Greatest I am

I'm pretty sure that the main point of Christianity is that we are an inherently sinful species, and only God can save us from our deserved punishment. Good deeds do not matter, nor does how we live our life, because we have still sinned. How is that shunning responsibility for our sins?

 

 

Are you saying that Christians do not believe that Jesus became their scapegoat and died for their sins?

Even as scripture says that that is B S and that God would reject such an immoral act.

Please show the logic trail that explains why an omnipotent God, who knows all things, would create a species that he has to die for.

Regards

DL

If you continue to insist on personal attacks on believers to make your points, your access to the Religion forum will be revoked. Please read the religion forum rules, particularly rule 1.a.

I will try to be more politically correct even as I find that to be hypocritical.

I did not see my statement as personal because I see them that way as a group.

Regards

DL

hmm, where have I read that before. Take a chill pill, it's all been done before, the sun will rise another day. Don't drink, don't smoke, subtle innuendo follows, something happens on the inside, must be something on the inside.

 

By the way, Christians are not really that bad, as a whole. You just have splinter group (ir?)rationalists who use the whole (Jesus died for my sins) rationale to practice what they do, but nobody is going to pay attention to it since the majority of Christians are decent people. If you are so perfect, then forget about it and just work on your own business. Society has plenty of checks in place to mostly shape people into moderate conformity, unless they are totally on the fringe, in which, sooner or later, the dragnets will take their toll and make them ship shape or they will fall prey to their own demises. Being all judgmental is just the quick road to not having any friends. Like the saying goes for the spiritually inclined, "Let go and let God".

Let me repeat---

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.

They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 9

Promoting death to Gays.

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.

Fight them when you can.

You say that most Christians are good people and you may be right even as the U S, a Christian nation, has the most in jail, per capita, than most other first world nations.

That aside though, I have yet to see any Christian start a post showing the crap that they do and denouncing it.

They may be good but not good enough to clean up their own act.

Regards

DL

I agree. I think humans tend to project their own fears, ambitions, and hopes onto an anthropomorphic deity. If they feel insecure about wars, then god becomes a valiant, always victorious warrior god. When a tornado happens, he becomes the jealous and vengeful smiter. It is interesting how there are so many names for the Judeo/Christian god in the old testament.

A God to blame for all conditions.

Anything is better than theists stepping up and taking responsibilities for our own actions.

Note how far up Jesus' ass Christians have put their heads to insure that they never have to take their responsibility for their sins.

Regards

DL

I think something you need to realize is that God didn't do anything genocydal, gave people free will .

I sniped for brevity.

Thanks for this.

Is the story of Noah’s flood, as set out in scripture, not a genocidal act?

As to free will. God’s idea of free will seems to be ----do things my way or burn forever.

Do you really see that as free will and not a threat?

Regards

DL

Why do you follow a genocidal God?

Bible God, the un-knowable one, has been described in scriptures by someone claiming to know much of the un-knowable God. How the un-knowable can be know has yet to shown. On reading scriptures, some have concluded that Bible God is quite immoral.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK1DbcIbHt4&playnext=1&list=PLC76727A34E740D99

I tend to agree based on moral reasons and would like to keep the discussion on morality without going into whether God is real or not. Something that we cannot prove. We can prove though whether we think Bible God acted morally or not.

The first followers of Bible God, the Jews, also seem to agree with Dawkins and myself.

Genocide, or attempted genocide is considered by most to be a low moral position.

Followers of a Hitler or Stalin, who would try to justify their genocidal actions, would not be well received by most of us.

Why then do you think that we should join you in following a God who takes the moral low ground of genocide instead of doing the right moral thing and curing instead of killing those he thinks defective?

As a religionist myself, I can understand seeking God but why would we want to seek, or follow a genocidal one?

What attracts you to a genocidal God?

Is it just that might makes right?

We are to emulate God.

Does that mean that you too would use genocide as a form of what most believers think of as good justice?

