If you don't want to watch the video (self-promotion can be supremely irritating, but I thought it was a good topic for discourse, anyway), then the basic point is this:
Even if the the Bible were true, and Jesus somehow died for our sins, we should then recognize that it was a meaningless sacrifice (he went straight to heaven to live an eternity in paradise. He did not "die". He is better off than your average sinner on earth.), that a system in which death for some reason atones for sin is a cruel and sadistic one, and that the god depicted in the bible, generally speaking, is a dictatorial monster who refuses to be held to the same stringent moral standard he imposes upon his creation. I use the Hitler analogy - if Hitler became omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and commanded that I love him, I wouldn't, and nobody should.
Thoughts?
If you do want to watch the video, keep in mind that I am the thinner, bearded one who is all-in-all pretty intelligent - not the Hobbit-like (Hobbitous) religioso commanding us to be honest, and also to be honest, and also to be honest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1KuMH6tjzM&lc=cjDz6wI7Q7KEO-EbhohKf25KXFLQfNnLmQAwvtvZD-0&feature=inbox
Quote from: j.woodard24 on November 14, 2011, 10:52:43 PM
Even if the the Bible were true, and Jesus somehow died for our sins, we should then recognize that it was a meaningless sacrifice (he went straight to heaven to live an eternity in paradise. He did not "die". He is better off than your average sinner on earth.), that a system in which death for some reason atones for sin is a cruel and sadistic one, and that the god depicted in the bible, generally speaking, is a dictatorial monster who refuses to be held to the same stringent moral standard he imposes upon his creation. I use the Hitler analogy - if Hitler became omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and commanded that I love him, I wouldn't, and nobody should.
Thoughts?
It's ironic that you claim the God of the bible refuses to be held to the same stringent moral standard he imposes...yet if you have truly read the bible, Jesus did not sin, yet was put on a cross and serves as atonement for all. He died for at least a day and a half, but was dead on Friday, through Saturday and a small part of Sunday (therefore it is said he was dead for three days) Also, he didn't go straight to heaven (maybe you would fare better having the fairytale story correct)...he serves as an example of the gift of God...eternal life. That's why He is alive and in paradise.
BTW, Hitler is dead...and to my knowledge, no one is claiming otherwise.
BTW No. 2. I didn't watch the video. :)
Quote from: AnimatedDirtIt's ironic that you claim the God of the bible refuses to be held to the same stringent moral standard he imposes...yet if you have truly read the bible, Jesus did not sin, yet was put on a cross and serves as atonement for all. He died for at least a day and a half, but was dead on Friday, through Saturday and a small part of Sunday (therefore it is said he was dead for three days) Also, he didn't go straight to heaven (maybe you would fare better having the fairytale story correct)...he serves as an example of the gift of God...eternal life. That's why He is alive and in paradise.
BTW, Hitler is dead...and to my knowledge, no one is claiming otherwise.
It's ironic? Are you aware of the proper definition of irony?
I don't think it's ironic at all that the vast majority of Christians are entirely unwilling to hold god accountable for shit like mauling forty-two children with two mother bears, for repeatedly and vehemently condoning or commanding genocide, for killing based on non-offenses (like turning around to look at a city), for condemning hosts upon hosts of decent people to hell for not accepting the arbitrary non-virtue of blind faith. If human beings did these things, it would be called sin. Therefore, it is a double moral standard, and one example of some not-sinning that goes on in the bible has absolutely nothing to do with the massive amount of evil that god does.
BTW, Hitler being dead has nothing to do with my analogy. It was a metaphor to explain why nobody should worship an asshole, even if he is all-powerful.
Please don't burn the forum down while I'm asleep.
Goodnight
Chris
Quote from: TankPlease don't burn the forum down while I'm asleep.
Goodnight
Chris
You're going to sleep?
What timezone are you in?
The irony is the claiming of knowledge in post one, yet not even knowing the basics as proved by lack of knowledge in post one.
