God cannot exist...sue me!

[AnimatedDirt]

So, after this short diversion, you don't know if free will can't be created.

Free will cannot be created in that it is a concept only brought about and understood by a cognitive mind.

So god is as real as a man made cartoon, gotcha.

I think you just acknowledged God is as real as Man makes cartoons.

As many times as you claim that I'm wrong, you've yet to demonstrate that a god that knows excatly what you will do, has given you free will. You have no choices so long as this god knows exactly what you will do.

Many times have I answered this.  The problem is you refuse to accept the answer.  Here it is again;

You are wrong.  God only knows the choices.  You and I make those choices of our own free will.

My point still stands. Either this god was ignorant that sin would enter or he intended it to enter or it entered because this god did not have the power to prevent it.

Neither.  You are wrong again.  God is not ignorant to the problem free will brings.  God's intention was not "this" as we know life.

In fact God does have the power to change it.  No doubt in my mind.  The problem in changing it is called "stacking the deck" and more specifically would be Him being dishonest in giving free will if that free will is not truely free.  He could've made it different.  But then we wouldn't have true free will, but would basically be programmed to do what He wants.  Robots.  The fact that you have decided "God" isn't for you is proof positive that you/we are not robots programmed to run one path.  The path we run is the path we choose on our own.

A quick question for AnimatedDirt:
How would you define what is "your" choice and how free do you think they are?
(I'm not denying that our choices are our choices and that we shouldn't be responsible for them, but I'm curious as to what your take on this is.)

If I'm understanding your question, xSilverPhinx, I'd say that we are free to choose our path in life.  That's not to say, "I choose to be a Neurosurgeon...and voila!  There are steps to becoming a neurosurgeon, but you can choose to take those steps.  Also, a person cannot choose illogical choices such as, "I choose to be a horse."

Our free will allows us to look at, and interpret our world as our own mind sees and interprets it.  If one decides that the notion of "God" is too much of a fairytale and so holds no belief, then that person is allowed to make that choice of his/her own free will.  What this does is make each person accoutable to themselves.  The Atheist cannot be angry at "God", if at the end of time "God" does show up and put the Atheist where he/she chose to be.  Both the Atheist and the Christian employ the same mind and have access to the same "evidence".  One makes a choice one way, the other, another way.  If there are some that do believe in God, then there was enough evidence to convince as all are equally intelligent...well, the consencus of HAF is that the Christian is of lesser intelligence.  We Christians don't mind at all. (I know that someone will bring up people that are metally challenged or mind diseases like Alzheimer's...I don't claim to know how God will judge these)

[xSilverPhinx]

A quick question for AnimatedDirt:
How would you define what is "your" choice and how free do you think they are?
(I'm not denying that our choices are our choices and that we shouldn't be responsible for them, but I'm curious as to what your take on this is.)

If I'm understanding your question, xSilverPhinx, I'd say that we are free to choose our path in life.  That's not to say, "I choose to be a Neurosurgeon...and voila!  There are steps to becoming a neurosurgeon, but you can choose to take those steps.  Also, a person cannot choose illogical choices such as, "I choose to be a horse."

Okay, so what you're saying that our choices are the ones that our persons make under no coercive influence?

I myself don't think there's such a thing as pure free will, it's more like something in between having free will and not having it, but based on having any actual control over our thoughts and actions. The tricky thing is distinguishing between what is freer and what's less. A good example is hypnosis. A hypnotised person will not do something that's against their will, such as commit a crime because of the hypnotist's influence unless they're already prone to or have been groomed to, but the influence is there and it does influence the will. They can act under suggestions that direct their thoughts and behavior. (if you want a good example of a mentalist/illusionist/"mind reader" there's a guy called Derren Brown whose videos and demonstrations can be found on YouTube. They're very interesting to watch.)

Then there's the question of the choices that you become conscious of seconds after you've made them. This has been scientifically validated, people have been submitted to making decisions while in a CT scan and the time lapse between their brain making a decision and their awareness of the decision their brain made was as long as 6 seconds and in the rapid firing of neurons, that's a long time . There's no doubt that the choice is coming from your brain in that case, but how free are they? Or how free is a part of it? Which part? How do you know what influenced those and if you weren't under some subtle coercion such as suggestion, propaganda or brainwashing which interacted with the complex information processor that is your brain to direct your thoughts?

