(cont) does that constitute PROOF that God exists? No. but I have faith that He does, and my faith is supported by a plethora of evidence. it seems to me that you have to defy everything you can observe to claim something as complex as life can originate by itself. Something or someone had to create it, and whoever that is is God. I have reasons for believing that this God is the one of the Bible, but I want to establish why I believe there is A god before I focus on which I believe in and why
(cont) life, not random chance. I don't see how a person could look at an automobile and know that someone somewhere had to create it, it didnt assemble itself-- but then look at a living cell (which is much more complex) and assert that it somehow did assemble itself. That, to me, defies logic--and anyone who says otherwise is probably in need of a tutorial on the inner workings of a living cell. so to me, every living cell in the universe is a testament to a creator God somewhere.
@naejimba since the concept of God includes the caveat that He is beyond human comprehension, no logical case can philosophically or scientifically disprove (or prove) His existence. To me, the existence of life is evidence enough to believe that there is a God. It is very telling that with all mankind's knowledge, our most brilliant scientists still cannot create living creatures from nonliving materials. If they ever do succeed, all it will prove is that it takes a supreme genius to create
@flashinpon, I would contend that imagining a yoctosecond (one septillionth of a second) is beyond human comprehension. However, it can still be measured (perhaps with a cesium atomic fountain? I'm no expert), and therefore, events occuring at such a scale can be proven. Typically, the main contention with "proving" god is when he is defined as being "immaterial," but I still feel it might be possible to infer the existence of such a being. For instance, (cont)
(cont) currently it would be impossible to measure anything inside a black hole, how could we determine that such a phenomena exists? What would be possible is to perhaps measure the orbital velocity of a star, from that get its escape velocity, and if this is faster than the speed of light, we could say with some amount of certainty that it is possibly being effected by a black hole. Essentially, we could measure the effects it has on visable matter. Now, (cont 2)
(cont 2) if god interacts with the universe in any meaningful way (as many religions claim) it might not be possible to measure "god," but what would be possible is to observe the effects such a being would have on visable matter. In this sense, I do not think I am guilty of a category error. Also, using logic, it would be possible to disprove such a being, if how "god" is defined includes something which is logically contradicting (cont 3)
(cont 3) (i.e. we can say with certainty that a four sided triangle does not exist). "To me, the existence of life is evidence enough to believe that there is a God." Not to be rude, but I find such a thing merely an assumption. Is it not at least possible that it could be some naturally occuring phenomena we have yet to fully understand? What if perhaps there is a "creator" but such a thing we might not call a "god?" (cont 4)
(cont 4) (lacking true omniscience or omnipotence perhaps). Yet another possiblity is that there could be multiple "creators." You also said: "..our most brilliant scientists still cannot create living creatures from nonliving materials." Believe it or not, we did so a few years back (self-replicating synthetic life). (cont 5)
(cont 5) Interesting stuff, here is a very short article: wired (.) com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/ (simply remove the parenthesis and spaces). Also, comparing an automobile to life I find to be a weak analogy. Furthermore, I am not asserting it assembled itself. I currently view abiogenesis as a fascinating unknown, (almost an "agnostic" position (cont 6)
(cont 6) in which there is not currently enough information for me to justify a belief) although I see no reason as to why it could not occur naturally (and considering we have no evidence of anything supernatural, it seems the most likely of possibilities). Things like snowflakes and diamonds are examples of complexity arising through natural processes. (cont 7)
(cont 7) Either way, if I were to make an argument "we currently do not know, therefore it is (fill in the blank with god or whatever you wish), this would be an "argument from ignorance."
@naejimba nonsense, you're doing it right now. you dont know how life got here so you look at abiogenesis as a 'fascinating unknown'. you dont know how it happened and you cant explain it or demonstrate it, but you believe it in lieu of anything better. Since you have shown RNA has been artificially created by top scientists, you've effectively proven that it takes intelligence and genius to create the most basic semblance of life, not random chance. This only fortifies my position.
@flashinpon, first, that is a straw man. I clearly described my position on abiogenesis. Also, the synthetic life that was created WAS created by intelligence, but this says nothing of the beginnings of life on earth, let alone what caused it.
@naejimba science is observable, testable, and repeatable. if I observed life springing forth spontaneously from non-life, then I would be scientific to say that life springs from non-life. if I observe life being created by hyper-intelligent beings, then I would be scientific to deduce that life is created by hyper intelligent beings. To see life created by intelligent beings and then deduce the opposite in complete absense of any evidence is the opposite of science.