Agreed ! even if god did exist I wouldn't worship him/her/it (whatever god is). This god charecter is sick, sadistic, controlling (telling us what to do in every aspect of our lives and sends us to hell/kills us off if we don't follow) and is also jealous ( remember the quote "my god is a jealous god" ?). Gives us nothing back but hit and miss answers to prayers ... this "relationship" a lot of ppl have with god is an abusive one.
In all fairness, I don't think anyone who takes a view that hostile to the bible is actually going to believe it's true and vice versa.
Maybe I'm just feeling extra kindly towards the theists today, but this seems to be a very obvious atheist position. No one is going to read the bible like God is a nutjob if they have already decided they believe in it - whether I think they should believe in it is another matter, but adding that "if the bible is true" bit is the part that gets me. No one would believe it's true and still interpret it that way, I don't think.
We interpret it that way because we obviously (and I think rightly) believe it to be false, you know?
Quote from: DetermindedJulietIn all fairness, I don't think anyone who takes a view that hostile to the bible is actually going to believe it's true and vice versa.
Maybe I'm just feeling extra kindly towards the theists today, but this seems to be a very obvious atheist position. No one is going to read the bible like God is a nutjob if they have already decided they believe in it - whether I think they should believe in it is another matter, but adding that "if the bible is true" bit is the part that gets me. No one would believe it's true and still interpret it that way, I don't think.
We interpret it that way because we obviously (and I think rightly) believe it to be false, you know?
My argument is not based on interpretation, but rather that any interpretation that portrays god as benevolent, whether the bible is true or not, is an objectively false one, which is not an obvious atheist position. My point is that if it is true, and you then interpret it as a morally just document, you are wrong. Therefore, the vast majority of Christians do not only believe in something that is not rationally justifiable, but also spend a great deal of time making excuses and rationalizing away great evil. This is why, if the Bible were true, I still would not worship its deity - even though I would no longer be an atheist. It is impossible to be rational and read the bible like god is
not a "nutjob".
Quote from: AnimatedDirtThe irony is the claiming of knowledge in post one, yet not even knowing the basics as proved by lack of knowledge in post one.
This is an entirely unsubstantiated claim - I mean to say, you're just saying something without even trying to back it up. Furthermore, I was a Christian for eight years, once upon a time considered myself an apologist, and have a perfectly fine understanding of what it's supposed to mean. I just happen to think it's nonsensical, which is what Christians commonly refer to as "lack of knowledge".
There there is some theist that proposed that the Old Testament and New Testament are two different accounts of God (ie that the Jews got it wrong and Jesus came to correct them) and then there are even fewer believers who think the Old and New Testament are about two different gods....I believe it was Ecurb Noselrub who recently pointed that out in another thread.
So while I do agree that there are various issues with taking the bible literally; I think that if we somehow knew that the Christian god were real that there would be room for that god to not be horrible (perhaps my view is also affected by having been raised in the liberal Christian tradition). I would also assume that if we knew god to be real that we'd have some idea of his/her/it's character outside of what is written in a book and would have a better perspective to use when trying to decide if the Bible was an accurate account or just man's attempt at accuracy (with a bit or a lot of agenda thrown in).
Quote from: Whitney on November 15, 2011, 12:43:06 AM
There there is some theist that proposed that the Old Testament and New Testament are two different accounts of God (ie that the Jews got it wrong and Jesus came to correct them) and then there are even fewer believers who think the Old and New Testament are about two different gods....I believe it was Ecurb Noselrub who recently pointed that out in another thread.
So while I do agree that there are various issues with taking the bible literally; I think that if we somehow knew that the Christian god were real that there would be room for that god to not be horrible (perhaps my view is also affected by having been raised in the liberal Christian tradition). I would also assume that if we knew god to be real that we'd have some idea of his/her/it's character outside of what is written in a book and would have a better perspective to use when trying to decide if the Bible was an accurate account or just man's attempt at accuracy (with a bit or a lot of agenda thrown in).
