The Futile Arguments Thread

[Stevil]

Yes.  You are correct.  "God IS Love", is not to be taken literally.  Thanks for the clarification.

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

so , how is a non Christian supposed to understand a statement like "God is Love"?
Are we supposed to think of it as gibberish and hence ignore?
Or is there a way to articulate this for non Christians?

[Asmodean]

If there is a God and He is omni~, then His law is infinite.  God is Just in allowing those that don't want eternal life to have death.  What is so wrong.  If God created you without your consent and gave you life, allowed you to live and gave you a choice to live forever with Him, but you chose not to, then you get to live your free life as you see fit and then cease to exist.

Your god appears to be a less disagreeable character than most of them...

However, if it is the same god as all them preachy people believe in, where do they derive their need to convert me to that eternal life I do not want from? After all, god is pro choice, yes?

[AnimatedDirt]

Your god appears to be a less disagreeable character than most of them...

However, if it is the same god as all them preachy people believe in, where do they derive their need to convert me to that eternal life I do not want from? After all, god is pro choice, yes?

You might notice I'm not in the least trying to convert you.  I cannot convert you.  No person can convert you.  I'm here simply to shed better light on misconceptions/misunderstandings of the debated and/or highly laughed at points in Christianity to the best of my ability.

God is pro choice.  Very nice way to think of it.

[Stevil]

I'm here simply to shed better light on misconceptions/misunderstandings of the debated and/or highly laughed at points in Christianity to the best of my ability.

Your approach to shedding light is by redefining English words and then using them in sentences that ordinarily don't make sense.
A good communicator will adjust their communications with regards to their audience. I don't think Christian cliches, phrases or verses are the best way to communicate on an atheist forum, certainly not with regards to explaining a stance or idea. These capitalised words may be better understood if a glossary is also provided otherwise I feel they would be best avoided.

[Event_Horizon]

Yes, Christians believe.  No, everyone does not "have to accept".  Most of Atheism says that if God exists, their choice would not be..to be...with this God.  Everyone has that choice.  If this God exists, then Hell (or better yet), non-existence is the result.

It's important to understand the difference between a choice and a calculation. A choice is a decision between two somewhat equal things, or two things that each come with their own benefits and costs. A calculation is simply the decision to pick something that is obviously beneficial. The way you use the word "choice" takes away any kind of usable definition since by your standards, you technically choose to eat. Choosing whether or not to eat is not a choice, but a calculation, since you weigh the costs and benefits between eating and not eating. However choosing what to eat on the other hand is indeed a choice. As a calculation to eat means to satiate your hunger, receive energy and nutrients, and aside from a trip to the bathroom in your near future or the minute chance of poisoning, eating is almost entirely beneficial. To not eat means pains of hunger, decreased energy, increase chance of infection, etc. Obviously the costs of not eating far outweigh any possible benefits. That is a calculation, and not a choice.

What you propose in accepting God is not a choice, but a calculation, to pick eternal life with no costs, or eternal torment with no benefits. There is no "choice" because there are no costs and benefits to choose from. So when the Bible says we have the "choice" to accept God and be forever in his servitude, or receive unending unfathomable punishment for not entering into his tyranny, it is not a choice. Nobody chooses to reject God because they know Hell awaits them.

Now ask yourself, would a just God do that? Theists have given themselves an illusion of superiority here because they say their God is Love, so anything that God does is Love, or Just, or Good. That causes a problem because it covers up any ethical analysis of God's action. I can best think to describe it this way: The Blorjak is all good, all just, all loving, and any action it takes is all good, all just, and all loving. The Blorjak kills everyone it sees, so therefore killing everyone you see is all good, all just, and all loving.

Theists have gotten themselves in a position to justify every action of God, even if it is completely evil because they see God as good, and anything he does is good. They then differentiate between mankind's ethics, and the divine ethics as a excuse which prevents them from actually looking at God's actions. That is mighty convenient for them.The ethics we have on this Earth aren't perfect, but if you look at the good they've done since the European enlightenment, then the message is clear: biblical ethics are completely false, and the God who supposedly inspired them is not just. Now onto your specifics.

Bad?  Not necessarily "bad", but something against God.  One can make a "bad" choice in planting a tree in the summer, however it is not sinful to do so.  God did not "have to".  God did BECAUSE He is Love.

He cursed mankind forever because he is love? You'll have to pardon my skepticism because that is some strong medicine to swallow.

Once again...what payment?  There is no payment.  NONE whatsoever.  You can pay tribute and still never be saved.  There's no payment.