Our free will allows us to look at, and interpret our world as our own mind sees and interprets it.  If one decides that the notion of "God" is too much of a fairytale and so holds no belief, then that person is allowed to make that choice of his/her own free will.  What this does is make each person accoutable to themselves.  The Atheist cannot be angry at "God", if at the end of time "God" does show up and put the Atheist where he/she chose to be.  Both the Atheist and the Christian employ the same mind and have access to the same "evidence".  One makes a choice one way, the other, another way.  If there are some that do believe in God, then there was enough evidence to convince as all are equally intelligent...

Now how does this relate to god-given free will? The problem I have with that is: assuming god knows everything that is going to happen in the universe, every event you'll go through in your life that will ultimately shape you in some ways your genetics which will also shape you, every book you're going to read, every person you're going to talk to in an exact moment in your life some which may have left you more prone to make a certain decision, but will still punish you for not believing?

God is not just something you can start believing in without evidence. People differ on what they accept as evidence, but there's no objective way to determine whether that evidence leads necessarily to a certain, specific god. You can have a religious experience and call that evidence - fine - but which god would you have chosen to believe in if you were living in the Muslim world? Why did you choose Christianity?

well, the consencus of HAF is that the Christian is of lesser intelligence.  We Christians don't mind at all. (I know that someone will bring up people that are metally challenged or mind diseases like Alzheimer's...I don't claim to know how God will judge these)

You say you don't mind, but there's obvious spite right there. I know enough very intelligent Christians to know that not all christians are stupid, it's the stupid ones which are generally the loudest and that does influence the stereotype. There are borderline retarded, average, intelligent and brilliant christians and atheists. Or do you think that all athiests are highly intelligent free thinkers?

[AnimatedDirt]

Okay, so what you're saying that our choices are the ones that our persons make under no coercive influence?

I'm sure we make lots of choices under coercive influence.  However, the free will God gave includes that AND the ability to choose "right" from "wrong".  Assuming God exists; then there is things He has decided are right and wrong.  If He is God, then He can know absolutely what is right and what is wrong.  The beauty of our free will is that while this God has made the "shell", if you will, of humanity perfect (granted some people think putting the waste disposal next to the entertainment area is wrong...I have yet to find any man complaining about the female body and its parts.) He has also made the mind perfect too.  Our mind is able to take in information, and give output based on that information.  As information changes, so does the output.  Each mind works the same and can take in the same information, but each PERSON is different.  We are individuals and not robots.  We all have access, can process the same information, but some come out with differing solutions/theories.  There are scientists that are Christians, there are Atheists that have become Christians.  There are Christians that have become Atheists.  It goes both ways.  This shows that everyone is choosing from their own mind.  Some, in fact, are influenced by their global position, but then to understand and/or believe in God is not limited to those only in Christianized areas.  The scripture plainly says that we (believers) are to spread the Good News around the world.  That every person should be given the choice.  With the advent of global communication, there is hardly a spot on earth that hasn't been touched.  That's not to say it's 100% done.

[...]good example is hypnosis. A hypnotised person will not do something that's against their will, such as commit a crime because of the hypnotist's influence unless they're already prone to or have been groomed to, but the influence is there and it does influence the will. They can act under suggestions that direct their thoughts and behavior.

I think what I mentioned above delves into this...at least what I think your bringing out.

Then there's the question of the choices that you become conscious of seconds after you've made them. This has been scientifically validated, people have been submitted to making decisions while in a CT scan and the time lapse between their brain making a decision and their awareness of the decision their brain made was as long as 6 seconds and in the rapid firing of neurons, that's a long time . There's no doubt that the choice is coming from your brain in that case, but how free are they? Or how free is a part of it? Which part? How do you know what influenced those and if you weren't under some subtle coercion such as suggestion, propaganda or brainwashing which interacted with the complex information processor that is your brain to direct your thoughts?

