentioned earlier, is done by qualified and impartial statisticians (one of which I am not), then I don’t think you and I can have a fruitful discussion on that matter. Besides, being that I’m currently involved in a few other conversations taking place all at once, I’m feeling a bit fatigued now. Am I the only non-believer on this website these days?

[God-free]

The part where you define morality.I don’t recall giving a definition of morality. Morality refers to the judgment of the goodness or badness* of human action and character as they relate to accepted/acceptable standards or conduct.

*Goodness and badness are more difficult to define because everyone seems to have their own ideas of what they mean. I tend to rely on reason to determine if something is good/right/beneficial or bad/wrong/harmful.


May I ask this question... Do you believe that Gay sex is the moral equivalent of hetero sex.

please answer with a simple yes or no to begin,
and then start your explanation.Yes, and this is why:
The sexual acts performed between consenting adults is none of my business. It doesn’t matter if those involved are ****sexual or heterosexual. As long as they aren’t involving anyone else who is unwilling or unable to give consent, then no moral ***essment is even necessary.


I'm convinced that in today's world, ****s are embracing atheism for no other reason but to grant themselves a license to commit perversions .What makes you think that? Are you under the impression that ****sexual believers don’t exist? I know for a fact that they do. What about substance abusers, adulterers, thieves, liars, murderers, etc.? Are they all atheists, too?
It doesn’t appear you’ve given any serious thought to this.

[John T]

<SNIP>
I agree that religion gives answers. Answers are easy; virtually anybody can do it. Determining what the correct answer is; that‘s not so easy. There’s only one way to determine whether or not an answer you’ve received is correct and that’s by way of a demonstration of its validity.

Or it’s something else. The gist of what you’ve said is, “I don’t know what else could explain it, therefore God did it.” To simply insert God wherever there’s a gap in our knowledge is deceptive and misleading. It only serves to encourage believers to stop looking for real answers to their questions.

What I am doing is to establish a prior philosophical and logical basis for the discussion of prophecy. One of the strenghts of the apologetics os Walter Martin was his insistence on defining the terms of the argument. That way the cultist, (most notably the Mormons) could not change the definition of a unicorn into that of a Pegasus; the difference being that the former has the body of a horse, and a spiral horn protruding from its forehead, and the latter also has the body of a horse, but lacks the horn, and can fly with the wings attached to irs spinal column.


Yes, I see what you mean. However, until a statistical ****ysis, of the sort I mentioned earlier, is done by qualified and impartial statisticians (one of which I am not), then I don’t think you and I can have a fruitful discussion on that matter. Besides, being that I’m currently involved in a few other conversations taking place all at once, I’m feeling a bit fatigued now. Am I the only non-believer on this website these days?

It is rather a simple process to determine probability, and I will get to that later. I want to go about this methodically so you can see that this is logical, mathematically accurate, and that I am not making any ewrrors of logic. (spelling is another matter! :p)

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." Einstein

"I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones." Steven Hawking

In both of these statements in red above, there is an inherent statement that there MUST be an objective, and observable and therefore unbiased component in religion. The only alternative is to have feelings and other subjective things that are unmeasurable. Therefore if we are speaking about the existence of prophecy, we first have to define it, and then having done that, we must be able to have a way to measure it.

Since this discussion centers on prophecy in general, and BIBLICAL prophecy in particular, I will therefore propose that prophecy in general is the foretelling of an event in advance of its completion, and that BIBLICAL prophecy is similar, but it is also characterized by having known Prophet foretell an event, and that event is a warning, exhortation or instruction, all of which are divinely inspired by the definition of the word, "Prophet" and having the penalty of execution for an utterance of a prophecy that does not come about, or is falsely claimed to be from God:
.
Deuteronomy 18: 20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to p***, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
.
How are we to then measure prophecy? That is also relatively simple, it must be written down. Just as an oral contract is not worth the paper upon which it is written, so also is all prophecy that is not written down not worth anything. It is just like the childhood game we all played called "whisper down the lane". Because oral tradition changes at each retelling, and is not backed up by anything objective whereby anyone can authenticate it, then all religions that rely on oral traditions are unreliable as instruments of prophecy.

As a result, metaphysical and no "holy hook" religions of the East, and these religions: Buddhism (Dhamapada), Taoism (Taoist Tao-Te Ching), Hinduism (Bhagavad-Gita ), Sikhism (Guru Granth Sahib Ji) can be dismissed from the discussion because their "holy books" have nothing of a prophetic nature in them.

There are then only four religions which have prophecies in written form: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Nostradamians. Each of these have records that are "frozen in time" and then it is possible to examine these further.

However, I gotta go, so I will pick this up again at a later time

[Christodoulos]

"Yes, and this is why:
The sexual acts performed between consenting adults is none of my business. It doesn’t matter if those involved are ****sexual or heterosexual. As long as they aren’t involving anyone else who is unwilling or unable to give consent, then no moral ***essment is even necessary.

I'm convinced that in today's world, ****s are embracing atheism for no other reason but to grant themselves a license to commit perversions .
What makes you think that? Are you under the impression that ****sexual believers don’t exist? I know for a fact that they do. What about substance abusers, adulterers, thieves, liars, murderers, etc.? Are they all atheists, too?
It doesn’t appear you’ve given any serious thought to this. "

The idea that sexual acts between consenting adults is none of your business is an immoral position to take.

**** sex is unnatural sex;it's a perversion of sexuality.

Anything unnatural should be everyone's concern. "It's not good to fool mother nature"

It seem to be a given that today's atheists are also pro gay sex or are ****s themselves. one doesn't necessarily follow the other but gays need an ideology and atheism is ready made just for them.

[God-free]

What I am doing is to establish a prior philosophical and logical basis for the discussion of prophecy. One of the strenghts of the apologetics os Walter Martin was his insistence on defining the terms of the argument. That way the cultist, (most notably the Mormons) could not change the definition of a unicorn into that of a Pegasus; the difference being that the former has the body of a horse, and a spiral horn protruding from its forehead, and the latter also has the body of a horse, but lacks the horn, and can fly with the wings attached to irs spinal column.

It is rather a simple process to determine probability, and I will get to that later. I want to go about this methodically so you can see that this is logical, mathematically accurate, and that I am not making any ewrrors of logic. (spelling is another matter! :p)I have to stop you here. Are you asking me to help you build a scientific model so that we can test it, ****yze the data, and make predictions? If so, I’ve already made it clear that I don’t have the qualifications for this type of thing. I’m not a statistician. This would not be a fruitful discussion for either of us. So, I’m going to respectfully bow out of any further discussion on the topic of prophecy.

I do want to address the Einstein and Hawking quotes, though.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." Einstein

"I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones." Steven Hawking

In both of these statements in red above, there is an inherent statement that there MUST be an objective, and observable and therefore unbiased component in religion. ...
The Einstein quote doesn’t mean what you think it means. You can read Einstein’s entire article at:
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm (http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm)
It isn’t very long.


Re the Stephen Hawking quote: Please provide the context. I suspect this, too, doesn’t mean what you think it means.

I know that quote is from ‘Steven Hawking’s Universe’ by John Boslough, 1985, but I don‘t own a copy or I would look it up myself.