Christian dogma proclaims that if you don't thank Jesus for dying for you then you'll go to hell. You owe Jesus for what he did, even though you didn't ask him to do it, and even though you probably did nothing wrong in the first place. I can only see that kind of behavior done by the mafia. Which goes into my next point.

God did not decree humans have sin.  Humans chose of their own freewill.  Unless one has the choice, then freewill doesn't exist and so true love does not exist either.  (true love for God)

You should check the discussion defendor and I had. Apparently sin only needs to be the ability to do something wrong, not actually doing something wrong. Since sin can only exist if we have free will, and God gave us free will, it means that God gave us sin. Think of it this way. I go to your house and burn it down. While it's burning, I race inside and save you. After I get you outside, I then demand you pay me ten thousand dollars for me getting me shirt dirty while I rescued you. If you think that's wrong, then I must direct your attention to Christianity.

God makes man with free will, knowing he will break orders for the get-go, then punishes Adam and Even and all their descendants for the rest of time. God removes that sin by rescuing mankind by the use of himself/Jesus, and then says if you don't accept Jesus as your savior, you will be sent to eternal punishment. Yeah, that sounds fair. All you need is an objective analysis to see God is running a scam, and everything is a set up.

The fact is that you are not looking at it objectively or else you would see that freewill is not the cause of sin, PRIDE is the cause of sin.  Selfishness, the need to please self first.

What kind of pride does a baby have? But a baby is born with original sin, oh never mind, even Christians can't decide between themselves as to what sin actually is...

I agree...humanly speaking.  However there is not one person that can say they are without a "bad" deed...a deed against God's will.

Have you ever considered the idea that maybe God's will as you think of it is completely arbitrary? I mean, if God is really a timeless being, then why are all the ethics of the Old Testament seemingly out of the bronze age from which it was written? Where is any kind of transcendent knowledge? Why doesn't the Bible say anything about human rights, the ethical principal that the western world has been successful from?

2: People are born deserving as punishment as a default (original sin).

Yes...ALL people.

That's a pretty cynical view of humanity. I could never understand the doublethink of Christianity that proclaims that we are God's most treasured creation, and yet we all deserve punishment for the aspects that God designed us with.

It was conceived in sin, it was conceieved by two sinful creatures, from the moment of birth the baby is only concerned for self.

Well now you're just getting into Christian philosophy here, and moving further away from God being unjust. If you want to believe that pride is wrong, and that self interest is wrong, then I can't stop you, but that is your opinion. However if you really had a problem with self interest and selfishness then why sir are you on the power grid?

You aren't...are you?  Not at all.  You have the choice to choose not to owe anything.  You didn't accept life, but you claim to, as a citizen of some government, have some stake in it that the government owes you something?  Protection...why?  Just for being born?  What's the difference?

This has to do with choice vs calculation. If you walk into a car dealership and the salesmen says you have the option of buying the car or leaving the store and being cut in half by a guillotine then is that really a choice? As for the government side of things, that doesn't apply, since when you are born into a country you 1 are instantly allowed to participate in the process of government, and 2 you can opt out of living in that area without repercussions. God does not allow people to participate in the divine process, making the power go completely one way, and God does not allow you to opt out of the religion without punishment. As far as I can tell, the U.S. government is more just than God. And damn, I don't know how I feel about that statement. Scary...

No slavery, debt unless one chooses to feel so.

Not so. God made you and demanded that you follow his laws otherwise you would be punished. God is the master, and you are the slave that must follow him or get whipped. Follow his orders well enough and you might just get to be a house servant. And I'll stop there with the slavery reference, since it would make me feel pretty uncomfortable to continue.

But in all honesty, if God were indeed just, then his commands would be just, and I don't see any justice in the Bible at all, New Testament or Old. The world we have now based on human rights and liberty functions much more peacefully than any other time in history, and the only thing that ruins that peace are people trying to carry out the will of their God. If God were indeed just, and kind, and loving, he wouldn't demand our servitude, because that servitude and devotion causes us to kill each other.

Where do you find this as true[?]

In Christianity's premise that all you need to do is accept Jesus and you will be saved. It doesn't matter if how many people you've done wrong, or even if you've had worldly justice, because once you accept Jesus, you'll go to heaven, no matter what. Which reminds me of a funny story that I heard once. I can't find the original text but it went something like this:

Little Billy one wanted a bike. So he prayed and prayed for God to give him a bike, but no bike came. Then Billy realized that God doesn't work that way, so he stole a bike and asked God for forgiveness. The End.

If the only thing that keeps people from heaven is the arbitrary acceptance of a supposed messiah; that is not justice.