Yes, Marcion thought the OT God and the NT God were different Gods. I happen to see them as the same, but that the Jews of the OT interpreted their experience wrongly, and that Jesus came to set them straight, as you mentioned. If we assume that Jesus is God in the flesh, for the sake of argument, there's nothing really bad about him. He preached loved, healed people, and didn't tell his disciples to kill anyone. Even the parts that talk about "hell" can be interpreted differently than the orthodox dogma, and the people who hung around him seemed to really like him. As the Doobies said, "Jesus is just alright with me." The icing on the cake is that he made wine. Ya gotta like a guy who can pull that one off.
Quote from: j.woodard24 on November 15, 2011, 12:37:40 AM
Quote from: DetermindedJulietIn all fairness, I don't think anyone who takes a view that hostile to the bible is actually going to believe it's true and vice versa.
Maybe I'm just feeling extra kindly towards the theists today, but this seems to be a very obvious atheist position. No one is going to read the bible like God is a nutjob if they have already decided they believe in it - whether I think they should believe in it is another matter, but adding that "if the bible is true" bit is the part that gets me. No one would believe it's true and still interpret it that way, I don't think.
We interpret it that way because we obviously (and I think rightly) believe it to be false, you know?
My argument is not based on interpretation, but rather that any interpretation that portrays god as benevolent, whether the bible is true or not, is an objectively false one, which is not an obvious atheist position. My point is that if it is true, and you then interpret it as a morally just document, you are wrong. Therefore, the vast majority of Christians do not only believe in something that is not rationally justifiable, but also spend a great deal of time making excuses and rationalizing away great evil. This is why, if the Bible were true, I still would not worship its deity - even though I would no longer be an atheist. It is impossible to be rational and read the bible like god is not a "nutjob".
If the Bible is objectively true - you still have to define "how" it is true. I don't think the literal interpretation of the bible 100% depicts God as evil, but it is definitely a confused and convoluted picture. That's why I'd argue that it's practically impossible to read the bible without some kind of interpretation. And that interpretation is going to be coloured by the person and what the person believes. If you're saying the Bible is "true", then I guess you are saying that the God depicted in it has to be true - if that's the case, I would argue that there is definitely "wiggle room", as Whitney put it, in justifying a God worth worshiping.
If the truth of the Bible is a fact and the truth of a God is a fact, I think those are pretty logical reasons to find a way to believe in the God and the Bible, even if getting there is the part that requires the most rationalization.
I say this because I was once a Christian who did exactly that. I assumed the Bible was true and then worked within that framework, and I don't think even then I was a blind or totally irrational person - it's the book itself which is irrational.
Now, if you want to argue that there is absolutely no reason why you should accept the Bible is true to begin with, well, I agree with you there.
EDIT: FYI, my husband is correcting papers next to me and I don't want to bother him, so I haven't watched the video, so correct me if some of this has already been addressed there.
Quote from: j.woodard24 on November 14, 2011, 10:52:43 PM
Thoughts?
I've always considered religion a two-step process: 1) accepting the existence (or at least the probable existence) of a god or gods, and 2) determining the god or gods worth worshipping. Just because a god exists doesn't mean it should be worshipped.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 15, 2011, 02:21:56 AM
Quote from: j.woodard24 on November 14, 2011, 10:52:43 PM
Thoughts?
I've always considered religion a two-step process: 1) accepting the existence (or at least the probable existence) of a god or gods, and 2) determining the god or gods worth worshipping. Just because a god exists doesn't mean it should be worshipped.
You forgot step 3. pester anyone who does not believe in the exact same god you do.
Quote from: Xjeepguy on November 15, 2011, 02:27:44 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 15, 2011, 02:21:56 AM
Quote from: j.woodard24 on November 14, 2011, 10:52:43 PM
Thoughts?
I've always considered religion a two-step process: 1) accepting the existence (or at least the probable existence) of a god or gods, and 2) determining the god or gods worth worshipping. Just because a god exists doesn't mean it should be worshipped.
You forgot step 3. pester anyone who does not believe in the exact same god you do.
I don't consider that a requirement, it's more of a character flaw.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 14, 2011, 11:13:19 PM
Jesus did not sin, yet was put on a cross and serves as atonement for all.
he serves as an example of the gift of God...eternal life. That's why He is alive and in paradise.