I'd say that there's nothing really going on here other than the fact that one became conscious of a decision seconds after making the decision.  To me it's much like going to McDonalds and ordering my favorite.  An ice cream cone.  Moments later, my mind is in thought of that cool, smooth ice cream and then the soggy cone for last.  The decision for the cone comes quickly, the pondering of that decision starts after the decision itself.  That's my take.  I'm no scientist.

Our free will allows us to look at, and interpret our world as our own mind sees and interprets it.  If one decides that the notion of "God" is too much of a fairytale and so holds no belief, then that person is allowed to make that choice of his/her own free will.  What this does is make each person accoutable to themselves.  The Atheist cannot be angry at "God", if at the end of time "God" does show up and put the Atheist where he/she chose to be.  Both the Atheist and the Christian employ the same mind and have access to the same "evidence".  One makes a choice one way, the other, another way.  If there are some that do believe in God, then there was enough evidence to convince as all are equally intelligent...

Now how does this relate to god-given free will?

We are discussing religion/God here aren't we?  Free will as it pertains to choosing God/anything?

The problem I have with that is: assuming god knows everything that is going to happen in the universe, every event you'll go through in your life that will ultimately shape you in some ways your genetics which will also shape you, every book you're going to read, every person you're going to talk to in an exact moment in your life some which may have left you more prone to make a certain decision, but will still punish you for not believing?

I may be getting your point wrong, but it seems it is much the same as I've already heard from Davin and others.
God punishes* dependant on each individual's choice.  Whether He knows or not, the punishment is dealt out according to each person's own choice.  (Punishment is death...of which the Atheist freely admits will happen anyway)

God is not just something you can start believing in without evidence. People differ on what they accept as evidence, but there's no objective way to determine whether that evidence leads necessarily to a certain, specific god. You can have a religious experience and call that evidence - fine - but which god would you have chosen to believe in if you were living in the Muslim world? Why did you choose Christianity?

Blessed I am that I was born into a Christian family in a nation that allows freedom of religion.  As I mentioned above, the task laid upon the believer is that with this knowledge comes the responsibility to share it with all, ultimately with the world.  No one should have an excuse to say that they never knew about God.  You all here have made a conscious decision that there is no God.  So if there is, and He does come to claim that which loves Him and you are left out, it is because you freely chose to.  (what will God do with people that haven't had the choice as the question might arise?  I don't know.  We are not explained how this scenario will play out in scripture.)

You say you don't mind, but there's obvious spite right there. I know enough very intelligent Christians to know that not all christians are stupid, it's the stupid ones which are generally the loudest and that does influence the stereotype. There are borderline retarded, average, intelligent and brilliant christians and atheists. Or do you think that all athiests are highly intelligent free thinkers?

Not spite.  I acknowledge that I am vastly inferior in knowledge of philosophies, science, politics...what I do claim, however is a superior knowledge of what the scriptures teach as opposed to those that simply spout glancing points from the bible..."God asked a man to sacrifice his son....that's not a God I want to follow..."  While true on the surface, it is a false generalization.

Total and complete ignorance is what that is.

[GAYtheist]

Religion is a man made fallacy that promotes itself in death. Only in dying will anyone know the truth.

[Davin]

So, after this short diversion, you don't know if free will can't be created.

Free will cannot be created in that it is a concept only brought about and understood by a cognitive mind.

How does this logic follow that free will cannot be created?

So god is as real as a man made cartoon, gotcha.

I think you just acknowledged God is as real as Man makes cartoons.

I acknowledged that god is as real as any other concept made up by man, given that that was your evidence, it appears that this is the conclusion you came to as well.

As many times as you claim that I'm wrong, you've yet to demonstrate that a god that knows excatly what you will do, has given you free will. You have no choices so long as this god knows exactly what you will do.

Many times have I answered this.  The problem is you refuse to accept the answer.  Here it is again;

You are wrong.  God only knows the choices.  You and I make those choices of our own free will.

If this omniscient god knows that you will drink a glass of water at 3:08pm tomorrow afternoon, what will you do tomorrow at 3:08pm in the afternoon?