@flashinpon, well, we have not observed scientifically life being created by a hyper-intelligent being, so I don't think that would apply. Plus, I'm not really deducing anything, I just think a naturalistic explanation might be more probable than a supernatural one (referring of course to occam's razor).
@naejimba I would consider thousands of years worth of human learning, combined with this generations top scientists, FINALLY figuring out how to create the tiniest semblance of life-- I would call that hyper-intelligence creating life. If we were constantly seeing new organisms spring out of mud from chemical pools, then it would be obvious that life is created by natural processes. however this has never been observed and cannot be replicated. We have seen very smart scientists do it though.
@naejimba and on this point I will not equivocate. there is no such thing as life originating from non-living matter spontaneously, any more than there is any such thing as cars assembling themselves in tornado-stricken junkyards (which I do believe is a fair illustration, considering that a single living cell is far more complex than a machine like a car, which is relatively simple by comparison)
@flashinpon, hmm. I think the point about complexity would do little for either of our arguments (like the snowflakes and diamonds I used as an example; essentially complexity != design). Either way, we are essentially discussing the watchmaker argument, which perhaps we could discuss in detail at some point.
@naejimba so if we can establish the case for a creator (as I believe I have), then we can get down to the nitty gritty of figuring out WHO or WHAT that creator is, and what His attributes are. is He omnipotent? is He omniscient? is He material or immaterial? these are all good questions that deserve exploration, but only if we first allow that there is probably a creator to be sought. if we can't even agree on that then there's not much point to pursuing this further.
@flashinpon, well.. I offered contentions with the case presented. If you wish to continue on as you plan, I'm afraid it will have to be with me disagreeing, as I do not think the probability of a creator (if defined as "god") is very high (you would have to see some of my other videos, or I could elaborate as to why). Either way, I am not offended by differing opinions, and I still think a civilized and interesting discussion could be had.
@naejimba well you don't have to call it 'God' if that offends your sensitivies. for now lets just use the term 'creator'. later on we could get in to why I believe the creator was God. also, I'm not offended by your disagreement either. I'm actually pleasantly surprised at how reasonably you can hear a differing opinion, unlike the oh-so-many trolls out there on the internet
@flashinpon, oh... I should elaborate. It is not that the term offends me, it is simply implying certain attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, etc.) that I think does complicate the matter (perhaps a point of agreement). I too agree it is nice to have a civilized conversation in which neither side is emotionally attached to their position. =)
Really what would be needed here is two separate arguments.
1. does God exist
and
2. is He the one portrayed in the Christian Bible? it is impossible to argue 'for' or 'against' the character of a nonexistent being. Since I believe He exists and is good, I can argue that He is good to someone who believes He exists, but is a fiend. What I cannot do is argue that a non-existent being is 'good'. So really there's two separate conversations that would need to take place.
@flashinpon, First, it is not the "Hollywood" definition of faith; this definition is seen in respected dictionaries such as the Merriam-Webster: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Your example and definition I would call the fallacy of equivocation, since your definition I do not think adequate to describe religious faith and such a definition can apply to many other things, such as your example, which is quite different than faith in a deity. (cont)
(cont) The biggest difference is that we "know" the grand canyon and tightropes exist, but the same cannot be said of god (it is merely we have no demonstrable evidence). "I think we see eye to eye on this issue, but simply refuse to adopt the other's position."I respectfully disagree. You also said though: "I think part of the problem with the world today is that people don't stop to think on such topics and concern themselves... (cont 2)
(cont 2) soley with trivial things (definitely a problem in the US, anyway)." which is a FANTASTIC point. Now, I do agree that we do have two separate arguments here, but I disagree with the statement: "it is impossible to argue 'for' or 'against' the character of a nonexistent being." The character Hannibal Lecter is fictional, yet I think it is entirely possible to argue against his character/behavior (however we might word it).
@naejimba merriam-webster says 'no proof'. Obviously the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. You said in your earlier statement that faith was 'believe in something for which there is no EVIDENCE', a key distinction. There is plenty of evidence to believe that there is a God. Faith is when you can't prove it. That doesn't mean you have no evidence or reason to believe in it. you may have faith that there is no God, although it can't be proven. I have faith that there is one.
@flashinpon, Really we are arguing semantics here. Evidence is "ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood," and proof is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact." Evidence is required to "prove" something. "There is plenty of evidence to believe that there is a God." Not a problem, if you wish to present such evidence we could discuss it in length. (cont)
(cont) I do disagree with the notion that god can neither be proven or disproven though. If a god is found to be logically contradicting, in that sense a particular "god" can be disproven. As for proving the existence of god, evidence is all that is required. Lastly, I should mention that I would not make the statement that I have "faith" that there is no god, simply to avoid any confusion, this would not be my position on the matter.