Regards

DL

Indeed, to reject is different than to merely not accept, which is why I said it the way I did. I'm just pointing out that when evaluating the question of whether or not God exists, it's irrational to refuse to admit the possibility that miracles can occur, because such refusal would beg the question.

 

 

It certainly includes the anicent texts. On what reasonable grounds do you propose that I should ignore them?

 

 

Again, that's the fallacy of the undesired result.

 

It also contains the hidden assumption that Christianity is not true, and thus begs the question.

 

 

Not relevant to the subject at hand. But I'd tell her what the position of the Church is: that it might be prudent for her to seek legal separation from her husband.

It certainly is relevant.

If un-workable laws are given, they are obviously wrong and poorly thought out.

As to your last.

That is the position of the Church. Not the position of Jesus or bible God.

As I said, his is not workable or moral.

“On what reasonable grounds do you propose that I should ignore them?”

First. Because they begin with a talking snake and end with a seven headed monster.

Second. Because they ignore the laws of nature and physics and are based on hear say only without a shred of evidence.

One should not ignore logic and reason for faith.

Faith without facts is for fools.

If your view is better, then I have some dry land in Florida for sale at a good price.

Lets deal.

Regards

DL

Chilehed

“Okay. So we've established that we can't reject an allegedly historical account merely because it records a miracle.”

Not to bog us down in semantics but I would have said it another way.

I would say that we cannot accept the miracle part of whatever historical account is being told. To me, not accepting it is not quite the same as rejecting it. I just shelf the issue in my speculative thinking file or look for some other meaning to the story. Legally I guess a court would say that I reject it and the court would be right.

“ The question here is whether or not there's sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable person that miracles occur, and my position is that there's more than enough. “

What is this evidence. I hope it is not just hear say or Bible say.

Greatest I am, on 12 July 2011 - 11:48 AM, said:

Even then, most of what he said is un-workable rhetoric.

Like his divorce laws. Let no one divorce, is silly and immoral.

Chilehed - Your reply

That's called the fallacy of the undesired result. Just because you don't agree with what he said doesn't mean that he didn't say it... and the argument rests on the assumption that he did exist, he did say it and it was accurately recorded. You're quite effectively sawing off the limb on which you sit.

I did not say it was not written that way. I said it was rather useless rhetoric that does not work.

Would you tell a woman that gets beat twice a week to not seek a divorce?

Regards

DL

You are muddling two issues; proof and action.

Speaking purely hypothetically,

A baby who dies before they have any chance to do wrong will (at least according to some religions) enter heaven.Though they have no faith.

As you day, a Demo, who knows that God exists and therefore has faith doesn't get to heaven.

A saint who has faith and acts properly gets to heaven.

A sinner ends up in hell in spite of his belief.

So, it seems that faith has nothing much to do with it.

It's actions that make the difference.

 

Faith without acts is useless.

 

Proof can not have a lot to do with it. Unless you are a demon, you don't have proof.

I agree.

We should all walk our talk and not just with religion.

Regards

DL

Faith without works and proof is false faith.

Scriptures, on the issue of works, contradict each other.

Some scriptures and Christian sects push the notion that faith alone in God is all that is required to earn heaven.

Some scriptures indicate that without works, living the theology and applying it to reality, that whatever faith we claim to have is useless and that those souls are lost.

The notion of being part of a community where individuals looked out for each other and shared whatever it had was the key and the only reason Christianity became the religion that it is today. I mean this in the sense or size only. In reality, Christianity no longer bases it’s theology and being saved on works.

Perhaps this is why the Church is so fragmented today and losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the population.

People usually do what they see as profitable in one way or another for themselves. Today, looking at Christianity, from inside or outside, the population does not see a profit in remaining in or joining Christianity due to this notion that faith is all that is required.

Without works, will Christianity die?

Do you have to live your faith or is faith without works and good deeds good enough?

What was it that James told Peter.