My point still stands. Either this god was ignorant that sin would enter or he intended it to enter or it entered because this god did not have the power to prevent it.

Neither.  You are wrong again.  God is not ignorant to the problem free will brings.  God's intention was not "this" as we know life.

In fact God does have the power to change it.  No doubt in my mind.  The problem in changing it is called "stacking the deck" and more specifically would be Him being dishonest in giving free will if that free will is not truely free.  He could've made it different.  But then we wouldn't have true free will, but would basically be programmed to do what He wants.  Robots.  The fact that you have decided "God" isn't for you is proof positive that you/we are not robots programmed to run one path.  The path we run is the path we choose on our own.

So this god knew sin would come into the picture and has the power to stop it, so god intended for sin.

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm sure we make lots of choices under coercive influence.  However, the free will God gave includes that AND the ability to choose "right" from "wrong".  Assuming God exists; then there is things He has decided are right and wrong.  If He is God, then He can know absolutely what is right and what is wrong.

I agree that people make their own choices based on what they see as right and wrong. And that they should be responsible for them.

The beauty of our free will is that while this God has made the "shell", if you will, of humanity perfect (granted some people think putting the waste disposal next to the entertainment area is wrong...I have yet to find any man complaining about the female body and its parts.) He has also made the mind perfect too.  Our mind is able to take in information, and give output based on that information.  As information changes, so does the output.  Each mind works the same and can take in the same information, but each PERSON is different.  We are individuals and not robots.  We all have access, can process the same information, but some come out with differing solutions/theories.  There are scientists that are Christians, there are Atheists that have become Christians.  There are Christians that have become Atheists.  It goes both ways.  This shows that everyone is choosing from their own mind.  Some, in fact, are influenced by their global position, but then to understand and/or believe in God is not limited to those only in Christianized areas.  The scripture plainly says that we (believers) are to spread the Good News around the world.  That every person should be given the choice.  With the advent of global communication, there is hardly a spot on earth that hasn't been touched.  That's not to say it's 100% done.

Our minds are very good at what they do, but they're not perfect. They're flawed because they're very good at what they do. Optical illusions prove this. BBC Horizon released a documentary a short while ago on optical and audible illusions called "is seeing believing?" - really interesting stuff as well - in which they explain these 'brain failures' in more depth. And that's exactly what fascinates me about theists. They hold a worldview so different from my own and I want to know why, mostly from the perceptual and cognitive model of reality side rather than theological.

Muslims say the same thing, that their religion should be spread, and they believe in their god and holy book as much as you do in yours. Why aren't most people who come into contact with Islam (through the Internet or whatever) choose to become Muslim? They also make truth claims that unbelievers who didn't choose their way will suffer for eternity in the afterlife.  

Then there's the question of the choices that you become conscious of seconds after you've made them. This has been scientifically validated, people have been submitted to making decisions while in a CT scan and the time lapse between their brain making a decision and their awareness of the decision their brain made was as long as 6 seconds and in the rapid firing of neurons, that's a long time . There's no doubt that the choice is coming from your brain in that case, but how free are they? Or how free is a part of it? Which part? How do you know what influenced those and if you weren't under some subtle coercion such as suggestion, propaganda or brainwashing which interacted with the complex information processor that is your brain to direct your thoughts?

I'd say that there's nothing really going on here other than the fact that one became conscious of a decision seconds after making the decision.  To me it's much like going to McDonalds and ordering my favorite.  An ice cream cone.  Moments later, my mind is in thought of that cool, smooth ice cream and then the soggy cone for last.  The decision for the cone comes quickly, the pondering of that decision starts after the decision itself.  That's my take.  I'm no scientist.

Let's say you're walking on the street under the scorching sun feeling the heat as if you were in an oven and you come across a McDonald's with a big poster on it's window with a perfect vanilla ice cream cone. The colour of the ice cream is as white as crispy snow, there might even be ice in the background art of the poster. An complete picture of re freshness. You see lettering that says something simple and suggestive like ""Hot day? Have an ICE CREAM." Suddenly you're aware of just how thirsty you are and how much you want that sugary cool ice cream to put out a bit of the heat you feel is emanating from your interior. Your brain already likes and naturally craves sugar, since it is its only fuel. It's been naturally programmed to. It may be flooded with neurotransmitters that anticipate the pleasure of eating that ice cream and you go in the store to buy it.
It was your choice, but it was determined in part by those factors...and 6 seconds before you were even aware of the choice you made.