These statements really do seem childish to me.
You have no validation what so ever as to whether Jesus actually lived, whether there is a god, whether Jesus has anything to do with the god/s. Whether there is such a thing as eternal life. Whether Jesus is alive or has ever lived, there is no validation of a paradise in an afterlife and there is no validation of an afterlife.
For all you know this could all be made up.
The concept of Jesus not sinning is an oxymoron. depending on your definition of sin.
If you term sin as "rebellion against, or resistance to, the direction of supreme authority" well, you are also recognising Jesus as the supreme authority. So how can he rebel against himself?
Some Christians suggest that everyone is born with the stain of original sin, but Jesus and possibly Mary were not. So already Jesus' level is already unattainable, even for the aborted fetus.
If we deem, not honoring thy Mother or Father as a sin, then I would be willing to bet large amounts of money that two year old Jesus was absolutly dripping with sin, from head to feet.
Is lust a sin? Did Jesus have no desire what so ever for human women? Our girls not good enough for him? Or did he only have eyes for mummy? If humans had no lust, just like Jesus then we would never procreate. This would be a disastrous end to the human race.
Now if we consider Jesus to be god and then we look at god's first book the OT. Well, let me tell you about some of the sin that Jesus performed.
He murdered a bunch of kids by setting a couple of Bears on them, he turn a woman to salt for looking at a town that he destroyed. He killed almost all the animals, plants and people on the planet by flooding it on purpose with the intent to kill. He killed Egyptian first borns just to prove a point. This ruthless tyrant was far worse than Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin combined. If he were tried in a human court he would have surely been sentenced to death as one of the biggest threats human kind has encountered.
When you say he died on a cross as atonement for all, well, this death wasn't his choice, it was against his will. He was put to death for dissent to the Jewish and Roman people of the time, he was making a nuisance of himself. His death wasn't for us, there was no blood sacrifice. He was not killed as an offering to the gods. He was going to die anyway, being human, made of flesh and blood, it was inevitable. There really is no significance to his death and less significance to his life, if he lived at all.
Quote from: Tank on November 14, 2011, 11:30:32 PM
Please don't burn the forum down while I'm asleep.
Goodnight
Chris
Some of us will stand by with fire hoses, just in case.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 14, 2011, 11:56:29 PM
No one is going to read the bible like God is a nutjob if they have already decided they believe in it - whether I think they should believe in it is another matter, but adding that "if the bible is true" bit is the part that gets me. No one would believe it's true and still interpret it that way, I don't think.
I don't know, I accepted that god was real and good and all the rest until I read the bible and the nutjob interpretation became unavoidable, despite all my early training. The bible can be a real eye-opener, in more ways than one.
Quote from: j.woodard24 on November 14, 2011, 11:37:29 PM
Quote from: TankPlease don't burn the forum down while I'm asleep.
Goodnight
Chris
You're going to sleep?
What timezone are you in?
The first one, UK.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 15, 2011, 03:28:19 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 14, 2011, 11:56:29 PM
No one is going to read the bible like God is a nutjob if they have already decided they believe in it - whether I think they should believe in it is another matter, but adding that "if the bible is true" bit is the part that gets me. No one would believe it's true and still interpret it that way, I don't think.
I don't know, I accepted that god was real and good and all the rest until I read the bible and the nutjob interpretation became unavoidable, despite all my early training. The bible can be a real eye-opener, in more ways than one.
I think it's an eye-opener because it just doesn't make much sense if you read through it, and gives you plenty of reason to doubt it's truthfulness. But OP was saying that his agrument is within the context of the bible being true, even if it's illogical.
I guess I'm just hung up on that because I can't imagine why any atheist would even put an "even if the bible is true" in their argument, because it's obvious to most of us that it's not.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 14, 2011, 11:13:19 PM[...]Jesus did not sin, yet was put on a cross and serves as atonement for all.
Didn't you also claim that we're all sinners from conception? Then would not Jesus have sin from his mother's side?