Perhaps you should have a look at something a little more recent, such as:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.universe/index.html?_s=PM:WORLD

[God-free]

The idea that sexual acts between consenting adults is none of your business is an immoral position to take.Really? Now you've got me wondering who the real pervert is. Do you think what your neighbors do in their bedrooms is your business?


**** sex is unnatural sex;it's a perversion of sexuality.One person’s notion of sexual perversion can be another’s expression of love. It’s not your place to decide that for anyone but yourself.


Anything unnatural should be everyone's concern. "It's not good to fool mother nature"Then you should probably run on down to the Veteran’s Hospital and collect all those artificial limbs. Mother Nature must be furious about those.


It seem to be a given that today's atheists are also pro gay sex or are ****s themselves. one doesn't necessarily follow the other but gays need an ideology and atheism is ready made just for them.Atheism is nothing more than non-belief in the existence of any deities. Whatever position an atheist takes on any other subject is entirely something else.

[alanmolstad]

Really? Now you've got me wondering who the real pervert is. Do you think what your neighbors do in their bedrooms is your business?

.
why?...whats are they doing?

[alanmolstad]

One person’s notion of sexual perversion can be another’s expression of love. It’s not your place to decide that for anyone but yourself.

.most of the so-called "rape" in this part of the country over the last few years actually is the case of an adult male having sex with a underage small child, or is the case of an adult male having sex with a elderly person, or someone suffering from a mental issue that renders them unable to understand what is happening to them.

Should we allow such things if the male that gets caught claims that "It was an expression of love"???

What is the justification we have to claim that some "acts of love" are prohibited?



I asked a non-believer this set of questions one time and they came back at me with an answer based around their idea that sex should always be allowed as long as their was "consent"

But I cam back at them with "Who says consent is important?"
"What unquestionable voice has stated that the idea of "consent" is all important?"

"Did this idea that you have to have "consent" before you can have sex with a person fall from the sky?.....was it something that was written on stone by a mysterious hand?"



My point?
My point is that if a person thinks it's their *** to determine moral codes for everyone else, they are mistaken.
If I think that it is my *** to determin your moral code by useing my own ability to reason, I am mistaken.
If I think that a room full of people somehow gives the people the instant wisdom to determin moral differences between right and wrong?.....Im a fool.

Why would I expect a room filled with people to somehow be granted the ability to know for sure the difference between right and wrong, when if I asked each of the people in that room to discribe why something is right ?...or why something is wrong?..they would have all sorts of reasons that dont agree with anyone else s??????



So I cant on my own determine right and wrong.
Washington on it's own cant determine right and wrong.

But what people can do is support their idea of morality with the code of Scripture.
For I take Scripture very serious.....regardless of a person's religion, or if they are in a Church or in a CULT.
Want to empress me with your views on a topic dealing with right or wrong?...quote me Scripture.

I finally told my friend-
"But save our time and dont bother appealing to rooms filled with people as being your source of morality , (or stuff like that) cuz it's just a bunch of silly ducks quacking to me."

[alanmolstad]

Then you should probably run on down to the Veteran’s Hospital and collect all those artificial limbs. Mother Nature must be furious about those.

.

creation does what comes natural to it's name...it is "creative"
Therefore in nature it is the nature of life to be creative....to use what is within possibilities to use.
Therefore artificial limbs are just as much a part of "Mother Nature's" path as anything else.

It is the design of nature for things to change.
All things change, from the rocks that crack in the earth, to the wounded soul that is learning to walk with a limp, all things in nature change and adapt to new situations new challenges.

So when I tell you that your actions are "Against nature" Im not actually talking about birds, ants and trees...
The phrase "against nature" is talking about a concept that stands against the author of nature.

[John T]

I have to stop you here. Are you asking me to help you build a scientific model so that we can test it, ****yze the data, and make predictions? If so, I’ve already made it clear that I don’t have the qualifications for this type of thing. I’m not a statistician. This would not be a fruitful discussion for either of us. So, I’m going to respectfully bow out of any further discussion on the topic of prophecy.

I do want to address the Einstein and Hawking quotes, though. The Einstein quote doesn’t mean what you think it means. You can read Einstein’s entire article at:
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm (http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm)
It isn’t very long.
Re the Stephen Hawking quote: Please provide the context. I suspect this, too, doesn’t mean what you think it means.

I know that quote is from ‘Steven Hawking’s Universe’ by John Boslough, 1985, but I don‘t own a copy or I would look it up myself.

Perhaps you should have a look at something a little more recent, such as:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.universe/index.html?_s=PM:WORLD


Since the quotes of Hawking and Einstein were statements whereby we could begin a discussion and that both state that that science and religion are not an***hetical; they were used to add to the depth of what was to follow. As a result they are ancillary to the meat of the argument I proposed, and to dwell on them is to derail the thoughts I stated. As such, I deem the further discussion of ancillary trivia a derail of the topic.

But since I am aware of the dangers of quote mining, and since you questioned both the relevance and the context of the quote as being accurate, I submit this as my evidence of appropriateness:
.
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

,
Do you recall making this challenge to Christodoulous?


Originally Posted by God-free http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=160006#post160006)

Revelation, of the sort found in religion, is unverifiable. Why in the world would anyone not think it through in order to determine whether or not it's trustworthy?


What I am doing is to provide a way to make a simple way to examine EXACTLY what you pontificated about. Instead, it seems that you are attempting to move the goal posts and changing the discussion to things that are not related to the issues, which I bring up in a rational manner.

Such movings of the goalposts included the discussion of statistics and when your irrational insistence on using a statistician when simple mathematical principles are used to determine probibility.

Another moving is noted above in your reply to my post.

Another is your ignoring the relevance of the Scriptures I posted as an answer to your questions




Originally Posted by God-free http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=160043#post160043)
All things that have been verified have never turned out to be anything but natural.
Realistic, critical, and practical are better descriptors of my approach but, of course, you're en***led to your own opinion.


Originally Posted by God-free http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=160122#post160122)


For me to conjure up something from my own imagination won’t get me any closer to a demonstrably valid reason to believe that the Bible is true and God is real. As a believer (and I’m ***uming you‘re also an adult), I want to know how you justify your beliefs, and I would hope that you‘d be able to articulate it. Who knows? Maybe you’ll be the one to bring me back into “the fold.” It’s not beyond the realm of possibility.


These quotes are also from you; and at this point, I am wondering if they are are disingenuous or genuine. Therefore I am asking you directly if you REALLY want to discuss the logical, reasonable and critical basis for faith or do you simply wish to avoid reality and continue in your illogical prejudice? I submit that what I have posted is indeed logical, but that what I am receiving in return has no basis in reality, nor is it logical. It is just specious reasoning designed to disguise a hardened heart.

I am open to logical discussion and have demonstrated that; but sad to say, you have yet to demonstrate that you are open to logical discussion.

[God-free]

why?...whats are they doing?Why ask me? I’m not the one pretending to be the sex police.

[God-free]

most of the so-called "rape" in this part of the country over the last few years actually is the case of an adult male having sex with a underage small child, or is the case of an adult male having sex with a elderly person, or someone suffering from a mental issue that renders them unable to understand what is happening to them.That's terrible!