@patchesrips I dont recall including you in this conversation. however, if you must know that was a double-post because of an 'error'. so when i realized that it double-posted i took down the second one. I don't care if you find anything I say praiseworthy or not. This conversation is not for your benefit, I was simply answering some questions from naejimba. I'm not trying to impress you or him, so kindly keep your combative sniping to yourself.
Point is, it goes on and on like that. Job tries to accuse God, but is forced to admit that He cannot fathom God.When I saw the picture of God painted here, I like Job had to say
(chapter 42)
5 My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”
@flashinpon "but is forced to admit that He cannot fathom God"
I can fathom him. He was nothing more than the asshole who was showing off to a boozing buddy how he can torment his dog and the poor thing will still wag his tail and nuzzle his hand. If you'd rather worship that guy than punch him in the mouth, there's something not quite right with you.
@PatchesRips then you've made your choice. you've set yourself up as more righteous than God and attempted to judge his character. your pride will be your downfall on judgment day unless you repent.
@flashinpon BTW, I see you toned it down a little... decided the "blaspheming" and "getting down on bended knee" version was a little OTT, did you? :) Good call.
Would you condemn me to justify yourself? Do you have an arm like God’s, and can your voice thunder like his? Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?
“Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!” Then Job answered the LORD:
“I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth. I spoke once, but I have no answer— twice, but I will say no more.” Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:
“Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. “Would you discredit my justice? ...
and for the record, I'm not just up here preaching at you like I'm some kind of saint. I admit, there have been things in my own life that have caused me to question God. there's been times when I had circumstances I just couldn't believe were happening to me, and I wanted to say 'GOD! I DON'T DESERVE THIS! You are NOT dealing righteously with me! ...you are a FIEND!' but I believe God answers my accusations in the same way He responded to Job in chapter 40
the choice to either say 'God, this doesn't make sense to me. Why did _____ have to die? Why did _____ happen? How could this possibly be good? You are a fiend!' and shake the fist or we can admit
"God, I'm not all-knowing. I don't know why this had to happen, but I accept that You are in control and You are wiser than me. Help me to trust You even when I don't understand." that's real faith.
sometimes we see things that God does and to be honest we don't see how it could possibly be good. We see kids die, or people starving, or natural disasters and we wonder ... how in the world could a 'good' God allow or command these things to happen? That is where faith comes into play. If we could understand everything God did, he wouldnt be much of a God. How can the infinite be fathomable to the finite? when we come across circumstances that don't make sense to us, we have a choice.(cont)
on the Euthyphro dilemma... I think it's bad framing of the dilemma to say something is moral because God 'commands it'. Things are 'good' which reflect God's nature. In other words, grace is a quality because God is gracious. boldness is a quality because God is bold. justice is a quality because God is just. love is a quality because God is love. God does not 'try to be these things' so that He can be perfect, He IS these things and that is why they are good. (cont)
this video is dumb. the bible passages dealing with war and bloodshed are because israel was at war at the time these were written. as such, it was destroy-or-be-destroyed. pretending a verse about israel defeating its enemies somehow implies that christians are ordered to 'kill non christians' today shows a gross lack of understanding about the context in which it was written
@flashinpon, First, this is a straw man. At no point did I say or imply that these verses mean that "christians are ordered to 'kill non christians' today." Ignoring this though, if the verses are "ok" because Israel was at war at the time, we are left with a problem. I see on your profile you are a marine. If you were sent to war, and you were ordered to kill the religious leaders, elderly, children, etc. of any other country, I'm sure you would (cont)
(cont) find it immoral (let alone I imagine you might refuse your orders). If you find it immoral now, how is it that it was acceptable then? Theists are the ones arguing for an "absolute" unchanging morality, and they argue that the nature of god does not change. Why is it so hard for a christian to admit that something like killing the children of a person who breaks a law is immoral?
@naejimba i would of course find it immoral if an officer ordered me to kill children. Israel was not under the orders of officers. God has the right to say whether a nation's sin is so great that they deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth. If He has decided that, who are you--and who am I--and who is Man to impugn the righteousness of God and say that He has erred in His judgment? The real question is, will we submit to what God requires or insist we know better.