I think what you find "wrong" is that God is able to punish like a father to his child and still love and nurture the child...no matter what the child does.

If the father were all loving, he wouldn't need to punish, or at least he wouldn't need to punish with eternal torment. If we were all powerful, then he could undo any wrong that had been done. God, if he is everything you say he is, wouldn't need to continue this farce. He could end it in a second, without notice, and give everyone eternal happiness. If free will was going to be such a problem, he should have seen it coming in the first place, and if he was as loving as people claim, he would have prevented this existence from being what it is.

The Bible tells us we are to submit to government authority.

You mean any government authority? I heard of this thing called Sharia Law. I don't know if you've heard of it.

Is what you're saying here that our "good" actions are only a credit to the "good" in us...as in Christ?

Nope, I'm saying that Jesus' actions end up blackmailing us. If I were to save you from a horrible accident, and then demanded that you give me all your money for it, saying if not I'll kill you anyways then is that a just action? I don't think so. The Bible essentially say this. Humans have original sin and deserve punishment for it. Jesus comes along and gets rid of that sin, but if you don't accept Jesus then you'll get that punishment anyways. If anyone were to do the same for you in real life, you'd know what it was in a second: a scam.

Again you show your ignorance.  The punishment is death.  It's not perpetual punishment as in being spanked endlessly or burned bit by bit for eternity.  It is everlasting in consequence, not in action.  The second death is final.  No returning.  Eternal separation from the Life Giver = Eternal Death or non-existence.

Well it seems you disagree with other Christians on the concept of Hell. However this brings up an interesting question: how do you know any of that will happen? How do you know that the Bible will deliver when you actually die? How do you know there is a second death at all? I can only assume you'll say faith, but faith really doesn't do anything now does it? If someone has faith in winning the lottery, does that make it so? No, otherwise we'd see thousands of lottery winners. The point I'm trying to make is that you'll never get to receive your reward for being a Christian, because you'll be dead, and any assertion that we have regarding life after death is simply an assumption. You can never know you'll get it. But, that's kind of getting off topic.

If there is a God and He is omni~, then His law is infinite.

Infinite is a word used by children to make them sound smart. If the word is used when describing an aspect of God, since the idea of God is not properly defined, then the word infinite means absolutely nothing. Infinite law has no concept, just as infinite power has no concept, and infinite good. It's like a child saying that their imaginary super hero's power is to  have all the powers. Any assertion like that lacks coherence, definition, and any kind of understanding. Nobody can really truly understand infinity. Though I can demonstrate it this way:

I believe in Schehena, and he is infinity +1. He beats your God, so I win.

See how childish that is?

[AnimatedDirt]

Yes.  You are correct.  "God IS Love", is not to be taken literally.  Thanks for the clarification.

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

so , how is a non Christian supposed to understand a statement like "God is Love"?
Are we supposed to think of it as gibberish and hence ignore?
Or is there a way to articulate this for non Christians?

I should've placed the more complete quote.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.  Love never fails.  ~ 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

If God is love, and I believe He is, then He embodies all these characteristics of love.  There is no gibberish here.  All can understand love and know when love is genuine.

Your approach to shedding light is by redefining English words and then using them in sentences that ordinarily don't make sense.  A good communicator will adjust their communications with regards to their audience. I don't think Christian cliches, phrases or verses are the best way to communicate on an atheist forum, certainly not with regards to explaining a stance or idea. These capitalised words may be better understood if a glossary is also provided otherwise I feel they would be best avoided.

Maybe you could be more specific.

[Stevil]

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.  Love never fails.  ~ 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

Gibberish
Really need to deciphere this garbage, it literally makes no sense at all.

When we deciphere then the respective interpretations end up different, they become personalised and hence have no true universal meaning.
Love is not patient, it is an emotion that a person has. The person in love can be patient, but the emotion cannot. In actuall fact two people in love can become quite impatient with regards to having sex with each other. It is a natural urge that religiouns try to suppress in people.

I love my daughters, and I am very proud of them.

The truth although desired is not always to be rejoiced. Sometimes the truth is horrible.

A person in love can put themselves into dangerous situations, they may persever with an abusive boyfreind/husband.

Love does fail. Have you read Romeo and Juliet?
What about when a church going Christian falls in love with someone of the same sex? The church would then tell them they are sinning. What about when a person falls in love with someone whom they cannot for some reason have a relationship with, e.g. that person has Aids or is about to die of cancer or is married to someone else or belongs to another religion and the respective organisations disapprove of the union?

If God is love, and I believe He is, then He embodies all these characteristics of love.  There is no gibberish here.  All can understand love and know when love is genuine.