Should we allow such things if the male that gets caught claims that "It was an expression of love"???Of course not!
Read this:

The sexual acts performed between consenting adults is none of my business. It doesn’t matter if those involved are ****sexual or heterosexual. As long as they aren’t involving anyone else who is unwilling or unable to give consent, then no moral ***essment is even necessary.
Nothing I said in this, or any of my posts, even remotely implies that sexual predators should be able to use “It was an expression of love” as a defense.


What is the justification we have to claim that some "acts of love" are prohibited?You’re arguing against something that I don’t advocate and never implied that I did.

I’m going to ignore the rest of this post and the remaining post from you. I think you owe me an acknowledgement that I have not indicated nor suggested, in any way, that rape in the form of men having sex with children, non-consenting old people, and the mentally ill, is morally acceptable. If you are not willing to acknowledge this, then you and I have nothing further to discuss.

[John T]

"Yes, and this is why:
The sexual acts performed between consenting adults is none of my business. It doesn’t matter if those involved are ****sexual or heterosexual. As long as they aren’t involving anyone else who is unwilling or unable to give consent, then no moral ***essment is even necessary.


I'm convinced that in today's world, ****s are embracing atheism for no other reason but to grant themselves a license to commit perversions .
<snip>

EXACTLY!

The reason for that is because atheism is 100% relativistic. Logically speaking, atheism MUST be wishy-washy because to admit to any absolute truth, there MUST then be something greater than one's self who would be the One who establishes the absolutes. This is therefore the Achilles Heel of atheism, and it is the skeleton in the closet of every atheist. They really cannot escape that conundrum.

[God-free]

Since the quotes of Hawking and Einstein were statements whereby we could begin a discussion and that both state that that science and religion are not an***hetical; they were used to add to the depth of what was to follow. As a result they are ancillary to the meat of the argument I proposed, and to dwell on them is to derail the thoughts I stated. As such, I deem the further discussion of ancillary trivia a derail of the topic.

But since I am aware of the dangers of quote mining, and since you questioned both the relevance and the context of the quote as being accurate, I submit this as my evidence of appropriateness:
.
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.



You don't have to concern yourself about any further discussion of quote mining or anything else between us in this thread. Here's why:


Do you recall making this challenge to Christodoulous?

Revelation, of the sort found in religion, is unverifiable. Why in the world would anyone not think it through in order to determine whether or not it's trustworthy?What I am doing is to provide a way to make a simple way to examine EXACTLY what you pontificated about. Instead, it seems that you are attempting to move the goal posts and changing the discussion to things that are not related to the issues, which I bring up in a rational manner. Actually, I was talking to alanmolstad when I said that, and it wasn’t a challenge, nor was I pontificating. It was merely a response to his ***ertion that “all we know about God is through revelation it is not a matter of thinking things through and coming up with a determination.” The point I was trying to get across to him is that it’s only revelation to the individual who receives it (if, in fact, they really do). To everyone else, it’s hearsay. To believe/trust someone else’s alleged revelation without question or thought is blind acceptance. I only wanted to know why he would do that.

Your accusation (we’re back to that again?) that I’m attempting to move the goal posts and change the discussion is unfounded.


Such movings of the goalposts included the discussion of statistics and when your irrational insistence on using a statistician when simple mathematical principles are used to determine probibility.This whole prophecy “discussion” started when you asked me if I thought a “discussion on the real nature of prophecy, the rules of Einstein about prophecy and the result that the odds for all of the prophecies about Jesus coming true, are greater than a billion to one would help you understand?”. I responded by telling you I’d discuss it if those odds had been calculated by a group of impartial professional statisticians (because, frankly, I’m not going to take just anybody’s word for it). I also added the proviso that I’d discuss it only if I’m able to comprehend it. Now you’re saying that this was an “irrational insistence” on my part? Pu-leeze!


Another moving is noted above in your reply to my post.I’m not even going to bother asking you which post you’re talking about. Earlier you said, “Even if there was a chi square ****ysis (which measures the difference between what would be expected in a normal distribution, aka a bell curve) done, I doubt that you would be able to understand it.” Since then, I've tried a couple of times to bow out gracefully from this prophecy "discussion":




Perhaps not. We’ll just have to wait and see. <this refers to waiting for qualified people to calculate the odds before we can begin to think about discussing it. However, I am interested in knowing where you found “…the result that the odds for all of the prophecies about Jesus coming true, are greater than a billion to one”. Do you have a link?
and
Yes, I see what you mean. However, until a statistical ****ysis, of the sort I mentioned earlier, is done by qualified and impartial statisticians (one of which I am not), then I don’t think you and I can have a fruitful discussion on that matter. Besides, being that I’m currently involved in a few other conversations taking place all at once, I’m feeling a bit fatigued now. Am I the only non-believer on this website these days?

... I’ve already made it clear that I don’t have the qualifications for this type of thing. I’m not a statistician. This would not be a fruitful discussion for either of us. So, I’m going to respectfully bow out of any further discussion on the topic of prophecy.

Despite my having told you under what conditions I would be willing to have that conversation, and despite your own doubt that I‘d understand it, and despite my attempts to bow out, you have continued to persist under the false impression that I've actually been talking about prophecy with you.


Another is your ignoring the relevance of the Scriptures I posted as an answer to your questionsYou post scripture as if I’m supposed to accept it as true. I do not! How many ways must I say this?



All things that have been verified have never turned out to be anything but natural.
Realistic, critical, and practical are better descriptors of my approach but, of course, you're en***led to your own opinion.


For me to conjure up something from my own imagination won’t get me any closer to a demonstrably valid reason to believe that the Bible is true and God is real. As a believer (and I’m ***uming you‘re also an adult), I want to know how you justify your beliefs, and I would hope that you‘d be able to articulate it. Who knows? Maybe you’ll be the one to bring me back into “the fold.” It’s not beyond the realm of possibility.

These quotes are also from you; and at this point, I am wondering if they are are disingenuous or genuine. Therefore I am asking you directly if you REALLY want to discuss the logical, reasonable and critical basis for faith or do you simply wish to avoid reality and continue in your illogical prejudice? I submit that what I have posted is indeed logical, but that what I am receiving in return has no basis in reality, nor is it logical. It is just specious reasoning designed to disguise a hardened heart.

I am open to logical discussion and have demonstrated that; but sad to say, you have yet to demonstrate that you are open to logical discussion.Re the "All things" quote:
I was talking to Christopoulos -- not to you.

Re the "For me to" quote:
That was in response to your unreasonable request for me to give you an example of "a "demonstrably 'valid' reason" to believe that something I put forth". You made that unreasonable request before you brought up anything concerning prophecies and the odds of them coming true.

Your attempt here to berate me for not conducting myself "logically" in a discussion about prophecy that never really happened (except in your head) is laughable. I repeatedly told you I wasn't going to have that discussion.

I was planning to list, in this post, all of the questions I've asked of you that you completely ignored. But, I changed my mind since I've already allowed you to take up far too much of my time. We're done.

[alanmolstad]

all we know about god comes to us via a revelation.

The things we know about god are not learned by sitting down with pen and paper and reasoning it out for yourself.

[John T]

Your attempt here to berate me for not conducting myself "logically" in a discussion about prophecy that never really happened (except in your head) is laughable. I repeatedly told you I wasn't going to have that discussion..

Let me get this straight.

Is it your belief that prophecy never happened in in the Quatrains of Nostradamus?
Is that your belief that prophecies never happened in the Qur’an & Hadiths of Islam?
Is it your belief that prophecies never happened in the Bible?