Quote from: j.woodard24 on November 15, 2011, 12:37:40 AM
My argument is not based on interpretation,
It's not even based on the correct fairytale as you have a few things wrong with your interpretation of the story itself, let alone the interpretation of what it means.
Quote from: j.woodard24This is an entirely unsubstantiated claim - I mean to say, you're just saying something without even trying to back it up. Furthermore, I was a Christian for eight years, once upon a time considered myself an apologist, and have a perfectly fine understanding of what it's supposed to mean. I just happen to think it's nonsensical, which is what Christians commonly refer to as "lack of knowledge".
Clearly you don't even know what I find wrong with your basis. If you can't even get how the story goes correctly, how can you be taken seriously? An apologist? I find that hard to believe given the fundamental flaws you have on the subject matter itself.
Quote from: Davin on November 15, 2011, 02:54:02 PM
Didn't you also claim that we're all sinners from conception?
I agree with the biblical claim, I didn't originate the claim myself.
Quote from: DavinThen would not Jesus have sin from his mother's side?
If he was fully human only, yes. But as the "story" tells us, He is fully God and fully human. Here's just one link (http://www.newlife3.org/sermons/godhuman.htm) that explains it better than I could here.
Hebrews 4:15 tells us that Jesus was human form was tempted as we are and yet was without sin.
This question can go so deep, I am certainly not the right person to FULLY answer it.
If you could, leave aside whether you believe the Bible to be historical or not and take it as simply a story such as LotR or Harry Potter or better yet, just take it at face value. Get the basics and see how and why THE STORY says things are so. The OT has a heavy bearing on the NT. A lot of the questions of the NT is answered in the OT and vice versa, a lot of the OT questions is answered in the NT. A good Bible has marginal links from the OT to the NT and NT to the OT.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 15, 2011, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 15, 2011, 02:54:02 PM
Didn't you also claim that we're all sinners from conception?
I agree with the biblical claim, I didn't originate the claim myself.
No one said you did originate the claim yourself.
Quote from: AnimatedDirtQuote from: DavinThen would not Jesus have sin from his mother's side?
If he was fully human only, yes. But as the "story" tells us, He is fully God and fully human. Here's just one link (http://www.newlife3.org/sermons/godhuman.htm) that explains it better than I could here.
Hebrews 4:15 tells us that Jesus was human form was tempted as we are and yet was without sin.
This question can go so deep, I am certainly not the right person to FULLY answer it.
If you could, leave aside whether you believe the Bible to be historical or not and take it as simply a story such as LotR or Harry Potter or better yet, just take it at face value. Get the basics and see how and why THE STORY says things are so. The OT has a heavy bearing on the NT. A lot of the questions of the NT is answered in the OT and vice versa, a lot of the OT questions is answered in the NT. A good Bible has marginal links from the OT to the NT and NT to the OT.
Already done so:
1. All people are sinners from conception
2. Jesus was conceived
3. Therefore, Jesus is a sinner
If you say that Jesus was only half human, then he's half a sinner. You can't have both that everyone is a sinner from conception and that Jesus was without sin because his mum was a person... at least not in a universe that has the law of non-contradiction.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.cheezburger.com%2Fcompletestore%2F2011%2F11%2F15%2Fdf136c98-cd5d-4346-9b19-b0a778123c1e.png&hash=944f842dd9f2d652c1dc70d09debb1ea2c83bf18)
Quote from: Davin on November 15, 2011, 05:34:39 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 15, 2011, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 15, 2011, 02:54:02 PM
Didn't you also claim that we're all sinners from conception?
I agree with the biblical claim, I didn't originate the claim myself.
No one said you did originate the claim yourself.
Quote from: AnimatedDirtQuote from: DavinThen would not Jesus have sin from his mother's side?
If he was fully human only, yes. But as the "story" tells us, He is fully God and fully human. Here's just one link (http://www.newlife3.org/sermons/godhuman.htm) that explains it better than I could here.
Hebrews 4:15 tells us that Jesus was human form was tempted as we are and yet was without sin.
