A Christian response to atheism

[McQ]

Ok, twice now I've posted to this particular thread, saw that the response was posted properly, even made edits to a post, and IT HASN'T SHOWN UP when I come back later to read the thread!

laetusatheos could you please see if you can find out what happened? This last post I put on here took me a while, and I already feel like I'm wasting my time with saukhasi to begin with. It's doubly frustrating to take the time and have it disappear into cyberspace.

Thanks!

[Whitney]

McQ...sorry, that's odd.  It may have been a mess up in the database that fixed itself on it's own...that happened on another site not too long ago.  I'm not really sure how to figure out what happened but will take a look...let me know if it happens again.

[McQ]

McQ...sorry, that's odd.  It may have been a mess up in the database that fixed itself on it's own...that happened on another site not too long ago.  I'm not really sure how to figure out what happened but will take a look...let me know if it happens again.

Thanks. I'll let you know if it happens again, and what exactly I did prior to the post, etc.

[saukhasi]

Sorry, I misunderstood McQ's post then.

Here is the answer, and it can be found in the very first post of mine: the BIble does not support the simplistic message.

Therefore, those Christians ARE taking it out of context, and therefore what they say is incomplete. However, they usually do not interpret the verse any more than they can, unlike some posters here who make the illoigcal leap to "God supports evil" and "God is evil".

[Whitney]

The flood, if it actually happend (which it didn't), is evil if for no other reason that animals who presumably don't go to heaven were killed without cause.

Laying out rules for slavery is condoning it..that's supporting evil.

Allowing verse which condone viewing women as weaker is evil since it supports the long held view that women aren't as capeable leaders as men...a view which should long have been a belief of the past.

Isaiah 45:7. I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

This, tells us that God created evil.  The type of evil this verse is talking about is debateable but there is nothing in the context to lead us to believe he wasn't talking about natural disasters, disease, and hell.  I consider all three to be evil (hell isn't really all that evil if it is viewed a the person ceasing to exist at death rather than going to heaven, but is extremely evil if viewed as an eternal lake for fire for non-believers).  Even if you accept the verse as just talking about disease and disaster then it's still evil.  I don't think there is any textual reason to associate these things with the fall either...they would have existed before but just not in Eden.

[McQ]

Sorry, I misunderstood McQ's post then.

Here is the answer, and it can be found in the very first post of mine: the BIble does not support the simplistic message.

Therefore, those Christians ARE taking it out of context, and therefore what they say is incomplete. However, they usually do not interpret the verse any more than they can, unlike some posters here who make the illoigcal leap to "God supports evil" and "God is evil".

Ok, this is going to sound weird, but I'm genuinely asking you this, saukhasi. Is English not your first/primary language? I'm having great difficulty understanding you and you seem to be having trouble understanding me (and others) here.

As for "those christians" taking the bible out of context when they use the bible to support their beliefs....ummmmm....what do you mean? How are "those christians" different from you? What kind of a christian are you? What denomination? And why can't christians use verses to support their arguments for belief in god?

Are you saying that if you quote the bible, you have to quote the entire thing every time? See you can't have it both ways. You can't say that people are taking the bible out of context when they do it to support their positions, because you use scripture verses to support your positions. Do you not?

And when will you acknowledge that people here don't make the illogical leap from god supports evil to god is evil? We don't make that leap because we don't believe (at least the atheists) in any god. How can we attribute evil to something we believe doesn't exist? The arguments for the things that were brought up using that example were brought up as if laetusatheos was saying "if" there is such a thing as the god you're talking about, then this is the argument for that god being evil, creating evil, or condoning evil."

[saukhasi]

1. You cannot see a Biblical flood without a Biblical definition of death: death is simply a transition point to eternity. Personally, I don’t think there is a reason to believe that the animals have been treated nicely by the humans.