OR

Is it your belief that the concept of any prophecy is impossible because the nature of prophecies indicate a knowledge of something that happens beyond the space and time of the person making the prophecy?

The difference in the two positions is as important as it is immense. The first set of questions has to do with the words that are written and published in the many, many exact copies of the original works; and the second has to do with a a prior religious ***umption that there is nothing that is beyond this present space and time. Both positions indicate different sorts of bias.

The first bias is a denial of reality bias. It is possible to go to the fore mentioned sources and read what they have to say. Each source I mentioned has some sort of prophecy mentioned in it. The second bias is also a denial of reality but its basis is based on religion/philosophy of nihilism, meaning extreme skepticism of nothing beyond the present that can exist. I know not what your position is really. And in one respect it is irrelevant. That means no matter which way I go to convince you that there is indeed such a thing as written prophecy, your refusal to accept any of the different examples in different places indeed moves the discussion from the logical to the illogical. In other words, no matter how much salt I place in your oats, you will refuse to drink the water I set before you.


In another area:


This whole prophecy “discussion” started when you asked me if I thought a “discussion on the real nature of prophecy, the rules of Einstein about prophecy and the result that the odds for all of the prophecies about Jesus coming true, are greater than a billion to one would help you understand?”. I responded by telling you I’d discuss it if those odds had been calculated by a group of impartial professional statisticians (because, frankly, I’m not going to take just anybody’s word for it). I also added the proviso that I’d discuss it only if I’m able to comprehend it. Now you’re saying that this was an “irrational insistence” on my part? Pu-leeze!
Probability is the measure of how likely an event is to occur out of the number of possible outcomes. Calculating probabilities allows you to use logic and reason even with some degree of uncertainty. The way to calculate probability is to create a simple division problem,and express the quotient in a percentage. The formula is simple: P= number of events (e) / number of different outcomes (o) or simply P=e/o That is exactly why a statistician is irrelevant, and the calculation formula for that is taught in math cl*** from the middle school and forward.

So if you want to continue to converse, we must remain on the logical plane and not get into the negation of the obvious.

[Christodoulos]

Really? Now you've got me wondering who the real pervert is. Do you think what your neighbors do in their bedrooms is your business?

One person’s notion of sexual perversion can be another’s expression of love. It’s not your place to decide that for anyone but yourself.

Then you should probably run on down to the Veteran’s Hospital and collect all those artificial limbs. Mother Nature must be furious about those.

Atheism is nothing more than non-belief in the existence of any deities. Whatever position an atheist takes on any other subject is entirely something else.

"One person’s notion of sexual perversion can be another’s expression of love. It’s not your place to decide that for anyone but yourself."

Your argument is specious . Let me remind you that an exit is not an entrance.

That's what makes **** sex unnatural and therefore a perversion. You wonder who the pervert is?

Given your position on **** sex ,it seems you've removed all doubt.

Whereas other forms of perversion exist ,a **** penetrating the **** c**** of another male only produces blood and feces.

If producing blood and excrement and pain , is your idea of an expression of love then I would strongly recommend you seek mental health counseling.

In the case of any **** male on the receiving end I strongly suggest HIV/AIDS testing before your perversions become all of society's concerns. Whether in the bedroom or the bath house we have the right to defend ourselves against all those who would put our health at risk.
And yes. Atheism is the perfect cover for this decidedly filthy practice.
Everything else coming out of your sick brain is specious .

[John T]

Barbara,

I gotta ask you if there may be some underlying belief/fear of dialoging with a male using logic? I ask because I saw another person address you as "Barbara" on the "origins of unbelief" thread. I ***umed that you were male until you expressed your disgust at some of the horrid things that happened in the OT, and in particular in the book of Judges. But FYI bad behavior is not limited to the book of Judges. In the books of Samuel there is a record of David's son, Absalom kicking David out of his palace, then pitching a tent on the top of the roof where he openly had sex with a concubine of his father.

For sure, those things are not taught in Sunday School!

But those nasty things in the Bible are recorded for people to emulate, nor were they things that God approved. Indeed He permitted them, and the perpetrators got their just deserts.

The last verse in Judges reads, "And everyone did that which right in his own eye." Therefore it is a faithful record of how the people of God apostatized, and how God sent 7 different judges (Samson was one Judge) to bring the nation into a right relationship with God. Believe it or not,those nasty things are one thing that sets it apart from every other "Holy Book" in the world; it shows both the good things and the bad things that people did. ALL the other "Holy Books" only show the good sides of the protagonists.

Now about logic.

There are times that some people have used logic as a sledge hammer to "win" a battle. That person MAY have "won" using logic, but that person did not wind up convincing the other. I ***ure you that I am not that sort of a person. For sure, I want to help correct some things, but I prefer to do it gently. That is why I brought up the issue of prophecy in other books, not just in the Bible. My objective was to eventually set up a several layered matrix to distinguish the different sorts of prophecy in different Holy Books.


About statistical calculations:

If you have Excel, you can do them easily. Here is a reference for that: TAP HERE (http://www.depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/stats.htm)

I REALLY do not want to get on the snark wagon. But at the same time, there HAS to be a commonality about the things written in the books that have predictions in them whereby we can discuss things.

The reason for my saying that is because there are indeed things that are predicted in Islam, Mormonism, and Nostradamus' Quatrains. Admitting that does not establish that you necessarily agree that they do come from God because that is a leap of judgment for which nothing prior has been established. That is ALL I wanted to discuss in that post I made.

[God-free]

"One person’s notion of sexual perversion can be another’s expression of love. It’s not your place to decide that for anyone but yourself."

Your argument is specious . Let me remind you that an exit is not an entrance.It may surprise you to know that studies have revealed that heterosexual couples engage in **** sex too. Look for “Heterosexual **** Sex” on wikipedia. (I could provide a link but that would probably break the forum rules.)

What is the purpose of the human mouth? The “natural” purpose of the mouth is to take in nourishment. So, if you’ve ever performed, or received oral sex, then according to your way of thinking, you’ve engaged in sexual perversion. Do you think you should be shamed for that? Or, do you think it’s nobody’s business but yours?


That's what makes **** sex unnatural and therefore a perversion. You wonder who the pervert is?

Given your position on **** sex ,it seems you've removed all doubt.Since I have no interest in interfering in the consensual sex lives of other people, and you clearly do, then if one of us is a pervert, it certainly isn’t me.


Whereas other forms of perversion exist ,a **** penetrating the **** c**** of another male only produces blood and feces.I wouldn't know. Are you an expert on such things?


If producing blood and excrement and pain , is your idea of an expression of love then I would strongly recommend you seek mental health counseling. Excuse me, but I never said **** sex was MY idea of an expression of love, but there are people who do consider it a way to express their love in a sexual way. That’s their business, not mine, and not yours.


In the case of any **** male on the receiving end I strongly suggest HIV/AIDS testing before your perversions become all of society's concerns. Whether in the bedroom or the bath house we have the right to defend ourselves against all those who would put our health at risk.Is someone forcing you to engage in unwanted ****sexual sex? If not, then from what do you need defending?


And yes. Atheism is the perfect cover for this decidedly filthy practice.
Everything else coming out of your sick brain is specious .You only embarr*** yourself when you spout such nonsense.