This question can go so deep, I am certainly not the right person to FULLY answer it.
If you could, leave aside whether you believe the Bible to be historical or not and take it as simply a story such as LotR or Harry Potter or better yet, just take it at face value. Get the basics and see how and why THE STORY says things are so. The OT has a heavy bearing on the NT. A lot of the questions of the NT is answered in the OT and vice versa, a lot of the OT questions is answered in the NT. A good Bible has marginal links from the OT to the NT and NT to the OT.
Already done so:
1. All people are sinners from conception
2. Jesus was conceived
3. Therefore, Jesus is a sinner
If you say that Jesus was only half human, then he's half a sinner. You can't have both that everyone is a sinner from conception and that Jesus was without sin because his mum was a person... at least not in a universe that has the law of non-contradiction.
You are so right, Davin. I concede to your cartoon and renounce my Christianity.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 15, 2011, 07:33:40 PMYou are so right, Davin. I concede to your cartoon and renounce my Christianity.
It was an untenable position, all I did was point it out.
Quote from: Davin on November 15, 2011, 08:04:09 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 15, 2011, 07:33:40 PMYou are so right, Davin. I concede to your cartoon and renounce my Christianity.
It was an untenable position, all I did was point it out.
Yep. With your cartoon, you won. Good on you!
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 15, 2011, 08:10:34 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 15, 2011, 08:04:09 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 15, 2011, 07:33:40 PMYou are so right, Davin. I concede to your cartoon and renounce my Christianity.
It was an untenable position, all I did was point it out.
Yep. With your cartoon, you won. Good on you!
With the cartoon? A'ight, thanks.
Quote from: Davin on November 15, 2011, 08:12:30 PM
With the cartoon? A'ight, thanks.
Of course! Cartoon > AD.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 15, 2011, 08:15:57 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 15, 2011, 08:12:30 PM
With the cartoon? A'ight, thanks.
Of course! Cartoon > AD.
Like I said in the other thread: If you have a problem, then please let me know what it is.
Quote from: Davin on November 15, 2011, 08:22:37 PMLike I said in the other thread: If you have a problem, then please let me know what it is.
Like I mentioned in the other. I apologize. I shouldn't be making comments like that.
Quote from: DeterminedJulietI think it's an eye-opener because it just doesn't make much sense if you read through it, and gives you plenty of reason to doubt it's truthfulness. But OP was saying that his agrument is within the context of the bible being true, even if it's illogical.
I guess I'm just hung up on that because I can't imagine why any atheist would even put an "even if the bible is true" in their argument, because it's obvious to most of us that it's not.
It's simply a hypothetical. Nothing more. Of course the bible isn't true.
However, it's a very useful hypothetical. A great number of Christians interpret the bible as literally true. My argument is only that, even conceding that their belief in the bible is not irrational (which I only do for the sake of argument), by their own moral standard they should refuse to worship a god who condones genocide. There is no way of interpreting genocide as "not evil". They do spend a lot of time rationalizing away things like genocide (as I once did) on Yahweh's part. However, every excuse for genocide that Christians have ever made (for instance, he had to preserve the bloodline, etc.) is nonsensical, as an all powerful deity may do whatever he damn well pleases, and therefore could have "preserved the bloodline" simply by making Jesus' ancestor's impervious to weapons and disease. He could have done anything he wanted to preserve the bloodline. However, he
chose to murder and torture and overall just be insane. There is no such thing as a conditional necessity for an omnipotent being. Any result such a being might want may be reached by a near infinite string of possible choices, or he could simply imagine the result and have it. Therefore, every murder Yahweh commits, every instance of torture, rape, and terror he commands or allows by his followers, is
arbitrary, senseless, and, by the Christian standard (or really, any sensible standard)
wrong. Therefore, were he to exist, and were the bible an accurate portrayal of his history, he deserves no worship, no praise, no love and no admiration. Which is why even those that believe my conditions should not be Christians. This is not a useless endeavor, as you suggest. For every single argument against religion, against faith, and against the possibility of a god in general, we must presuppose religious tenets (this is generally the case with everything - to defeat a position you must first presuppose it). I have only done so very extensively here, which may be what you mean.