The choice is yours to buy that ice cream, but how much of it was free? Would you have chosen your favourite ice cream if you were walking on the street in a freezing cold blizzard, had just filled your stomach with so many sweets that your blood sugar was high and thus any craving for more is turned off?

We are discussing religion/God here aren't we?  Free will as it pertains to choosing God/anything?

My bad. I wrote that as a continuation of where I left off previously.

The problem I have with that is: assuming god knows everything that is going to happen in the universe, every event you'll go through in your life that will ultimately shape you in some ways your genetics which will also shape you, every book you're going to read, every person you're going to talk to in an exact moment in your life some which may have left you more prone to make a certain decision, but will still punish you for not believing?

I may be getting your point wrong, but it seems it is much the same as I've already heard from Davin and others.
God punishes* dependant on each individual's choice.  Whether He knows or not, the punishment is dealt out according to each person's own choice.  (Punishment is death...of which the Atheist freely admits will happen anyway)

Nope, you're not getting it wrong. That's exactly the issue I (and many atheists) have with god-given free will in a deterministic universe where an omnibenevolent god who knows everything, including whether or not you'll choose to worship him, waits for you to live your life already knowing that you won't choose to believe in him and then blames and punishes you for choosing not to. There are two parts to this problem - that of just how free our free will is and god's omnibenevolence.

Blessed I am that I was born into a Christian family in a nation that allows freedom of religion.  As I mentioned above, the task laid upon the believer is that with this knowledge comes the responsibility to share it with all, ultimately with the world.  No one should have an excuse to say that they never knew about God.  You all here have made a conscious decision that there is no God.  So if there is, and He does come to claim that which loves Him and you are left out, it is because you freely chose to.  (what will God do with people that haven't had the choice as the question might arise?  I don't know.  We are not explained how this scenario will play out in scripture.)

Let's put the god of the bible aside for this one and take another example instead, so you can better understand where atheists are coming from.

Supposing someone came up to you and said that Allah has given you the choice to worship him but if you refuse out of your free will you will receive the foretold punishment. You've already chosen your set of beliefs, values and philosophies based on your life experience, culture, learning and the path you've chosen as an outcome of all that. Why don't you choose Islam even though they have a holy book they claim is true, a prophet they claim is the prophet of the one god and millions of followers and believers who have seen evidence for the existence of that particular god as told in the Quran?

In hindsight your whole life has led you to where you are now based on the choices you made and the opportunities that were open to you. You're where Allah already knew you would be. Why won't you choose Islam?

Thing is, Allah knows you won't choose Islam, but gave you free will. You chose to continue being an unbeliever in Islam for your own reasons (not enough evidence to make you change your mind, maybe?) . He's also omnibenevolent but will put you in hell after you die because you didn't choose to become a Muslim, even though he always knew you wouldn't. Is that benevolent?

Not spite.  I acknowledge that I am vastly inferior in knowledge of philosophies, science, politics...what I do claim, however is a superior knowledge of what the scriptures teach as opposed to those that simply spout glancing points from the bible..."God asked a man to sacrifice his son....that's not a God I want to follow..."  While true on the surface, it is a false generalization.

Total and complete ignorance is what that is.

Well I'm ignorant on the bible and scripture. In fact, it's something that I've been wanting to remedy for quite some time now, but as I mentioned above my interests pertain mostly to the cognitive side of beliefs (religious and non religious), perception and the like. I've got a perfectly good KJV sitting somewhere that's been collecting dust for many years, but reading it to discuss the theological aspect would take time and energy I don't have. Not to mention I would have to read up on history, archeology, educate myself further in comparative religions and the history of the the judeo-christian religion and how it changed over time and what influenced it in its infancy. And also the political side of Christianity too, and the vestiges it contains as a tool for power. I think that the bible is not something that can be read isolated from other topics.