[Christodoulos]

It may surprise you to know that studies have revealed that heterosexual couples engage in **** sex too. Look for “Heterosexual **** Sex” on wikipedia. (I could provide a link but that would probably break the forum rules.)

What is the purpose of the human mouth? The “natural” purpose of the mouth is to take in nourishment. So, if you’ve ever performed, or received oral sex, then according to your way of thinking, you’ve engaged in sexual perversion. Do you think you should be shamed for that? Or, do you think it’s nobody’s business but yours?

Since I have no interest in interfering in the consensual sex lives of other people, and you clearly do, then if one of us is a pervert, it certainly isn’t me.

I wouldn't know. Are you an expert on such things?

Excuse me, but I never said **** sex was MY idea of an expression of love, but there are people who do consider it a way to express their love in a sexual way. That’s their business, not mine, and not yours.

Is someone forcing you to engage in unwanted ****sexual sex? If not, then from what do you need defending?

You only embarr*** yourself when you spout such nonsense.

In view of what you revealed about your own mindset in these matters ,it would take a lot to embarr*** me in contrast.

Your views and picture perfect descriptions of deviant and mentally disturbed sexual behavior speaks volumes about anyone who would sanction this ,for themselves or for any other human being.

I'm no prude ,I suggest you stop pretending you are one.

HIV/AIDS is spread primarily by ****s exchanging body fluids. There's no known cure for this disease.

Is there anything you would not sanction in others or for yourself? Have you no shame?

[alanmolstad]

lets not get personal kids....

You can have plenty of fun and not need to talk about each other personally

[Christodoulos]

lets not get personal kids....

You can have plenty of fun and not need to talk about each other personally

He started ,yes he DID!!

[God-free]

In view of what you revealed about your own mindset in these matters ,it would take a lot to embarr*** me in contrast.Let’s have a look at what I’ve revealed about myself that you find so repulsive, shall we?




[*=1] I recognize that it isn't my place, or anyone else's, to dictate to consenting adults how they may or may not express themselves sexually with each other.



*gasp* OH, THE HORROR!


Your views and picture perfect descriptions of deviant and mentally disturbed sexual behavior
Are you talking about when I said, “a **** penetrating the **** c**** of another male only produces blood and feces”? Oh, wait…that wasn’t me; that was YOU (post #92).


...speaks volumes about anyone who would sanction this ,for themselves or for any other human being. ...
Is there anything you would not sanction in others or for yourself? Have you no shame?Sanction? I neither approve nor disapprove of the consensual sexual practices of other people. As for my own sex life, I haven’t said anything about it, nor will I. My sex life is no business of yours, just as yours is no business of mine. What do you imagine I have to be ashamed about?


I'm no prude ,I suggest you stop pretending you are one.Who said you’re a prude? What have I said that would give you the impression that I want you think that I’m a prude?


HIV/AIDS is spread primarily by ****s exchanging body fluids.I’m aware of that. However, that's not an argument against ****sexuality. It’s just an argument against infected people having sex with uninfected people. On that, I'm sure we'd agree that shouldn't happen, although I don't know what 'we' could do to prevent it.


There's no known cure for this disease.
Not yet.

[Christodoulos]

Let’s have a look at what I’ve revealed about myself that you find so repulsive, shall we?




[*=1] I recognize that it isn't my place, or anyone else's, to dictate to consenting adults how they may or may not express themselves sexually with each other.



*gasp* OH, THE HORROR!


Are you talking about when I said, “a **** penetrating the **** c**** of another male only produces blood and feces”? Oh, wait…that wasn’t me; that was YOU (post #92).

Sanction? I neither approve nor disapprove of the consensual sexual practices of other people. As for my own sex life, I haven’t said anything about it, nor will I. My sex life is no business of yours, just as yours is no business of mine. What do you imagine I have to be ashamed about?

Who said you’re a prude? What have I said that would give you the impression that I want you think that I’m a prude?

I’m aware of that. However, that's not an argument against ****sexuality. It’s just an argument against infected people having sex with uninfected people. On that, I'm sure we'd agree that shouldn't happen, although I don't know what 'we' could do to prevent it.

Not yet.

If you are not against it[ **** sex] then it's clear you are FOR it.

Pain ,blood ,excrement is the "expression of love "you believe **** sex results in.

If you can't see the inherent perversion in your statement then you are being devious.



Far better to see it as it is then to see it as YOUR"" EXPRESSION OF LOVE BETWEEN two guys![gays]


The HIV/AIDS infection , caused by body fluids of ****s penetrating each other's rectums may be nature's law of retribution. A death sentence for those who mock her iron clad laws . When hubrus accumulates at the door step of
the perverted ,it usually is followed by nemesis: the eternal goddess of merciless retribution.

And it always works that way. But you are free to do whatever you wish. I'm not for it ,but I respect your right to kill yourself.

[God-free]

If you are not against it[ **** sex] then it's clear you are FOR it.I've said this every which way I know how. I am not for or against ****sexual sex. It's not my business.


Pain ,blood ,excrement is the "expression of love "you believe **** sex results in.That's NOT what I said. What I did say is, "One person’s notion of sexual perversion can be another’s expression of love.


If you can't see the inherent perversion in your statement then you are being devious.If you'd learn to read for comprehension, I wouldn't have to continually repeat myself.


Far better to see it as it is then to see it as YOUR"" EXPRESSION OF LOVE BETWEEN two guys![gays]I see it as none of my business. That's all. I'm not the sex police.


The HIV/AIDS infection , caused by body fluids of ****s penetrating each other's rectumsHIV/AIDS is spread via bodily fluids but it is not caused by ****sexual sex. Uninfected people (straight and gay) who engage in sex do not create HIV/AIDS.


... may be nature's law of retribution. A death sentence for those who mock her iron clad laws . When hubrus accumulates at the door step of the perverted ,it usually is followed by nemesis: the eternal goddess of merciless retribution.
And it always works that way.
Nonsense! Nature doesn't care who sleeps with who; it doesn't take retribution.



But you are free to do whatever you wish. I'm not for it ,but I respect your right to kill yourself.Gee, I couldn't have slept soundly tonight if I didn't have your permission to control my own sex life. :rolleyes:
And, contrary to your warped opinion, I have no intention of killing myself.

[Christodoulos]

I've said this every which way I know how. I am not for or against ****sexual sex. It's not my business.

That's NOT what I said. What I did say is, "One person’s notion of sexual perversion can be another’s expression of love.

If you'd learn to read for comprehension, I wouldn't have to continually repeat myself.

I see it as none of my business. That's all. I'm not the sex police.

HIV/AIDS is spread via bodily fluids but it is not caused by ****sexual sex. Uninfected people (straight and gay) who engage in sex do not create HIV/AIDS.

Nonsense! Nature doesn't care who sleeps with who; it doesn't take retribution.


Gee, I couldn't have slept soundly tonight if I didn't have your permission to control my own sex life. :rolleyes:
And, contrary to your warped opinion, I have no intention of killing myself.

But then again ,you're not a believer. I think in time you may very well decide to commit suicide.

I know you've thought of it many times in the past and the idea will come along again in the future.

Satan is waiting for you to arrive.. Take your time, there's no rush..

[God-free]

But then again ,you're not a believer.And I'm better for it.


I think in time you may very well decide to commit suicide.Based on what?