But there seems to be a little confusion as to my parameters. I apologize, I should make it a point to be more clear from the start.
For my argument - the Bible is true. There are no "degrees of truth". As a document, on the whole, it is true. I realize that this is an impossible position to maintain in reality, as the Bible is home to many happy contradictions. However, for the sake of a hypothetical, we may very easily assume that they somehow work themselves out - it is really irrelevant to my argument as a whole. I say that it is 100% true not because this is even a remote possibility, but because this is what a great number of Christians believe - and what people believe is all that pertains to my argument. Any extraneous speculation about a different interpretation, the fact that to assume the truth of the Bible would be - in reality - a ludicrous and irrational viewpoint, or some alternative belief involving different gods, different versions/visions/pictures of god, fall far outside of my parameters and therefore are beside the point. Again, sorry for not simply being more clear to begin with.
If the Bible is somehow true, on the whole, nobody should worship its protagonist - that is my only claim, simply put.
Quote from: AnimatedDirtQuoteQuote from: j.woodard24 on Yesterday at 05:37:40 PM
My argument is not based on interpretation,
It's not even based on the correct fairytale as you have a few things wrong with your interpretation of the story itself, let alone the interpretation of what it means.
QuoteQuote from: j.woodard24
This is an entirely unsubstantiated claim - I mean to say, you're just saying something without even trying to back it up. Furthermore, I was a Christian for eight years, once upon a time considered myself an apologist, and have a perfectly fine understanding of what it's supposed to mean. I just happen to think it's nonsensical, which is what Christians commonly refer to as "lack of knowledge".
Clearly you don't even know what I find wrong with your basis. If you can't even get how the story goes correctly, how can you be taken seriously? An apologist? I find that hard to believe given the fundamental flaws you have on the subject matter itself.
Yes, I clearly don't know what you find wrong with my basis, as you have not taken a single offered opportunity to tell me. I will gladly debate with you in regards to the "proper" version of the Christian story - I was a very devout Christian and know the story well. However, you are giving me nothing to argue with. I can sum up everything you've said with the words "you're wrong, and I'm right." I don't know if you understand what I mean by "unsubstantiated claim", so I'll ask you some specific questions.
1. What do you find wrong with the basis of my argument?
2. How does the "story go correctly?"
3. What are the "fundamental flaws" in my version of the subject matter?
4. What is wrong with my interpretation of "what it means"? (Though I do not remember positing any such conjecture).
I will argue to maintain my position, or I will
happily concede if you are able to definitively demonstrate in what way I have been mistaken. However, to simply subject me to a series of "you're-oh-so-sadly-mistaken" statements is to give me absolutely nothing to argue with.
Anyway, apologies if I've sounded strident, everyone. I don't usually have this much fun :).
Quote from: j.woodard24 on November 15, 2011, 09:55:17 PM
Anyway, apologies if I've sounded strident, everyone. I don't usually have this much fun :).
Likewise, I've likely sounded much the same.
My point goes back to the topic post.
Quote from: j.woodard24 on November 14, 2011, 10:52:43 PM
Even if the the Bible were true, and Jesus somehow died for our sins, we should then recognize that it was a meaningless sacrifice (he went straight to heaven to live an eternity in paradise. He did not "die". He is better off than your average sinner on earth.), that a system in which death for some reason atones for sin is a cruel and sadistic one, and that the god depicted in the bible, generally speaking, is a dictatorial monster who refuses to be held to the same stringent moral standard he imposes upon his creation. I use the Hitler analogy - if Hitler became omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and commanded that I love him, I wouldn't, and nobody should.
He did not go straight to heaven. (see John 20:17) He clearly died as he wouldn't have been buried alive or his legs would've been broken also had the Roman soldiers found him still breathing like the two thieves next to him. (see John 19:32-35)
Secondly we have a system in place now where a person's "sin(s)" is paid by death. Capital Punishment. Whether you agree or disagree with it, it exists. It's not cruel or sadistic.