@flashinpon, First, we could delve straight into the Euthyphro dilemma. Either something is moral because god commands it, or god commands something because it is moral. From your comment it is clear you would agree with the former (either presents serious problems which must be accounted for). If it is moral because god commanded it (sometimes referred to as divine command theory), then morality is not only arbitrary and not based upon reason, (cont)
(cont) but one could present an argument from this perspective that morality is not truly objective (which would disagree with the bible). Also, it then means that literally anything COULD be considered moral. If it was then god instead of your commander that called for you to kill children, would you do it? Also, if what is defined as "good" is merely god's will, then attempting to define god as "good" or "perfect" loses all meaning. C. S. Lewis said, (cont 2)
(cont 2) "if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the 'righteous Lord.'" Not to mention that according to this view, without god there would be no morality and everything would be permitted. However, the Piraha people of the amazon have no concept of a deity, yet the exhibit their own morality just as does every other culture on earth. (cont 3)
(cont 3) Furthermore, if all of those people the Israelites killed deserved it, could you tell me what "sins," as you put it, the infants and children they slaughtered committed to deserve such a punishment? Even better, can you give me even ONE instance in which it is moral to kill a child, or especially when it is moral to do so based on the actions of another person? (cont 4)
(cont 4) "The real question is, will we submit to what God requires or insist we know better." I am imperfect, and yet I can find imperfection with your god. What does that say of such a being? It is, rather, that what I require (in regards to morality) is higher than a god who is supposedly perfect, and yes, I would insist that I "know better."
@naejimba as to the specifics of WHY he felt certain people needed to be wiped out (like the nations Israel went to war with) and why certain people were allowed to repent (Ninevah, for example) really the only difference is that I have faith that God's reasons are just and righteous, and you assume that you know better and God must be a fiend. your argument is with God Himself, not me. I suggest you read the book of Job for a bit of perspective on this.
@naejimba it is true that morality may seem arbitrary. however, morality IS based on reason, just not yours or mine. according to Christian theology, there is no one righteous. All have sinned. this being the case, God would be perfectly good and just executing us all. this does not make him 'fiendish', and if our reasoning says so it is our reasoning which is flawed, not His. it is only by grace that any of us live. why does God extend grace to some and judge others? (cont)
@flashinpon, "according to Christian theology, there is no one righteous. All have sinned." I would agree that we are all imperfect, but this idea that anyone (even god) would be justified in killing someone for merely being human I find ridiculous and immoral (especially since it was he that decided to create imperfect beings to begin with, only to punish us for being precisely how he created us, with full knowledge of this beforehand). (cont)
(cont) To argue that it is acceptable because he is god is merely the fallacy of special pleading. Also, simply because someone has not committed a particular immoral act (or any at all) does not give that individual (god or not) some special priviledge to kill (again, this would be special pleading). Justice would be to punish the person according to the severity of the crime.. and this notion of infinite punishment for a finite crime I would not call justice, but rather, sadistic and (cont 2)
(cont 2) unnecessary. "God would be perfectly good and just executing us all. this does not make him 'fiendish', and if our reasoning says so it is our reasoning which is flawed, not His." Essentially, you are saying that if I disagree with what some ancient text says, that I am automatically incorrect (meaning you can ignore any argument I present, no matter how logical). Now, if my reasoning is flawed, I would challenge one to point out the error. (cont 3)
(cont 3) It would follow that the supposed creator of reason would himself be reasonable; that the author of logic would be logical.. if this is not the case, what else am I to conclude but that such a being is perhaps not a "god" at all and that such a thing is not worthy of worship? Your argument, instead, is that we are too stupid to understand... and I am calling BS. Why would a god give us reason if we are not supposed to use it? (cont 4)
(cont 4) Why would a god have behavior that he considers immoral, and then do the same exact things he condemns us for? This is hypocritical, and (yet again) merely the fallacy of special pleading. Simply because one makes a rule or law, does not give that person special priviledge to ignore it. "really the only difference is that I have faith that God's reasons are just and righteous, and you assume that you know better and God must be a fiend." (cont 5)
(cont 5) The literal definiton of faith is "a strong belief without evidence." I contend that it is YOU who are assuming, not I. I have already proposed reasons why I feel this way, (and again) if you find a flaw in my logic please point it out. It is literally BECAUSE I am not assuming such things that I am able to challenge these notions, and your assumption that such things cannot be challenged is no argument at all. In fact, (cont 6)
(cont 6) you have not addressed most of my points nor have you answered any of my questions, instead you have quoted scripture I am already familiar with along with logical fallacies. "your argument is with God Himself, not me. I suggest you read the book of Job for a bit of perspective on this." First, I do not think it is possible to debate with something that does not (cont 7)