Demons have faith in God and it is likely stronger than man’s faith because they know for certain of God’s reality yet it does them no good. Faith, belief that is not based on proof, is thus useless.

Regards

DL

Yet, if Jesus didn't do many miracles for those in power (I can't think of one), then why would they have wanted to pay for his jail if they saw him as a possible fraud? Most of the people wanted to kill him too, as he went against the established customs and thought.

If you had a goose that was said to lay golden eggs, would you prepare a roost or the oven?

Regards

DL

A theory cannot be proven, only supported.

 

How could those in power have capitalized upon Jesus (if He was truly a miracle worker and divine)? Clearly, Jesus wasn't willing to be "capitalized upon" in a earthly sense. If He was divine, He wouldn't let anyone capitalize on Him.

The ancients would lay siege to foreign battlements for years for gain and you can’t see them putting a miracle worker in jail to cool his heals and soften up to do a few miracles for their gain.

Oh well.

Regards

DL

Laws are not some higher truth of reality. A law is like a theory, except it is explaining a natural phenomenon. A law may be overturned at any time, if new evidence reveals itself. It is highly unlikely it will be overturned, it will simply be refined, but it still isn't the end-all to everything within that particular domain. So basically, it's not so bad to have an open mind about unproven possibilities. Many theoretical physicists do.

It is quite different to be open to ideas but you cannot compare that notion to faith.

No scientist would die for an un-proven theory yet those of faith say they would for their un-proven theories.

What problems did you have accepting the secular items that ydoaPs gave to you?

[/quote[

 

He spoke of Christians. Not Jesus.

We both know that anyone in power at the time who thought they actually had a miracle worker in hand, would have capitalized on him. Not kill him.

 

Regards

DL

Forgive me. I must have misunderstood what you meant by

"The Bible begins with a talking serpent and other miracles that defy nature and physics.. This should be warning enough, for anyone who can think independently that the Bible should not be read literally."

and

"... that would mean that they would have to believe in fantasy miracles and magic. Most will not take that leap of faith."

and

"How deeply do you believe in fantasy, miracles and magic? As an adult, do you see your fantastic beliefs as those of a healthy mind?"

and

"What would it take for you to change your mind about fantasy, miracles and magic being real?"

So then I gather that your objection is not that miracles are impossible, but that the documentary evidence is insufficient to convince a reasonable person that they have occurred?

Correct again.

I do not think it a good idea to have a mind that believes so openly to unproven possibilities.

Laws of nature are laws after all.

"to establish the historicity of Sophocles or Plato"

Those named wrote their thoughts.

There is no documentation other than hear say and bible say, all hear say, that Jesus ever said anything.

Even then, most of what he said is un-workable rhetoric.

Like his divorce laws. Let no one divorce, is silly and immoral.

Regards

DL

So then you admit that it's unsupportable to claim that science proves that miracles are impossible.

Correct. I did not claim it could.

Regards

DL

If I had made an argument from ignorance, then you might be correct. I did not do that. I'm familiar with the arguments to which you refer in the OP, that there's no evidence that Jesus existed and all of that, and I find those arguments to be poorly formulated and based on flawed reasoning. I find that the historical evidence is more than sufficient to lead a reasonable person to conclude that Jesus is an actual historical figure, and that the miracles attributed to him did happen.

 

I suppose that I could reject the evidence out of hand on the grounds that miracles are impossible, but that would beg the question.

 

This is absurd. You asked what would be necessary to make me change my mind, and I told you.

 

You said in the OP that miracles defy science. That assertion can be true only if science has demonstrated one of the four things I mentioned: that all causes are observable, that miracles are impossible, that everything real is demonstrable through the scientific method, that there is no God. It hasn't done so, not can it.

 

If you can provide a valid proof of your positive assertion, then I'll have to carefully reconsider my position on the existance of God. I won't hold my breath, because thus far no one's come up with such a proof and when I asked you for one you complained that I'm being unreasonable.