That's why I try to refrain from discussing actual parts of the bible, though my limited knowledge has allowed me to see that many Christians don't know anything about the bible either.

*Edited to correct misspellings.

[Stevil]

"God asked a man to sacrifice his son....that's not a God I want to follow..."  While true on the surface, it is a false generalization.

Total and complete ignorance is what that is.

Hmmm, my first thought was WTF!
My second thought, it said it in the bible right? Abraham was asked by God to kill his son.
A specific instance, which was referenced as a specific instance by the person (me) refering to it. I am struggling to see where the generalisation is.
I most certainly am ignorant of the bible as a whole, but that story, I've heard that one. You can put whatever enterpretation on it that you want. But if you read the passage, well, it is what it is.
It seems you are imagining a completely different Bible to the one that is actually written. Your assertions about your god taint your view of its actions as described in the bible.

[fester30]

Animated Dirt is right in one way.  Often there are people who do not know the Bible that use a verse here and there from what they've seen on another atheist website to show the holes in scripture.  

I'll say this much.  I've read the Bible twice, spent 33 years as a Christian, and tried several denominations, and can say that to maintain faith in God and the Bible and Jesus you have to set aside much of the Bible, and ignore some of the doctrine that every minister and church teach.

I do think we're starting to see the beginnings of a nation turning away from God.  There are fewer people who believe in God now.  Out of those who do, the majority do not attend church.  Are we just that much busier as a nation?  Perhaps most of the remaining theists maintain a loose belief in God based on being taught so in their younger lives and fear in going to hell if they turn away.

[The Magic Pudding]

"God asked a man to sacrifice his son....that's not a God I want to follow..."  While true on the surface, it is a false generalization.

Total and complete ignorance is what that is.

Hmmm, my first thought was WTF!
My second thought, it said it in the bible right? Abraham was asked by God to kill his son.
A specific instance, which was referenced as a specific instance by the person (me) refering to it. I am struggling to see where the generalisation is.
I most certainly am ignorant of the bible as a whole, but that story, I've heard that one. You can put whatever enterpretation on it that you want. But if you read the passage, well, it is what it is.
It seems you are imagining a completely different Bible to the one that is actually written. Your assertions about your god taint your view of its actions as described in the bible.

Yes ignorance what else can you call it?
Doesn't everyone know what a funny old bloke god is?
Always joking around, what a whit.
Kill your son, ah no I was only joking, ha.... ha.....ha

I never did read that part of the bible, I'm sure I heard about it at Sunday school, probably coloured in Abraham.  As I recall it old Ab was rewarded for his willingness to kill his son with not having to kill his son.  Shit, I just don't know why this faith never stuck with me.

[Stevil]

Well, I've done the research now.
It seems that theists are quite confused about this story, there are lots of differing oppinions, lots of "excuses", none of the excuses draw on what it actually said about this story, but make stuff up to substantiate an excuse. Same thing goes for the She bears incident.

One Christain said that they weren't very happy with the bible because it makes god out to be a "monster"
Wikipedia talks about how the Jews reject the story as it is within the bible,

Rabbi Yona Ibn Janach (Spain, 11th century) wrote that God demanded only a symbolic sacrifice. Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi (Spain, early 14th century) wrote that Abraham's "imagination" led him astray, making him believe that he had been commanded to sacrifice his son. Ibn Caspi writes "How could God command such a revolting thing?"

But the bible does not talk about only a symbolic sacfice (which is bad enough). The bible does not say this is Abraham's imagination. The bible is clear and specific that Abraham was demanded by god to kill his son Issac.

Other rabbinic scholars also note that Abraham was willing to do everything to spare his son, even if it meant going against the divine command

Again, another made up excuse. This excuse is not reflected in teh scripture.

and for the Christian response as per Wiki

The Author of Hebrews here considers Abraham's faith in God to be of such a magnitude that he felt reassured that if God would allow him to perform the task which he'd requested, God would be able to resurrect the slain Isaac, in order that his prophecy (Genesis 21:12) might be fulfilled

Again, nowhere in scripture was described that Abraham thought that there was no consequence to his son with regards to Abraham killing him. This excuse is simply an imaginative twist to wriggle out of the difficult situation that a Christian's all loving perfect God is demanding a faithful follwer to kill his own son.