(cont 7) respond back (not being smart here, I would enjoy such an opportunity if such a being were to exist), and, second, I do have contentions with what you have stated. Lastly, I have read Job many times, and although I find it gives me "perspective" on the matter, I doubt it is the perspective you would have me hold. So this being who is all "good" makes a bet with someone in which he already knows the outcome. (cont 8)
(cont 8) He allows an innocent man to suffer needlessly to make a trivial point (and since he is god, couldn't he come up with another way to do so?) Everything Job has is destroyed and all of his children are killed. If this were not bad enough, he then allows satan to do anything to him but kill him, causing even more torment which serves no real purpose. Now, at this point you might mention that (cont 9)
(cont 9) at the end of the story he is returned to health, gets twice as many livestock that he started with, and gets a new family. However, I would like to know, do you have a son or daughter? Imagine they died some horrible death, and I told you not to worry, that you could always just make another one. Could ANYTHING replace your child? Does having another kid erase the pain of losing the first one? (cont 10)
(cont 10) Now imagine that it was I who killed your child, and did so to fulfill some bet I made with another person. Such a thing would be horribly immoral, correct? Shouldn't I be punished to the full extent of the law? Now, if it is immoral for me to do so, what makes it ok for "god?" Is this not just another example of special pleading? How can a being who is all "good" just go around killing children; how can you justify this? (cont 11)
(cont 11) How is such a being deserving of worship? Also, you mention that "Job tries to accuse God".... but Job 42:11 clearly states: "Then all his brothers and all his sisters and all who had known him before came to him, and they ate bread with him in his house; and they consoled him and comforted him for all the adversities that the LORD had brought on him." You also say, "the Bible also covers this topic when it asks 'can the clay say to the potter...?' in other words, (cont 12)
(cont 12) human beings are his property. we are a wicked, rebellious people and we all deserve to die." First, the idea that any person should be "property" is disgusting (that is slavery, something god never mentions he has a problem with btw). Apparently, I value human life and care about human suffering much more than your god does. Second, just because he supposedly made us does not in any way justify such treatment. Technically, (cont 13)
(cont 13) if I had children myself and my significant other would have made them. Does this mean I could kill his/her own family and burn down his/her house to make a point or teach a lesson? Again, if it is immoral for me to do so, why is it magically ok for god? Even if he/she was "wicked" and "rebellious" such behavior is not excused, and certainly not moral. Lastly, this idea that all of humanity is wicked, rebellious, and deserves to die, I find absurd. (cont 14)
(cont 14) True, no one is without error, but this does not mean one is either wicked or rebellious.. in fact, I do not believe I am either one. As for the notion of deserving death, tell me precisely what the infants who were killed did to deserve death? (this is a question you had previously dodged). Ironically, most theists insist that abortion at any stage is immoral since even a fetus is human life... yet they will defend the Israelites (cont 15)
@naejimba I disagree. 'strong belief without evidence' is the Hollywood definition of faith, and I don't think it's a good one. A better definition of faith is 'belief in action'.
If I say I can carry a man over the grand canyon while walking a tightrope, you may well believe me, and say so. But if you have faith in me, you'll volunteer to be the man I carry during the stunt. If you are smart, you will not put your faith in me without strong evidence that I can do what I say I can.
@naejimba by this definition, faith is not the antithesis of reason, as you seem to think. It is true that people CAN put faith in something for stupid reasons, or no reasons at all, but that does not mean that said stupidity is integral to the definition of the word 'faith'. the actual definition is
"confidence or trust in a person or thing."
it is the responsibility of the individual to ensure that the object of his faith is deserving. If you have found the object of my faith lacking that is
@naejimba really your business, and I'm not going to try to sway you. I think we see eye to eye on this issue, but simply refuse to adopt the other's position. I will never try to tell someone to believe something they find unreasonable, because to do this and be wrong makes you doubly accountable in the final reckoning (if there is one, as I believe there is). I will pray, though, that at some point in the future your position on this may change.
@naejimba It is good to meet someone who has thought through what they believe as thoroughly as you have, even if we have come to different conclusions. I think part of the problem with the world today is that people don't stop to think on such topics and concern themselves soley with trivial things (definitely a problem in the US, anyway). What we think about our souls, God, and eternity is vitally important, and I laud you for your attentiveness to this subject regardless of our disagreement
@naejimba the Bible also covers this topic when it asks "can the clay say to the potter...?" in other words, human beings are his property. we are a wicked, rebellious people and we all deserve to die. for some inexplicable reason, He loves us anyway. He has done SO MUCH to get us to turn back to Him. We can't give him a reason why He should choose to be gracious to ANY of us, nor can we shake our fist at him if He decides to judge. I don't think it is my place to answer for God (cont)
Therefore our morality and the process of labeling our actions are necessarily subjective, based on our experience and emotions. Possibly, sympathy and empathy are embed in our nature for such purposes through evolution...