Can you prove the un-provable? No.

Neither can I.

Regards

DL

I don't have time to debate every issue brought up, however, I disagree even with the last sentence, about how creationists believe that something came from nothing. If God exists, He is not, "nothing".

If the theist position were logical, we would not be discussing them.

Regards

DL

A scientific proof that all causes are observable.

A scientific proof that miracles are impossible.

A scientific proof that everything real is demonstrable through the scientific method.

A scientific proof that there is no God.

 

 

It's not possible for Jesus to merely be a good man whom we should emulate, because such men don't claim to be God. If he's not what he claimed to be, then he's not a good man at all. So I see no way at all for me to ever accept that view.

This speaks quite well to your logical fallacy.

Come back, if you understand it, wit a reasonable set of questions and not some wish list you want from science when your wish list for God does not hold the same conditions you place on us.

That is not fair play at all.

Regards

DL

Almost everything important and scientifically true is general. The basic laws of physics, for example, were not found by searching through the Amazon Rain Forest to uncover some secret stone with magical properties which revealed them, but rather, by carefully analyzing and measuring large ranges of superficial data and then drawing the best inferences to account for them. Similarly, ethical and psychological principles are normally developed by gaining lots of experience about people and then deriving a few principles which serve as useful guides for treating others well and empathizing with them.

 

But the whole problem with the literalist approach to the significance of one person who lived at one time and in one place is that it pretends that the meaning of the entire universe can be derived from what a single entity is reported to have said and done. Thus the meaning of the entire system is focused just in one tiny point within the system, which is not characteristic of any sort of systematic explanation elsewhere in our experience. Peano's axioms explaining math don't concentrate on discovering the meaning of number by finding the special, magically informative number, say 1139, which reveals all.

 

Rational insight simply doesn't work this way -- or rather, it does, but only in fairy tales, where the Wizard of Oz, the golden fleece, the sword in the stone, the holy grail, the wise centaur Silenus, etc., will explain or solve everything, if it can only be discovered. Such a solution to the mysteries of life is characteristically literary, since it defines a simple quest for the story's narrative, concretizes and unifies the solution of the action, and dramatizes the conclusion. That the whole answer to all the vast and terrible mysteries of life and the universe should be in a single carpenter who spoke Aramaic in the Roman Province of Judea ca. 30 A.D. seems palpably fictional and rationally disproportionate. How can a single fact account for everything?

Yes.

We are from a single event the big bang, but not from a single entity.

If such an entity wanted us to know of it, I am sure we would be more than aware of it's reality.

In the meantime, we have fantasy.

Regards

DL

If the West is to help the East; the East should pay the Gas.

There are two basic ways, and two basic ways only, to conquer a nation; force of arms or by economic control.

At present, the West is spending much of it’s wealth in helping the Eastern revolutionary forces stabilize, organize and rid itself of the old political ways. At the same time, the East is attacking the West on the economic front, and preventing the West from helping it’s own Eastern political transition in a swifter fashion. IOW, the East is shooting itself in the foot by shooting the West in the foot. The East should recognize that it is hard for the West to put the hammer down when it is too expensive to put the hammer down. China is not helping at this point in time on the economic conquest of the western world with their dollar either. They should think globally a bit more. So should we all.

The East would be well advised to reduce the price of fuel to the West and thus fuel it’s own political aspirations.

I personally wish to contribute more to democracy, secularism and the individual freedoms that the East aspires to. If democracy is not about ending tyranny then it is worthless.

One of the founding notions of democracy, it seems to me; is that reciprocity is fair play.

In the case of fuel, it does not serve the East nor the West and the freedoms that both seek in terms of personal autonomy by having a high gas price.

Regards

DL

It's earlier than much of the New Testament, actually. It's on par with the Gospel of John. It's earlier than Timothy, Titus, James, and 2 Peter.

I realize that but feel the same as when people talk to me about how everyone thought Jesus was divine.