2. Is working for a boss considered slavery? I don’t think so. When you mean slavery, I suppose you don’t mean “work for”, but treating with disrespect. That is why the Bible does not say “slavery” is bad, because the underlying problem is not “slavery” but “disrespect”. In your definition, slavery means disrespect, but that is not so â€" the Bible simply suggests carrying out work such as cleaning â€" should we expect the Bible to condemn those people for not getting a job in an office? That underlying problem is not carrying out lowly work, but being treated lowly, and the Bible addresses the problem right on track without going overboard.

3. On women, the problem is deeper than that. Let’s take for example, the trinity. Jehovah, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are equal as Gods (in Christianity at least), but there carry out different tasks that have a certain order of let’s say “prestige”. That does not rank their very “nature”. The Bible does not either, and teaches submission â€" which is NOT teaching disrespectful treatment, but just that â€" submission. It is because in the human world power is often abused that we naturally assume men in the Bible have to abuse women, which is not true. Now, if you want to ask why women have to submit and not men the Bible actually has an answer for that too. When Eve was created, she was created to help Adam â€" “help” does not mean carrying out tasks at greater speed or convenience â€" if we look at the word in Hebrew, the same word applies to God “helping” Israel â€" and used exclusively for a higher power giving ABSOLUTE NECESSARY aid. Does that mean women are considered as goddesses compared to men? In one sense yes, because the Bible uses “man” to refer to human beings as if women are something different (in this light, of a higher, more divine form, not lower). In another sense, NO, because women are required to submit. Love in equality is easy (due to the common enemy logic of human beings), but to love someone different from you is true love â€" and that is what the Bible teaches.

4. The Isaiah verse: if you look at the whole verse, you will see there are contrasting things â€" the antonym of peace is not “evil”, but most likely “calamity”. Some may argue other wise, but we have to keep in mind words have different connotations in different ages of time. If it were truly “evil”, then the Bible would most likely say I create “good” or I create “love”.

5. Evil: if you think about it, disaster and disease is simply nature carrying out its laws, and therefore if we could not be harmed â€" these things won’t be considered “evil”. Now, the problem turns into “did God create flawed/weak bodies?” The answer, according to the Bible is no. Taking into account that Eden was a drastically different environment (so different that people actually think there are two creation accounts), human beings must have deteriorated when they could no longer live in God’s presence. Not to mention human beings have polluted this environment greatly. The fitness of an organism has a direct relationship with the environment that it was raised in â€" that is not debatable. For things like the tsunami, it was a lack of ability for human beings to detect an evade that made it disastrous (and according to some, authorities did know of such a disaster but chose not to have panicking tourists.)

[saukhasi]

McQ

1. There is a difference between a Christian who simply preaches “believe in God or go to hell” and one who offers the a more comprehensive Biblical message.

2. We can all quote scripture to support our positions, but I think we all know we aren’t just here babbling about our position â€" we are judging the validity of the position OF THE BIBLE. Therefore, when I can come up with Biblical quotes that provide a more comprehensive view, is that my problem?

3. I acknowledge you for one have not been suggesting an evil God, but when I’m talking to others I’d appreciate it if you’d acknowledge that you’re not my audience.

[McQ]

McQ

1. There is a difference between a Christian who simply preaches “believe in God or go to hell” and one who offers the a more comprehensive Biblical message.

Ok, what is it? Explain in detail how that answers my questions of how they are different from you. You haven't answered that or what denomination/faith you are.

2. We can all quote scripture to support our positions, but I think we all know we aren’t just here babbling about our position â€" we are judging the validity of the position OF THE BIBLE. Therefore, when I can come up with Biblical quotes that provide a more comprehensive view, is that my problem?

You are the one using the bible and using scripture to support the bible itself. Using the bible itself to support the truth of the bible is circular reasoning and therefore, not valid. And you have not yet shown that you come up with biblical quotes that provide a more comprehensive view (whatever you mean by that). Please provide proof of that assertion.

3. I acknowledge you for one have not been suggesting an evil God, but when I’m talking to others I’d appreciate it if you’d acknowledge that you’re not my audience.

When you are "talking to others", you can address them directly, as you did here in this post. But understand that this is a public FORUM and anyone can respond to anything you say. Get used to it.