Even if we think that education and development of science will bring happiness to the people, the only way to know is to predict the future, which is impossible. It is possible that a sequence of events may cause the annihilation of mankind because of science. Though we think it is good (i.e. it perpetuates our species and brings order and positive feelings), we don't know.
Then the humans (or the first hominids) label the first type of actions evil and the last type of actions - good. But this labeling is subjective. These concepts evolve and are ever changing. The illusion that good and evil are objective is obvious. For example we don't know a priory whether any action will bring harm or happiness to the society in the long run.
I think it is obvious that good and evil are human inventions. Why? Here is my theory – let us we imagine the first hominids didn't know what is good and evil. However they knew that some actions brings sadness, harm, pain and chaos. Other actions bring peace and happiness (the pain and the happiness are feelings, which are functions of our biological organism. These are objective and necessary).
all idol or entity based religion is evil,satan is a fake construct created by whom hath created man,anything and everything humanity has brought supposedly from the allmighty has been tampered and streched or watered down to suit their need.whatever happens, happens that's what i'm going with,and if the earth rises and fire rains it won't change a thing,i'll just have to bring my sword to fight whatever gets in my way be it demon or corrupted man,i will fight until i fall!
I meant symbolic in the sense that the prophet was talking to the altar. The killing was real, however. Being a priest of a different religion isn't a crime... in today's world society. But that's our standard. Don't put God to your standards. There's too much to explain, but for now i'll say that these priest were bringing evil into Israel. These pagan priests were indeed the ones who offered child sacrifice. I'm glad that your making a distinction of what is and isn't a sacrifice unto God.
@evanom2, it is not that I am "putting god to my standards," but rather, what should one think when the god of a religion does not live up to the standards of an imperfect being? What are we to think when his so called "perfect" morality is less developed than our own? When a so called "god" has a morality like that, I might ask "why call such a being 'god'?" I will now ask you if you think killing children is immoral. Furthermore, is there ANY circumstance in which killing children is moral?
Joshua 7 doesn't refer to human sacrifice but criminal execution. Neither II Kings nor anything else said. All executions refer to God's nation of Israel, since He would be among them, hence no room for sin, rebellion, etc. It isn't referring to gentile nations, nor permission to kill. Jeremiah and Isaiah speak of curses from disobedience including death of children. God isnt demanding child sacrifice, he's informing of curses that follow rebellion.
@evanom2, what about this? " At the LORD's command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice. Then at the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you." (1 Kings 13:1-2 NLT) Furthermore, (cont)
(cont) lets say that Joshua 7 is criminal execution. The death penalty for stealing is unjust... the punishment does not fit the crime. Either way, an atrocity has occurred. As for your claim that it is not "permission to kill".. well quite frankly it is ridiculous. On numerous occasions god commanded the slaughter of other people. "You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. (cont 2)
(CONT 2) With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! (cont 3)
(cont 3) I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26) This sounds not like mere permission, but a PROMISE that violence will come to another people, and "god's chosen" will deliver it. A point of interest is (cont 4)
(cont 4) that even after this promise, they lose the battle against the babalonians in the next chapter. Lastly, go read the story of Jeptha and tell me that is not child sacrifice. What "rebellion" did Jeptha commit? He followed everything, including keeping his covenant with god. God did not forbid or stop the child sacrifice. Even better, since everything "works according to his will" it was part of his "plan." Sick to say the least. The point stands, atrocities occur in the bible.
@naejimba Again this isn't human sacrifice, it's criminal execution. The prophet is talking... to the altar! It's symbolic throughout. Basically God is saying that since the king and his priest didn't leave their wicked ways, God is gonna use that same altar on which they practiced demon worship and make the priest the sacrifice for such. It's divine judgement and punishment with symbolic acts and words.
Read the Torah, understand what God declared to be acceptable, holy sacrifices.
@evanom2, so burning priests of another religion is criminal execution? Just what crime did they commit? Even if it is "criminal execution" it is still an immoral act. Besides that, the "lord" says that is what will occur. What makes you think it is "symbolic?" Often times theists just say something is not meant to be taken literal when the implications are unfavorable. However, I could make an argument for the bible being taken literally, the creation story is a great example.
(CNT..) I think his hope was that we would not turn our back to him, but since we did any way, he loves us so much and to combat the sin and the turning of our backs to him is he sent his son to die for us so that we may live with him and be with him after our work here on earth is done. Why God did what he did back then is any ones best guess.