I then point out that it took 200 odd years to finally put him as part of the trinity.

That is like us trying to put divinity on Columbus based on eye witness reports.

The only reason most likely for Jesus joining the trinity was political.

Regards

DL

Are Evangelicals and conservative Christians the Anti-Christ?

In the tribal conditions of the ancient world, it is not surprising that Christians would be hated.

Revelation shows the destruction of all except God’s chosen. Evangelicals and literalists, pray for this genocidal destruction to happen in their lifetimes. That is a lot of hate coming from those who profess to love all of mankind. Some would say that these so called Christians, are not of good heart and do not follow their own religion, bible or a loving Christ.

Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Some would in fact say that these Christians are traitors to the society they hate.

In the old tribal days, and even today, those who do not believe as Evangelicals, literalists and conservative Christians do, would see these as traitors and haters and would get their backs up, as most humans being would automatically do, and hate these Christian traitors right back. It is no wonder then, and some ancients would say quite fittingly, that these traitors should be fed to the lions. Hate being returned for the hate that these Christians show to society.

It is not too surprising then to see why Christians were persecuted in the old days. They deserved it as far as the other tribes were concerned as they were showing hate for all others in wishing and praying for their death in this life as well as everlasting torture for eternity in the next.

What a game for your God to play if such were true!

Create a place for eternal bliss as well as a place for eternal suffering.

Then create beings whom he loves dearly and watches over.

And in the end, decide which to consider "trash" and "throw away" into the place for eternal suffering and which to cling to and love in the place for eternal bliss.

Even man, with all his faults, is greater and more responsible.

Evangelicals and followers of Jesus should thank God that they live in a world that has lost some of it’s tribal ways, not themselves of course, and society allow these who hate them so much, to remain untouched in today’s environment.

These Evangelicals and literalist believers think themselves as followers of Christ yet Christ was of love while they are of hate. They are anti their own bible as shown with Rom 12;21. If the bible is the word of God as they believe it is, then they are anti-bible and therefore, biblically speaking, Anti-Christ. They definitely are not cut from the same cloth that Jesus was.

Are these Evangelicals and literalist believers the Anti-Christ of scripture?

Is the term traitors to humanity a fitting label for these misguided Christians?

Regards

DL

A soul probably isn't a physical thing such as an arm, or a leg.

 

More likely, the word "soul" just means - a kind of "record" which God keeps, of our actions.

 

Good actions, earn us a plus point on the record. Bad actions, earn us a negative point.

 

Then when we die, God adds up all the points on our record (or "soul"). If they add up to to an overall "plus" mark, we're rewarded by going to Heaven. If they add up to an overall "negative" mark, we're punished by going to Hell.

 

Does that seem a reasonable interpretation of the word "soul"?

No. Here is why.

It is said that the omni everything God already knows and has always known everything. His famous plan remember.

That being the case, the souls would be a redundant and un-necessary appendage. Just a copy of what is already known.

Seems that God back up his plan the way we back up our computer files.

I guess he does not trust his memory.

Regards

DL

That is so false i hesitate to even continue our debate, there is no point in time where you can point and show that humans became humans, none.

 

LOL.

Yet anthropologists have done just that. Roughly.

 

Ok though. In some ways I agree that at no point in the past did we become human.

We must therefore conclude, FYPOV, that we are not human today.

 

 

It i s also doubtful that this ever happened as well, all human migrations were gradual not sudden and the animals and plants a fungi from area pretty much gradually grade inot the next as well.

 

 

Sure but they still had to do the testing. Gradually.

 

 

Again this is based on a totally false idea.

 

To you perhaps. Then again I made your idea above of humans not becoming humans look as silly as it was.

 

 

Again, a totally false assumption

 

Then how would we know our theories are sound if we had not tested them.

I E. Einstein's theory on time. Remember his two plane and clocks experiment.