Not only is God NOT dictatorial, (if he were, wouldn't anyone that blasphemes Him be struck dead immediately 100% of the time?) but He did and is subjected to the "same stringent moral standard commanded". In the story we are assuming for arguments sake, Jesus does not break any of God's commands. Some humans think he has, but Jesus as the Law Giver, plainly explains the correct interpretation of His Law.
I notice you didn't give Hitler all God's character traits. You missed Creator, Sustainer of life...Love...give Hitler these character traits and he ceases to be Hitler as we know the Hitler of history. So in that sense, yes, i agree. Hitler should not be worshiped given omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresence.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 15, 2011, 10:47:34 PM
Not only is God NOT dictatorial, (if he were, wouldn't anyone that blasphemes Him be struck dead immediately 100% of the time?)
He has to be actually real in order to do that.
And I think you'd find if he was real, he would do that, and none of us would be in any doubt whatsoever about his existence.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 16, 2011, 11:02:05 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 15, 2011, 10:47:34 PM
Not only is God NOT dictatorial, (if he were, wouldn't anyone that blasphemes Him be struck dead immediately 100% of the time?)
He has to be actually real in order to do that.
And I think you'd find if he was real, he would do that, and none of us would be in any doubt whatsoever about his existence.
Agreed. Another example positive non-evidence for god. Along with every amputee.
Quote from: Tank on November 16, 2011, 01:18:53 PM
Agreed. Another example positive non-evidence for god. Along with every amputee.
While I expect the typical replies to this, I struggle with this same concept about God. However, just because I cannot reconcile it 100% to my liking, I don't then simply throw it all up in the air and say, "Forget it...it's a lie...I've been bamboozled!" Much like there is a lot in science I don't understand and yet accept, I can accept that there are many things that I cannot know about God and his reasons for doing or not doing certain things.
I can accept this reasoning (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_wont_god_heal_amputees.html) for now and expect at some point, likely at a time most of you don't believe will come, I will have a full understanding of it and the rest of my questions.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 16, 2011, 06:48:45 PM
While I expect the typical replies to this, I struggle with this same concept about God. However, just because I cannot reconcile it 100% to my liking, I don't then simply throw it all up in the air and say, "Forget it...it's a lie...I've been bamboozled!" Much like there is a lot in science I don't understand and yet accept, I can accept that there are many things that I cannot know about God and his reasons for doing or not doing certain things.
The difference is that if a scientific concept exists, there is someone on earth who does understand it and can explain it in a way that everyone (at least everyone with the capacity to understand it) will agree it's true. Like how Einstein said there were only three people on earth who truly understood the theory of relativity soon after it was discovered.
Concepts like this can't be explained logically by anybody on earth, because they aren't logical. In science, a theory is discarded if any of the evidence doesn't fit. In religion it is rationalized as being humbling.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 16, 2011, 09:47:10 PM
Concepts like this can't be explained logically by anybody on earth, because they aren't logical. In science, a theory is discarded if any of the evidence doesn't fit. In religion it is rationalized as being humbling.
Of course it's not logical. I agree with you 100%. But then we agree that we don't know everything and so for arguments sake, we can't understand even when someone else understands. By your own words, if someone else understands it, then it might have some weight to it. Because 99.99~% of humanity could not understand the theory of relativity means that it should have been discarded? So today, how many rightly understand the theory of relativity? To me it seems much the same with Atheism vs Theism. Logically we must first understand God to understand why he doesn't perform miracles on amputees on CNN for all to see. To understand the latter, we must therefore understand the former.
Christianity at its most fundamental point is not logical. If God is God as claimed biblically (omni-all, Creator and Sustains life) what logic is there in God changing into a created form and dying for what is created? It is totally and utterly illogical. I don't understand it. The only thing we have to humanly reconcile this is 'love'...and there are lots of things we do "more logical", if you will, that can only be explained by a shrug of the shoulders and a bewildered look that fall in the category of unexplained acts of love. There is no explanation...
Well if it helps I don't believe in love either.