Now, why don't you get around to directly addressing the things I've asked about and stop being so evasive? I provided plenty of biblical references, verses, etc. You have acknowledged nothing, even the question of whether or not English is your native language.

[saukhasi]

mcq:
1. you asked what’s the difference, I gave you the difference clearly.
2. I am not “supporting” the Bible, so I’m not using circular reasoning â€" I’m simply telling people that they misinterpreted what the Bible says. Whether what the Bible says is right or wrong we haven’t even touched.
3. By more comprehensive, I think it is obvious that I factor in my arguments a lot more verses, Biblical ideas than just the right key words I want, like “young women”, “evil”, etc.
4. I am used to people reading, but people responding to them is not my problem but theirs â€" like you said, it’s a public forum.
5. English is not my native language.
6. What have you come up with? Your main argument is simply that some Christians do take verses (of course, I take verses too â€" we add stuff to it, not single them and interpret them in a way that doesn’t fit the rest of the Bible) â€" which I have shown to be irrelevant. Unless your post mysteriously disappeared again -  please do post again if you demand an answer.

[toink33]

Why should we make assumption that the Bible is Right, that God is Love?

I did not believe in god.
I have not read the whole bible, because i have difficulty reading it.
I made the assumption the bible god is good since everyone talks about a good god and everyone celebrates his birth, and I keep seeing "god is love" stickers/quotes.
but I got to hear christians talk of eternity in hell, and I got to read about the hardening of the pharoh's heart. These things confusses me.
Even if I dont believe in god, (because i believed in science and i love astronomy) and even if what i got to read of the bible confused me, I still made the assumption that the god in the bible is a good and loving god.

Then I found forums in the internet that points to the bible and show to me a cruel and evil god.
I realized why I was confused,
what was wrong is that I made the assumption tha god in the bible is good, that god is love.

[toink33]

How is it possible that we people, the receiver of the message from god, be the one defending and explaining the message of god so that we may know what the meaning of the message is?

[McQ]

Ok, we'll try this again, saukhasi. You did answer one question clearly, about English not being your primary language. I appreciate that, because it explains why your posts often don't make clear sense. That gives me the ability to offer some latitude in trying to interpret what you are saying. I was not trying to offend you with the question, just to clarify. I know I wouldn't be able to answer clearly in German or Italian, both of which I can speak. Now, onwards:

mcq:
1. you asked what’s the difference, I gave you the difference clearly.

Actually you did not answer it clearly because I think you misread my meaning in the question. All you did was say that there was a difference between two types of people. You didn't say what it was, or answer the second part of my question, which asks you what kind of a christian you are.
What kind of christian says "believe or you're going to hell"? What kind of christian "offers a more comprehensive bible"?
There's really no difference except for the method of delivery of the message. In each case, christianity is still based on salvation through christ alone. In each case the alternative (according to all christians) to not accepting christ is eternal separation from god.

So I ask you again: which are you, and what is the difference? The answer is that there is no difference as I said, but for the method of delivering the message. You have again failed to accept the fact that some others here, including me, have read, studied and accepted the bible and jesus christ in our lives at some point. I know the whole bible. I understand it. I taught it.
 

2. I am not “supporting” the Bible, so I’m not using circular reasoning â€" I’m simply telling people that they misinterpreted what the Bible says. Whether what the Bible says is right or wrong we haven’t even touched.

If you are not supporting the bible, what are you doing? Let's be clear on our definitions here. You have said things like people have misinterpreted what the bible says. Are you the only one who has interpreted it correctly? Who tells you that you interpret it correctly and others don't? How do you know I haven't interpreted it correctly?

And touching on whether the bible is right or wrong is central to the "Christian Response to Atheism", which is of course, the title of this thread. We have touched on it somewhat. You in fact touch on it when you say that people have misinterpreted it. That makes the assumption that there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret the bible, which logically, means that it must be "right" about something. Or you wouldn't bother being here now would you?

3. By more comprehensive, I think it is obvious that I factor in my arguments a lot more verses, Biblical ideas than just the right key words I want, like “young women”, “evil”, etc.