 

 

Because as they evolved they already knew which mushrooms to eat to get high and which one would kill, it was knowledge passed down from each generation to the next, this information was obtained way before humans became "humans" do you think an ape suddenly gave birth to a human and he had to go out into the world totally ignorant?

 

 

Oh my. Instincts include a dietary list. How droll.

 

 

yes you do, your idea of god is totally unfalsifiable, it is totally untestable.

 

True. For the moment.

That is why I do not push it.

 

 

While i agree that theists or for that matter any superstion is dangerous I totally challenge that as well, no rationalist worth his salt would ever accept or even consider your evidence as proof of any god like deity or even telepathy.

 

I agree and that is why I just offer it only as an anecdotal rendering.

I myself would take it with a grain of salt if I had not lived it.

 

Then why do you assert something you cannot prove?

 

Because it is true.

 

 

Then what is it? How can we measue it? How is it any different than any other concept of god?

 

As mentioned, it is a cosmic consciousness. A consolidation of many minds or consciousness'.

I would not know how to measure it. The usual definition says that it spans the whole universe but from inside it, I could not perceive any shape or size.

Thinking it spans the universe, to me , is rather stupid. Knowing of the speed of light, communication within it would likely be impossible if that were so.

As pointed out, it is a different concept of God in the sense that it has no dogma to sell, considers man as the supreme being in the universe and is quite natural where most other Gods are supernatural.

 

So asserting unverifiable anecdotal evidence is going to convince a theist he is wrong, even I have more respect for theists than that.

 

 

 

I happen to agree with that but you are simply using the idea to assert an agenda that is no better than the ones you are supposedly trying to challenge.

 

 

 

We have yet to debate that bit so thanks for your assumption.

Let you head shrink to normal size friend.

 

My agenda?

What is my agenda.

You speak of what you do not know.

 

 

 

BS back to you, how can we measure what you assert, again how is it any different than Thor or Aphrodite or Zeus or Yahweh or Jesus?

Who is claiming apotheosis to these and what theology or dogma is being pushed?

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. These are all supernatural entities.

Regards

DL

This is so totally false i have to think you have no idea how science works nor do you understand evolution, and either you didn't watch the entire video or you didn't pay attention, no human ever popped into existence and thought, wow lets see what I can or cannot eat, that is just false and science doesn't 't simply use trail and error to find things out, as I said before that would make astrology or alchemy science, they were not. BTW, in the beginning of what?

 

I was referring to when our species actually became our species. If you cannot think of how a new troop of humans, moving into a new environment and finding out by trial and error what to eat and what not to eat then we will not get on the same page. Trial and error trained and taught us. The scientific method.

 

I read a history at one time for the doctor who invented open heart surgery. It said that he knew that he was going to kill a few before perfecting the technique. Our ancestors did not plan to kill any of the troop but may have been bright enough to know they would.

 

Without trial and error, a key component of science, we would only have unproven theories.

 

If I am wrong about the ancients then you telll me how they learned what mushroom not to eat.

 

 

Then why do you argue against rational thought and science?

 

I do not.

 

 

While i agree that theists or for that matter any superstion is dangerous I totally challenge that as well, no rationalist worth his salt would ever accept or even consider your evidence as proof of any god like deity or even telepathy.

 

 

I do not care that much and do not push hard on what I cannot prove.

 

If a mind is closed, it is closed BTW, It is not a deity.

 

So asserting unverifiable anecdotal evidence is going to convince a theist he is wrong, even I have more respect for theists than that.

 

 

 

I happen to agree with that but you are simply using the idea to assert an agenda that is no better than the ones you are supposedly trying to challenge.

B S. I am pushing nature and natural. Not supernatural.

Regards

DL

If you want to respond to multiple people, you can also click on the "MultiQuote" button found in the right hand corner of each of their respective posts. When you have finished clicking MultiQuote in each of the posts you want to respond to, you click on the "Add Reply" button at the bottom right of the thread. (Not the reply button that is part of any individual post.)

Thanks for this.

Let me try.

Regards

DL