I know you've thought of it many times in the past and the idea will come along again in the future. No "true" Christian would so blatantly break the 9th commandment in front of his fellow Christians. tsk tsk


Satan is waiting for you to arrive.. Take your time, there's no rush..I'm no longer afraid of your fictional boogeyman.

[Christodoulos]

And I'm better for it.

Based on what?

No "true" Christian would so blatantly break the 9th commandment in front of his fellow Christians. tsk tsk

I'm no longer afraid of your fictional boogeyman.

Of course you're not ,that's what everyone says .. But when it's too late ,then they sing a different tune.

Will you say "you're better for opposing The Almighty " when you scream out for merciful death only to see the grinning face of Satan bidding you welcome?

And If I'm wrong ,what have I lost? nothing but alcoholism, drug addiction,STDS . misery. I've lost nothing .

But If you are wrong you've lost an eternity . But gained an eternity in hell.

The wager still holds import.

[John T]

No "true" Christian would so blatantly break the 9th commandment in front of his fellow Christians. tsk tsk

Nice inconsistency!

On one hand you do not BELIEVE anything that is in the Bible, You ignore every posting from the Bible as "irrewlevant; yet, when it is convenient, you make a reference the 9th commandment, not to bear false witness.

I believe that you just bore false witness to yourself.

I am really not being snarky, you know; I just call them as I see them. :rolleyes:

[God-free]

Of course you're not ,that's what everyone says .. But when it's too late ,then they sing a different tune. Scaremonger! That won't work on me anymore.


Will you say "you're better for opposing The Almighty " when you scream out for merciful death only to see the grinning face of Satan bidding you welcome?Not going to happen. You, me, and everyone else are going to the same "place".


And If I'm wrong ,what have I lost? nothing but alcoholism, drug addiction,STDS . misery. I've lost nothing .

But If you are wrong you've lost an eternity . But gained an eternity in hell.

The wager still holds import.Pascal's Wager is a joke; a PRATT.

[God-free]

...you do not BELIEVE anything that is in the Bible...Yeah, but he supposedly does. That's the point.


I believe that you just bore false witness to yourself.Not at all.

[MacG]

LOL!

For now? :confused:

just keeping my options open :)


Is the robber’s gun loaded? The OP doesn’t say one way or the other

The premise that my life is on the line as he says he will kill me. It is most believable as he has put tangible metal to my head. I have much to lose, my family has much to lose. The OP says he WILL kill me.



They both gave you a choice that promises something which you cannot see (i.e. a bullet from one; a terrible afterlife from the other). They both used coercion as a way to attain their goals.

What are their goals the OP does not say. I can infer that the robber's goal is self interest in attaining my cash and a callous disregard for my life. What is God's goal? What is His regard for my life?


I know it’s uncomfortable for believers to admit, but there is no moral difference between the two scenarios as they‘re presented. I think your God gl***es are obstructing your view.
The following is a joke but it’s accurate and it's what this thread is about:

Knock knock

Q. Who’s there?

A. It’s Jesus. Let me in.

Q. Why?

A. So I can save you.

Q. From what?

A. From what I’m going to do to you if you don’t let me in.

I think part of the difficulty is that the OP is missing information. To compare apples to apples, wouldn't the robber have to first make the money that he requires available to me?



Humorous though it is, this is preaching and doesn’t address the point that God uses coercion in the same way the robber does.

Let me rephrase. The bridge is out for the victim in the OP.


“The Garden scene” has no relevance to this thread’s topic.

It really does when one allows views the forest rather than insisting on keeping to a single tree. The number 23 is just a number but its' context tells whether it's dollars or doughnuts or a number in a combination lock and the Garden scene tells us whether God held a gun to their head or warned them of the consequences of their actions.

:)[/QUOTE]

[God-free]

The premise that my life is on the line as he says he will kill me. It is most believable as he has put tangible metal to my head. I have much to lose, my family has much to lose. The OP says he WILL kill me.The OP says he’ll shoot you. Maybe you’ll die, maybe you won’t, or maybe the gun is empty and he’s just using it to frighten you. Regardless, it’s the the threat to your well-being that matters here.


What are their goals the OP does not say.Their goals are stated in the OP. The robber wants your money and God wants you to place all of your trust in him.


I can infer that the robber's goal is self interest in attaining my cash and a callous disregard for my life. What is God's goal? What is His regard for my life?Whether or not either of them has any regard for your life is not the point. However, one could argue, and I would, that neither has much, if any, regard for your life/well-being. The robber probably doesn't know or care about you. And God, who is said to love humanity, is willing to send you to a place of torment.


I think part of the difficulty is that the OP is missing information. To compare apples to apples, wouldn't the robber have to first make the money that he requires available to me?No. Why would he? He’d be aware that it’s not uncommon for people to carry money with them (or, at least, something of monetary value). Similarly, God would know that people have the capacity to trust, even when they have no valid reason to do so.


Let me rephrase. The bridge is out for the victim in the OP. Who’s responsible for taking out the bridge/creating the place of torment in the first place? Let me try to put it another way:

What would your reaction be if you found out that your best friend, who loves his children, built a torture chamber in his basement for the purposes of “punishing” his kids if they don’t respect him as he thinks they should? I imagine you’d be shocked and appalled by it. But, for some reason, if God does basically the same thing, believers are okay with that. It’s mind-boggling to me.


It really does when one allows views the forest rather than insisting on keeping to a single tree. The number 23 is just a number but its' context tells whether it's dollars or doughnuts or a number in a combination lock and the Garden scene tells us whether God held a gun to their head or warned them of the consequences of their actions.
Okay. Go ahead and tell me how you think it’s relevant and we’ll see where it leads. I suspect I already know.

[MacG]

The OP says he’ll shoot you. Maybe you’ll die, maybe you won’t, or maybe the gun is empty and he’s just using it to frighten you. Regardless, it’s the the threat to your well-being that matters here.

"If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you."...in the head. Let's see give money and live, don't give money and die. Then again as hard headed as I am it'd prolly ricochet back at the robber and get him instead.


Their goals are stated in the OP. The robber wants your money and God wants you to place all of your trust in him.

They both are warning me based on my choice that I may die or live. It is up to me to chose life.


Whether or not either of them has any regard for your life is not the point. However, one could argue, and I would, that neither has much, if any, regard for your life/well-being. The robber probably doesn't know or care about you. And God, who is said to love humanity, is willing to send you to a place of torment.

As stated above, he also makes a way to avoid it as well.


No. Why would he? He’d be aware that it’s not uncommon for people to carry money with them (or, at least, something of monetary value). Similarly, God would know that people have the capacity to trust, even when they have no valid reason to do so.

It is one way these scenarios are different to me, not preaching just explaining my filters: God sent the Lamb of God as the Supreme sacrifice to ensure a way out for me. You no doubt have heard of the Judge who found his friend before his bench. The Judge fined him as the law required but took off his robe and paid the fine.


Who’s responsible for taking out the bridge

I am for me.


/creating the place of torment in the first place?

God. Have you read "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis?


Let me try to put it another way:

What would your reaction be if you found out that your best friend, who loves his children, built a torture chamber in his basement for the purposes of “punishing” his kids if they don’t respect him as he thinks they should? I imagine you’d be shocked and appalled by it.

I'd probably get the authorities involved.