You may think that it is obvious, but I guarantee no one else here thinks so. I haven't seen you provide proof yet that you "factor in" more verses for any stance you've taken. You've simply asserted that you do it, and expect us to just believe you.

4. I am used to people reading, but people responding to them is not my problem but theirs â€" like you said, it’s a public forum.

What's your point here? Are you upset that someone you didn't address (i.e., me) directly responded to you in a public forum? I've been a member here a little while, and I don't recall laetusatheos ever telling anyone that they couldn't respond to someone posting here. Your words are fair game, like it or not. And that's your problem, not mine. By not responding to direct questions asked of you, or posts made directly to you, you only prove that you are rude and evasive. Not a good start to a newbie on any forum, wouldn't you say?

5. English is not my native language.

Thanks for letting me know. It makes a genuine difference in how I read what you write.
 

6. What have you come up with? Your main argument is simply that some Christians do take verses (of course, I take verses too â€" we add stuff to it, not single them and interpret them in a way that doesn’t fit the rest of the Bible) â€" which I have shown to be irrelevant. Unless your post mysteriously disappeared again -  please do post again if you demand an answer.

I haven't tried to "come up" with anything, but I have tried to respond to your posts and hold you accountable for the assertions you make. My main argument has not even been heard here yet. My point on taking verses out of context came directly from your own accusation that atheists take the bible out of context in order to argue against it. I clarified what "taking out of context" was, and showed you that it is not taking something out of context to quote from it. And I showed that christians do just that when it suits them or furthers their arguments or biblical apologetics. Every bible I own has a full concordance. I own a Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance and I've used it for decades. I do not take verses out of context to suit an agenda.

You have not shown that anything I've said is irrelevant although you apparently think you did. Quoting verses or taking them out of context is not irrelevant. Nice try though.

And lastly, regarding your snide comment about my post mysteriously disappearing. I personally don't give a shit if you believe me or not. I was letting laetuseatheos know that something happened twice when I posted, as a matter of courtesy to her and her forum, and of frustration for taking a long time to put together a message only to have it launch into oblivion.

I don't demand anything from you, saukhasi. But I do wish you'd stop trying to be so disingenuous. It doesn't suit a "christian". Kind of makes you look evasive and untrustworthy.

And at this point, I see no further need to debate with you because of your lack of veracity. Good luck with the others here, as they are not always as forgiving of prevaricators and dodgers.

[saukhasi]

McQ, you are the one who seems to hae troubles with English - I said SOME posters here, you automatically assumed it included you, and accused me of accusing you - then I said go ahead, respond to it if you like, and you start whining about "why can't I respond??????????" Did I not just say you could?

Anyway, I feel the same way - if you don't think it's worth continuing a discussion with me, bu all means leave your accusations to yourself.

[McQ]

McQ, you are the one who seems to hae troubles with English - I said SOME posters here, you automatically assumed it included you, and accused me of accusing you - then I said go ahead, respond to it if you like, and you start whining about "why can't I respond??????????" Did I not just say you could?

Anyway, I feel the same way - if you don't think it's worth continuing a discussion with me, bu all means leave your accusations to yourself.

When you are "talking to others", you can address them directly, as you did here in this post. But understand that this is a public FORUM and anyone can respond to anything you say. Get used to it.

That is what I said, saukhasi. Show me where I whined and asked why I couldn't respond to you. Your continued lying and evasion only makes you look worse. Straw man arguments don't cut it. Besides, you don't tell me what I can and can't do here.

Thank you for helping me make my point about you. You responded with not one substantial comment. Did I accuse you of something? You bet I did: evasion, prevarication, and disingenuousness. All accusations true and substantiated by your own words. You are a nothing but a "troll for christ" and you have no logical or well-reasoned argument to state whatever it is that your case is.

If, by some amazing chance, you do, then let's see it. I'm sure we'd all be interested in anything substantial coming from you. It would be a welcome change.

To others on the forum: does saukhasi remind you of anyone else? Someone from the past? Ahhh, the good old days....