What's the moral difference?

[John T]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by John T

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.

[John T]

Originally Posted by God-free

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.

Originally Posted by God-free [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]

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 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.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by John T

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]

Originally Posted by God-free

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

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

Originally Posted by God-free

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"?

[God-free]

Originally Posted by John T

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

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.

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 at your leisure, if you're so inclined.

[John T]

Originally Posted by God-free

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."

[God-free]

Originally Posted by John T

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.

[John T]

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.

Originally Posted by God-free

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.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by John T

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.

[John T]

Originally Posted by God-free

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?

[God-free]

Originally Posted by John T

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?

[John T]

Originally Posted by God-free

<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! )

"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]

Originally Posted by Christodoulos

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]

Originally Posted by God-free

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?

[God-free]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

why?...whats are they doing?

Why ask me? I’m not the one pretending to be the sex police.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by 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.

.

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."

[God-free]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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:

Originally Posted by God-free

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.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by God-free

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.

[Christodoulos]

Originally Posted by God-free

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 .

[God-free]

Originally Posted by Christodoulos

"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]

Originally Posted by God-free

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]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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!!