It is difficult to know when love is genuine. To distinguish love from lust if very difficult in a new relationship, and potentially difficult for a couple of young vigins that are holding out until marriage.
My definition of marriage does not in the least look like the definition you have posted and the Christian god is certainly not love. I would never say to my wife "I God you". Simply gibberish!

[Stevil]

So, what I am thinking, that instead of "God is Love" you could phrase this in a more understandable way by saying "God loves me". Which makes much more sense.

In that way I can be happy for you, that you have found a mutually loving relationship albiet with something that you have never seen, heard, felt, smelt or tasted. You have never conversed with but you have read out this God in your favourite book and you have fallen in love with that God and the book tells you  that God loves you. And now you are compelled to tell the world that God loves you. Only you think it is more grown up to say "God is love" than to come right out with it and shout out "God loves me".

I think this sums it up

[AnimatedDirt]

Grr...had a long post in reply to Event_Horizon.  Clicking "preview" glitched it all away...I'll have to do it again in a while.  Have some things to do first.  Sorry.

[AnimatedDirt]

I would never say to my wife "I God you". Simply gibberish!

Obviously.  This also shows your genuine interest in discussing these things.  It's not gibberish to say God is love.  Is it likely that if someone is found to embody beauty (among many others I seem to be partial to Katy Perry ATM) is it then likely that I will say to another person I find beautiful, "I think you're Katy Perry." ?
So then I would appreciate if you could simply quit with the rediculous notions/assertions that I know you're intelligent enough to understand/comprehend.  These are types of ad hominem attacks to discredit.

[ForTheLoveOfAll]

I might be incorrect here, but in Hinduism, god IS considered to be Love. In a both literal and non-literal sense. Love is the creative energy, the constructive force that is both god and the emotion we call love.

[defendor]

Love is defined by action, not an emotional whim.  So as God being in essence love, acts in a way that defines loving.  But love is NOT God, we do not worship love, only a God who embodies love.  So our definition of love precedes from the father, an objective truth (this is what we're debating, that God is objective, I come from this side just giving my argument)  

So if you don't have an objective standard for love, it is merely an emotional whim that has no foundation in truth, and so you can fall in and out of love, disobeying any commitment to a spouse or partner for there is no objectifying truth or action associated with love.  

Probably, most atheistic thinkers don't see this as such, but if you take your philosophy to its limit, then this is what you get. You cannot give me any other reason for a committing love except "it means something to me" which is really no reason at all, for you first have to 1. diagnose what gives you authority to claim meaning 2. why does it give such meaning to you?

[Asmodean]

You might notice I'm not in the least trying to convert you.  I cannot convert you.

Wasn't pointing a finger. Yet there are people who seem to think it's ok to force their religion on others, so either those got it all wrong or you did. After all, you use the same scriptures for justification, yes?

I'm here simply to shed better light on misconceptions/misunderstandings of the debated and/or highly laughed at points in Christianity to the best of my ability.

Which is good. Again, just for clarification, you were not the target of finger pointing  

God is pro choice.  Very nice way to think of it.

God can be imbued with whatever properties you want, really. But hypothetically, if there WAS a god, one god, who among the believers would turn out to be right about his nature, intentions and powers..? Can we even know that..?

[defendor]

God can be imbued with whatever properties you want, really. But hypothetically, if there WAS a god, one god, who among the believers would turn out to be right about his nature, intentions and powers..? Can we even know that..?

He would have to reveal himself to us.

"Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you,   that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly.  In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." - Ephesians 3:2-6
 
This really isn't too much of exegetical study but i want to take a look at some things laid out here. There is a  mystery, and a revelation indicated by this verse.  The mystery, why or how can we have any hope for eternal life(god's grace in layman's terms, jesus).  So who reveals it? the Spirit, not spirit but Spirit, I hope you see the difference,( its the Holy Spirit). So why does it take the Spirit of God to know God? So to believe in God, he has to first reveal Himself to us..? Well, would you know me, if you never knew me? sounds preposterous but if I never talked to you, saw you, let you see me, proverbially poured any of myself into you, how could you say you knew me? you may have heard of me, which is not the same as knowing me, so how do we get the Holy Spirit to reveal to us? The bible says all who seeks finds, maybe thats the Spirit drawing you near, I have no idea, but asking God might be a good place to start

[Asmodean]

but asking God might be a good place to start

Except... One can ask a stranger about his intention when he stands at one's doorstep. One can not necessarilly ask someone one has only heard of the same. As such, god would have to reveal himself, at least in part, in order for proof to be had as to who, if any, among the believers is/are right, yes..?