Boy you have no idea what you are saying. The bible does not state any where that you HAVE to kill. You talk about what God commands like you know something, but you do not. This is what God commands. Love your God with all your heart, and love your neighborhood as yourself. This is the first above all commandments. Where do you get killing out of that?
@blva888, boy you must be cherry picking your bible. Here are a couple of verses to brighten up your day. ;) (Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, "All of you who are on the LORD's side, come over here and join me." And all the Levites came. He told them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." (cont)
(cont) The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT) Oh, and as far as your claim that you don't HAVE to kill, let me AGAIN mention this bible verse: Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, (cont 2)
(cont 2) cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB) Welp, there it is in black and white, from your own bible. Oh, and by the way, you are DEAD WRONG about the commandments. Long before Jesus came along, supposedly, god issued a series of commandments, the first few of which were just about having no other gods, no idols, and keeping the sabbath day "holy." If loving your neighbor as yourself is the "first above all commandments," why didn't god bother to (cont 3)
(cont 3) mention it? If it is so important, why did he leave it out? In fact, if "god" or "jesus" are supposedly the authors of morality, as your religion claims, then why does it not mention anywhere in the bible that we shouldn't molest little children? If I were making a list of "commandments" I think not raping little kids would be pretty high on the list. Go read your bible before you accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about... the WHOLE thing too... not just the parts (cont 4)
(cont 4) they teach about in sunday schoool. Go read about absurdities such as Jacob's flock, noah's flood, and talking donkeys, go read about attrocities such as geneocide and infanticide. Go read the old testament, THEN come back and have a debate with me.
@naejimba You just don't get what the verse meant that I had wrote. Does any verses you know of come from the new testament? Do you lack that much knowledge that you just don't understand the reasons why Jesus came down here for? I do hope one day you will understand.
@blva888, I understand entirely, I merely do not think the bible represents reality. Furthermore, I find it odd that so many christians are able to overlook the atrocities of the old testament and instead simply look at the new testament. It is part of your supposed "holy book." How can you just ignore it? Beyond all of this, I love how you completely dodged any of the questions I presented, and simply claimed that I just "don't understand." So... let me get this straight (cont)
(cont) you say I don't understand the "reasons why jesus came down?" In a nutshell, god creates man knowing they will sin. Apparently, its part of his plan. So he impregnates a woman with himself, so he can sacrifice himself to himself, to save us from the sin he decided to create us with in the first place... yeah, that makes perfect sense. Sounds like the plan of a perfect being to me. (notice the sarcasm)
@naejimba I dodged yours because you dodged mine. To answer your questions, your view of sin is different from Gods view of sin. Would you love a person who did things wrong toward you over and over? I think God Loves us so much but hates the sin so much and hates the fact that he created something that turns his back on him. (CNT..)
@blva888, first, which question did I dodge? Second, sin is defined as a thought or action which goes against the will of a god or gods. In order to believe in sin, one must first believe in a god. Since I do not believe in a god, I cannot believe in "sin." Your explanation is horribly flawed. You ask if I would love someone who did things wrong to me over and over. However, I do not have any power over another's actions, let alone the ability to create a sentient being. Suppose I created (cont)
(cont) a robot which would walk across the floor. I purposely left out part of one of the robot's legs, meaning it would fall from time to time. Would I be justified in being mad at the robot when it falls? Who is to blame when the robot falls? Clearly, since I designed it (knowing full well) that it was flawed, as the designer I am responsible for my creation. If god is perfect, and his creation is perfect (since the bible says not only that all works according to his will, but also that (cont)
(cont 2) everything he does is perfect) how could he "hate" anything he created? Hate is defined as: "to dislike intensely or passionately." How could he dislike anything he created, since his "plan" is supposedly perfect? This would imply that there is something in some way imperfect in order for one to be able to dislike it. ... and if god creates something that is not perfect, then god himself cannot be perfect. Furthermore, if his plan was perfect, why create something that will (cont 3)
(cont 3) as you put it, "turn his back on him." If god exists, and the bible is correct, we are left with a horrendous realization. Since the bible says "wide is the path that leads to destruction," we can easily see that the majority of humanity will go to "hell." Therefore, according to his PERFECT plan, the majority of humanity was created simply to be punished for all of eternity, merely for not believing in something of which no evidence was provided. Something does NOT add up here.(cont 4)
(cont 4) I'm sure you have critical thinking skills. I am sure you have the ability to be skeptical. Why not use it? Learn to think for yourself, if you truly want to learn anything, you must be willing to question everything. Do you HONESTLY believe in talking snakes and donkeys? I mean, come on... a talking.. donkey... like on shrek or some shit! Religion is merely a collection of the most improbable claims made in all of human history, and there is not one SHRED of evidence to back ANY of it.