Early Christian preaching sometimes simply received Jewish interpretations of the binding of Isaac without elaborating on them. For example Hippolytus of Rome says in his Commentary on the Song of Songs, "The blessed Isaac became desirous of the anointing and he wished to sacrifice himself for the sake of the world"

Here is a funny contradictory excuse from Answers.com

God was testing Abrahm so that Abrahm would know that his love for God has to come first above all else including his son. God does not and has not EVER asked anyone to sin because he is a HOLY God and that goes against who he is. If someone says that God asked someone to sin then it was not from God but Satan, The Father of Lies.

So, God asks Abraham to kill his son as a test to see who Abraham loves the most. Then the excuse goes on to say God has never asked anyone to sin because... blah blah. Here it is based on assertions but denies the scripture as written, god asking Abraham to sacrifice his son!

It seems everyone is ignorant of this story, noone knows what the hell it is about, and oppinions and theories are abound.

[Davin]

@Stevil: What I've found to be the status quo of theists is that when they claim you've not done the research, they won't accept that you've honestly done the research unless you come to the same conclusion they have. In an intellectually honest argument, one doesn't just say that the other has not done the proper research, they provide something on the proper research to demonstrate it. To just say someone has not done the proper research and leave it at that is an attempt to discredit the point without having to actually argue against the point. I would not be surprised to see AD say that you haven't researched enough or you just dismiss the arguments on account of you being an atheist in an attempt to once again avoid your points.

[Stevil]

The bible itself is not about the stories. It is not a peice of historical documents to record events that happened. The book is to teach and influence the reader how to think and behave. Each story has some sort of lesson such that the reader becomes indocterined into a way of thinking.

The Abraham lesson is to teach the reader to obey, to follow all other lessons and morals of the bible without question (as well as the church). It provides an extreme example of a Father obeying and attempting to kill his son, as a lesson to say nothing is beyond the level of obedience that is expected. The book of Job is a similar lesson.

It overcomes the grotesqueness and do as I say not as I do by making wild assertions, God is love, God is perfect, blah blah.

I would think many new Christians must struggle with the grotesque aspect of the bible. It must take a great amount of effort to get them to overcome this and see it as God being perfect.

This is my current thought on it anyhow. I know all Christians would adimately disagree.

[AnimatedDirt]

Well, I've done the research now.
It seems that theists are quite confused about this story, there are lots of differing oppinions, lots of "excuses", none of the excuses draw on what it actually said about this story, but make stuff up to substantiate an excuse. Same thing goes for the She bears incident.

I see you've done some research, but selective and half-hearted, at best.  Still, the point is that there are differing opinions on the event.  However, I don't think you even went to the source itself.

God never intended that Abraham go through with the sacrifice of his son.  It is a picture of Christ at his death (sacrifice), the innocent boy carrying the wood himself and the father carrying the fire.  Abraham seems to have known all along that God wouldn't REALLY have him take his own son, but he trusted God.  In fact, when Abraham told the servants to "stay here and we will be back", is a statement of faith that God WOULD provide the sacrifice...even when the boy asks about having wood and fire but no sacrifice, Abraham tells his son, "God will provide".  See Genesis 22 if at all interested.

Contrary to Davin's idea, I don't care whether you come to the "right" conclusion.  I would rather someone intelligently discuss points that they disagree with in scripture or about God rather than simply spouting off some point off a list.  It would be better to question the "test" rather than the request that was the test.  Why?  Because the request/task was never intended to be fulfilled to the letter.  I question the test myself to some degree, but I don't dismiss the point brought about as a result.  In the end, God did provide.  God did sacrifice a Son.  His own.

[fester30]

Well, I've done the research now.
It seems that theists are quite confused about this story, there are lots of differing oppinions, lots of "excuses", none of the excuses draw on what it actually said about this story, but make stuff up to substantiate an excuse. Same thing goes for the She bears incident.