But, for some reason, if God does basically the same thing, believers are okay with that. It’s mind-boggling to me.

Okay with it? It is a grievous thing to me.


Okay. Go ahead and tell me how you think it’s relevant and we’ll see where it leads. I suspect I already know.

What happens to me is the result of my choice to eat anything I want in the fridge but nothing from under the sink. Eat from the fridge and live, eat from under the sink and die. Give the robber money I live to only die later, give God my life (die to self, live for others), only to die later but have the promise of eternal life. All my choice - as I see it.

MacG

[God-free]

"If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you."...in the head. Let's see give money and live, don't give money and die. Then again as hard headed as I am it'd prolly ricochet back at the robber and get him instead.If you give “it” to God, he’ll take you to heaven. If you don’t, he’ll send you to hell. No difference.


They both are warning me based on my choice that I may die or live. It is up to me to chose life.Of course, your choices are yours to make. But, I’m not asking what choice you would make, and I’m not asking what your reasons for making it would be. The main area of concern (which I’ve stated repeatedly and which everyone here is skirting) is on the coerciveness of each proposition (i.e. Do this or I‘ll hurt you).


As stated above, he also makes a way to avoid it as well.So does the robber.


It is one way these scenarios are different to me, not preaching just explaining my filters: God sent the Lamb of God as the Supreme sacrifice to ensure a way out for me.The robber, also, may have chosen not to load the gun so he wouldn’t have to risk actually killing you.
I’ll leave the scapegoat discussion for another time.


You no doubt have heard of the Judge who found his friend before his bench. The Judge fined him as the law required but took off his robe and paid the fine.I’m not familiar with that story. Do you have a link?


I am for me.You’re responsible for your own actions. That’s true. Do you, or does anyone, deserve eternal torment for finite “crimes”? Is that just?


God.And he’d have no qualms about sending you, and most of humanity, there. That’s monstrous.


Have you read "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis?No.


I'd probably get the authorities involved.I would hope so, buy why would you? Isn’t your best friend doing virtually the same thing that God does/will do?


Okay with it? It is a grievous thing to me.If you think it’s a just punishment, then you’re okay with it.


What happens to me is the result of my choice to eat anything I want in the fridge but nothing from under the sink. Eat from the fridge and live, eat from under the sink and die.As an adult, you know what’s under the sink will probably kill you if you ingest it. Adam and Eve would have been, presumably, child-like in their thinking. That makes a difference, doesn't it? I think it does.


Give the robber money I live to only die later, give God my life (die to self, live for others), only to die later but have the promise of eternal life. All my choice - as I see it.

MacGIn terms of an afterlife, if such a thing were real, it wouldn’t make a difference if you gave the money to the robber and died later vs. not giving him the money and dying now.

[MacG]

If you give “it” to God, he’ll take you to heaven. If you don’t, he’ll send you to hell. No difference.

I read a book awhile ago called "The Singer (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0877846391/ref=x_gr_w_bb?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwgoodco-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0877846391&SubscriptionId=1MGPYB6YW3HWK55XCGG2#reader_0877846 391)" It is more a poetic narrative than a novel by Calvin Miller. In it was a line that rang true to me "Would you ever send me to hell?" "No. But if you should choose to I could not stop you."


Of course, your choices are yours to make. But, I’m not asking what choice you would make, and I’m not asking what your reasons for making it would be. The main area of concern (which I’ve stated repeatedly and which everyone here is skirting) is on the coerciveness of each proposition (i.e. Do this or I‘ll hurt you).

Another part of what makes this so difficult is that scene is so tightly framed that it does not allow other facets such as aforementioned motives. If all there is is what you present without taking anything else into account like a Judge barring evidence because of the poisoned tree doctrine then God and the robber are equals in every way. But you ask us to make a moral judgement without knowing the morality of the players. This seems like a hobson's choice or a straw man to me.


So does the robber.

The robber, also, may have chosen not to load the gun so he wouldn’t have to risk actually killing you.
I’ll leave the scapegoat discussion for another time.

Like you said, it is not germane what he has in his gun it is what he made me believe.


I’m not familiar with that story. Do you have a link?

I had it always heard it as a story, a modern allegory but I wondered if maybe what I had heard was a retold story based in reality. That has not yet turned out to be true but I found this:

http://benbyerly.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/judge-pays-womans-fine/ and there are other as well.


You’re responsible for your own actions. That’s true. Do you, or does anyone, deserve eternal torment for finite “crimes”? Is that just?

And he’d have no qualms about sending you, and most of humanity, there. That’s monstrous.

How do you know whether he has qualms or not?


No.

Interesting read about fic***ious folks who have made their choice.

Ever read 'Mere Christianity'?


I would hope so, buy why would you? Isn’t your best friend doing virtually the same thing that God does/will do?

Since we no nothing of the morality of the players it is hard to say.


If you think it’s a just punishment, then you’re okay with it.

If it is just then I am ok with it, if it is not I am not.

You may find my following at***ude appalling. I lost my mom when I was 15 and my Dad when I was 18. By the time I was 18 I had committed my life to Christ. As I thought about it became worried about my parents spiritually - were they in heaven or hell?!! I began to fear for them actually. What if they did not have the chance to make their choice? What if?!! It was not until I settled on God's judgements are just that I realized that they would have had a chance to choose and it is my hope that they are with Him. I have to say that this is a faith/trust thang.


As an adult, you know what’s under the sink will probably kill you if you ingest it. Adam and Eve would have been, presumably, child-like in their thinking.

That was a throw back to an earlier reference I made about giving someone a choice between the two. 'Presumably' the one receiving the instruction would understand the consequences of which they were informed.


That makes a difference, doesn't it? I think it does.

It is interesting to me that you would think that they who were made in God's image were child like in there thinking. What makes you think so?


In terms of an afterlife, if such a thing were real, it wouldn’t make a difference if you gave the money to the robber and died later vs. not giving him the money and dying now.

As I said earlier, the Robber threatens that which I know and by virtue, threatens my family. God 'threatens' to use your term, to do something in the future life which I cannot see and no threat to my family.

[God-free]

I read a book awhile ago called "The Singer (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0877846391/ref=x_gr_w_bb?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwgoodco-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0877846391&SubscriptionId=1MGPYB6YW3HWK55XCGG2#reader_0877846 391)" It is more a poetic narrative than a novel by Calvin Miller. In it was a line that rang true to me "Would you ever send me to hell?" "No. But if you should choose to I could not stop you."If that makes sense to you then, if the robber did kill you for refusing to give him your money, his attorney could defend him against a charge of murder by claiming that you chose suicide. I don’t think a jury in the real world would fall for that, do you?


Another part of what makes this so difficult is that scene is so tightly framed that it does not allow other facets such as aforementioned motives. If all there is is what you present without taking anything else into account like a Judge barring evidence because of the poisoned tree doctrine then God and the robber are equals in every way. But you ask us to make a moral judgement without knowing the morality of the players.I never implied they were equals in every way. I‘m only highlighting the similarities between their methods of operation. In that, they are equal.

Since you are really, really, intent on knowing their hypothetical motives, I’ll provide them for you, although I still maintain that they are irrelevant to the OP.
The robber’s motive is to help his buddy quickly make up the shortfall on his rent in order to avoid an imminent eviction.
God’s motive is what it always is--to get whatever results in his own pleasure and glory.