I see you've done some research, but selective and half-hearted, at best.  Still, the point is that there are differing opinions on the event.  However, I don't think you even went to the source itself.

God never intended that Abraham go through with the sacrifice of his son.  It is a picture of Christ at his death (sacrifice), the innocent boy carrying the wood himself and the father carrying the fire.  Abraham seems to have known all along that God wouldn't REALLY have him take his own son, but he trusted God.  In fact, when Abraham told the servants to "stay here and we will be back", is a statement of faith that God WOULD provide the sacrifice...even when the boy asks about having wood and fire but no sacrifice, Abraham tells his son, "God will provide".  See Genesis 22 if at all interested.

Contrary to Davin's idea, I don't care whether you come to the "right" conclusion.  I would rather someone intelligently discuss points that they disagree with in scripture or about God rather than simply spouting off some point off a list.  It would be better to question the "test" rather than the request that was the test.  Why?  Because the request/task was never intended to be fulfilled to the letter.  I question the test myself to some degree, but I don't dismiss the point brought about as a result.  In the end, God did provide.  God did sacrifice a Son.  His own.

If the Abraham story were to be believed, there are several possibilities for his behavior.  One could be that God ordered him to make a sacrifice of his son, but that Abraham didn't really believe that's what God was going to have him do, as you said.  Perhaps another explanation could be that Abraham was schizophrenic, having auditory hallucinations telling him to sacrifice his son, but he didn't really want to do it, so he knew the hallucinations would tell him to stop.

The Abraham story actually sounds a lot like some of the things I heard from two schizophrenics when I was working at a mental health institution.  One was even arrested because her husband caught her about to sacrifice her daughter because God told her to do it.  She claimed later that God had just changed his mind just before her husband walked into the room.  While I was working there, she claimed Jesus visited her at night to make love to her, and once even came out of her room naked after such an experience.  That was a disturbing sight.

[Davin]

Well, I've done the research now.
It seems that theists are quite confused about this story, there are lots of differing oppinions, lots of "excuses", none of the excuses draw on what it actually said about this story, but make stuff up to substantiate an excuse. Same thing goes for the She bears incident.

I see you've done some research, but selective and half-hearted, at best.  Still, the point is that there are differing opinions on the event.  However, I don't think you even went to the source itself.

Yeah, I'm not surprised.

God never intended that Abraham go through with the sacrifice of his son.  It is a picture of Christ at his death (sacrifice), the innocent boy carrying the wood himself and the father carrying the fire.  Abraham seems to have known all along that God wouldn't REALLY have him take his own son, but he trusted God.  In fact, when Abraham told the servants to "stay here and we will be back", is a statement of faith that God WOULD provide the sacrifice...even when the boy asks about having wood and fire but no sacrifice, Abraham tells his son, "God will provide".  See Genesis 22 if at all interested.

So where in the bible does it say that Abraham knew he wouldn't have to REALLY sacrifice his son? If Abraham REALLY knew that he wouldn't have to sacrifice his son, then the whole point of the story is that when god tells you to do something, you REALLY know he doesn't mean it? Then why is not anything said by this god not taken with the same grain of salt? How do we know this god REALLY means that you have to beleive in him and Jesus to get into heaven?

Contrary to Davin's idea, I don't care whether you come to the "right" conclusion.

Contrary to my idea but you acted exactly as I predicted. Does that mean that I'm a prophet because my prediction came true?

I would rather someone intelligently discuss points that they disagree with in scripture or about God rather than simply spouting off some point off a list.  It would be better to question the "test" rather than the request that was the test.  Why?  Because the request/task was never intended to be fulfilled to the letter.  I question the test myself to some degree, but I don't dismiss the point brought about as a result.  In the end, God did provide.  God did sacrifice a Son.  His own.

God sacrificed his own son, who was himself, who knew the whole deal of what was going on... so god let himself die in order to sacrifice himself to himself because of something that was in his control that he knew about in the first place... I don't see the sacrifice.

If this omniscient god knows that you will drink a glass of water at 3:08pm tomorrow afternoon, what will you do tomorrow at 3:08pm in the afternoon?