... This seems like a hobson's choice or a straw man to me.It isn’t a straw man to you unless I’ve misrepresented your arguments and then argued against those false arguments. I don’t think I’ve done that but, if you think I did, please point it out for me.
It isn’t a Hobson’s choice either because neither the robber or God is telling you “this is your only option; take it or leave it.” They’re saying, “do this or I’ll hurt you.”


Like you said, it is not germane what he has in his gun it is what he made me believe.Right. I was merely pointing out that the robber may have also “ensured a way out for [you]” as you said God had done.


I had it always heard it as a story, a modern allegory but I wondered if maybe what I had heard was a retold story based in reality. That has not yet turned out to be true but I found this:

http://benbyerly.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/judge-pays-womans-fine/ and there are other as well.Much of the story, at the link you provided, has been edited out. The embedded link, within the article, goes to a site where the item is “Not found.”


How do you know whether he has qualms or not?The God character in the Bible demonstrates, over and over again, that he has no qualms/misgivings about hurting/killing people when he doesn‘t get his way. It stands to reason, he would send people to hell without compunction.


Interesting read about fic***ious folks who have made their choice.

Ever read 'Mere Christianity'?No. But, I’ve heard Lewis’ lord, lunatic, or liar argument.


Since we no nothing of the morality of the players it is hard to say.If your friend has a torture chamber in his basement to be used to punish his children, that should give you a clue about his morality.


If it is just then I am ok with it, if it is not I am not.
Why would you contact the authorities upon finding out your friend built a torture chamber in his basement for the purposes of “punishing” his kids if they don’t respect him as he thinks they should? Isn’t your friend doing virtually the same thing that God does/will do?


You may find my following at***ude appalling. I lost my mom when I was 15 and my Dad when I was 18. By the time I was 18 I had committed my life to Christ. As I thought about it became worried about my parents spiritually - were they in heaven or hell?!! I began to fear for them actually. What if they did not have the chance to make their choice? What if?!! It was not until I settled on God's judgements are just that I realized that they would have had a chance to choose and it is my hope that they are with Him. I have to say that this is a faith/trust thang.
I don’t think you’re a bad person. I just think you’re willfully ignoring your own moral “measuring stick” whenever God “does something” that you‘d condemn if it were done by anyone else.


That was a throw back to an earlier reference I made about giving someone a choice between the two. 'Presumably' the one receiving the instruction would understand the consequences of which they were informed.I wonder how many children are taken to the hospital each year because they didn’t heed the warnings from their parents about what will happen if they eat something they shouldn’t.


It is interesting to me that you would think that they who were made in God's image were child like in there thinking. What makes you think so?For one, prior to the ‘event’ A&E were both naked and didn‘t notice. It wasn’t until after the ‘event’ that they realized that they were naked and covered themselves. God even asks them who told them they were naked. Secondly, neither of them knew anything about good and evil before they took that fatal bite. How could they know God would consider their disobedience to be as bad/evil as it turned out to be? This suggests to me that they possessed an innocence similar to that of a child at the time God warned them not to eat from that tree.


As I said earlier, the Robber threatens that which I know and by virtue, threatens my family. God 'threatens' to use your term, to do something in the future life which I cannot see and no threat to my family.I was only pointing out that the afterlife would be there regardless of when or how you died. What you wrote made it sound like the timing of your death had some significance re the afterlife.

[John T]

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by God-free http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=160395#post160395)

Of course, your choices are yours to make. But, I’m not asking what choice you would make, and I’m not asking what your reasons for making it would be. The main area of concern (which I’ve stated repeatedly and which everyone here is skirting) is on the coerciveness of each proposition (i.e. Do this or I‘ll hurt you).



The "coerciveness" you mention is a condition contrary to fact, and an absurdity.

That is because you fail to recognize the first and primary attribute of God, and that is love and then you exalt the primary condition of humanity, our sinfulness expressed as our free will to be absolute in our refusal to bow our knee before our Creator. You must see that God is not willing that anyone die, and be separated from Him at death, but He wants us to repent of our sins and stubborn pride so that we can enjoy heaven with Him.

You need to remember that God is very very patient, and is not willing that anyone die; it grieves Him, but He does draw the line, then He acts. He says that in Genesis. People now do not understand that before the Flood, there was a sophisticated civilization in existence. Before the Flood there were iron workers, and bronze workers, This is significant because the "modern" iron age did not begin until c. 900 BC. It also says that there were musicians who handled the "harp and organ" or "lyre and panpipe". What is significant about this latter instrument is that its origins are attributed to Chinese, Grecian and Incan civilizations. The earliest Inca civilization we know about came about 1400 BC; Greece was resettled in the post-Mycenaean period, which was about 1100 to 600 BC. the historian Thucydides attributes the Doric invasion to be around 426 BC, the Mycenaean period. You should notice a relative consistency in these dates, all of which are post diluvian.

By definition, the accounts in Genesis 4, which testify of a high antediluvian civilization all speak of things commonly attributed to events happening 3000 years ago, during the first millennium BC. Additionally, since the late date of the Exodus is c.1250 BC Moses had to be writing a HISTORY, and was not creating an anachronistic statement when he wrote the about things that would be happening about 300 years in the future in three geographically diverse locations such as the Iron Age, and the pan flute.

Of course, I do not expect you to believe any of this because t seems to me that you have hardened your heart, refusing to believe anything about Bible is true. But IMHO that is a pre-condition born more from prejudice rather than knowledge: "Do this, or else I will hurt you."

In your prejudicial, pre-conditional beliefs you simply fail to recognize the MANY "second chances" that God gave to those who rebelled because their collective proclivity to express their independent free will by rebelling against the mercy of God. You see, God is more merciful than the state trooper who hands you a ticket for speeding. The signs are all posted, and you choose to drive at 72 MPH on the NYS Throughway and the signs uniformly state 65 MPH (except approaching the end in Buffalo) your stubborn rebellion earns you a fine and five points are ***essed upon your license (if you get 12 or 13 in a certain period, you loose your license for a year).

By having all those penalties in place, it is hoped that the next time you drive on the NYS Throughway you will drive slower.

But your false ****ogy makes God the "bad guy" when in the fact that He FIRST issues mercy, then he warns and warns (about 17 or more times) then He permits you to keep on doing your rebellious self-will because your heart has become habituated to sinning; then like the debt collector who places a lien on your home for non-payment of debt, God then permits you to reap the penalty of your self-willed rebellion upon your death. In both cases of accepting mercy and grace or in sinning and disgrace, YOU are in the "driver's seat" , and that is because of YOUR CHOICE exercising free will towards reward or punishment.

Your sinful self willed rejection of God may not catch up with you tomorrow, or next week, or next year, but be ***ured that eventually, just as the lien holder knows he will get his due, so also will happen to you if you stubbornly choose to reject God and his mercy. While you are alive, that chance to receive mercy still exists; then your soul must give an account before God. If you accept the mercy of God, and believe on Jesus Christ, then there will be no lien on your soul. If you do not, then the lien still will exist, and then you will have to pay it. Does it not make sense to have Someone else pay that lien on your soul? By accepting Jesus as Savior, the lien is lifted, and paid in full by Jesus.

Here it is, expressed in another manner:

2 Peter3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.