@naejimba I stand by what I said, you don't understand at all. I'm not going to address everything. God created man perfect, and he created them with the ability to choose (the robot example you gave is flawed) Unfortunately Adam and Eve chose the wrong thing. I"m sure you wont get this at all. Most people with your views don't.
@blva888, so again, you claim I "just don't understand." Instead of addressing points I brought up, you instead attack the person and not the argument. If god created man "perfect" then how is it at the same time that we are "not perfect?" This is a direct contradiction, and quite illogical. If we were perfect, we would not need salvation. Furthermore, since god planned everything out, and had all knowledge beforehand, that means he PLANNED for us to sin. If he is the creator, he is responsible.
the crusades and witch trials are kind of ancient history. what about some more resent stuff, like; blowing up abortion clinics and the anti homosexual laws in uganda.
I thought this was about CHRISTIAN atrocities. Then the cute puppy rattles off a bunch of Old Testament verses that related ONLY to the Jewish nation of that time. LOL.
Psssst...Jesus Christ, the Founder of Christianity, wasn't born for more than a thousand years after that time. Levitical laws don't' apply to Christians. It's time for Mr. Puppy to educate himself a little before trying to bark with the big dogs. ;-)
@aThinkingChristian, it is literally part of your so called "holy book!" What about the crusades, the spanish inquisition, or the salem witch trials? Educate myself? ha! You think you are telling me something I have not already heard? Furthermore, this only shows the changing nature of god from the new to old testament. Which is a direct contradiction to biblical verses stating he is never changing. Why don't you explain that? I would watch my tone, I might make you look like a fool.
@naejimba So a factual telling of history in a holy book can't ever been negative? And the fact that there are some very bad things done by PEOPLE in the Bible means that the Bible ceases to be a holy book? What kind of logic is that? The Bible records ancient HISTORY. Did God approve of it all? Ever read it? Didn't God warn them to turn from their wicked ways or judgment would fall? How then can he be to blame for their actions? You gotta think these things through before making silly claims.
@aThinkingChristian "factual telling of a history book..." oh like talking snakes, virgin births, noah's flood, jacob's flock, ressurection from the dead, etc etc. Sounds completely true to me (notice the sarcam). God COMMANDED and did horrible things in the bible, such as infanticide, tearing children apart with bears, human sacrifice (on separate occasions), etc. You are failing miserably so far.
@naejimba Yep! All those things. If there is an all-powerful God you'd have to admit that nothing is too hard for him. As for your judgment of God's actions, that is your opinion. You weren't there so your understanding is limited. You can't call something "wrong" when you don't know all the facts.
@aThinkingChristian, is killing children wrong? Is raping young girls wrong? Is human sacrifice wrong? Is infanticide wrong? Answer yes or no to each of these. If you answer yes, then how do you live with the cognitive dissonance that your god commanded it? If you answer no, give me examples in which any of these things could be seen as moral acts. I dare you to answer this one. Don't dodge it.
I dunno, is it? Who says it's wrong? How old were the "children" in that text? Were they 5, 12, or 19? In ancient Israel you weren't a "man" until you were 20 & could go to war. Under 20=child. Does it make sense for 40 five year olds to be in a crowd mocking the nations Prophet, calling him "empty headed" (the literal meaning)? You see? Not everything is as you want to make it to be. You have limited information. The difference between you and me is that I give God the benefit of the doubt.
@aThinkingChristian, killing children is always wrong. How do you even justify that statment? So the punishment for mocking someone is death? Gee, that sounds logical. Your morality is appauling if you think you can justify such an action.
@naejimba No, I just choose to give God the benefit of the doubt since I wasn't there. Besides, define "children." Were they 5, 10, 19? There is nothing wrong with my morality. Shoot, if you're worldview is correct you have no basis for judging me like you just did, because there is no "right" or "wrong."
@aThinkingChristian, so you are saying you just choose to believe without any evidence, mind you... and just accept it without any proof! ... and this is a GOOD thing? You sir, are not interested in truth, but rather, accept a comforting lie instead. Again, morality is a human invention. Using occam's razor, my claim that it is created by humanity is more probable than your claim of it coming from a "god."
@naejimba Not at all! Why would I believe something blindly? Christianity is not a blind faith religion. If morality is human created then it evolves and can change, and change is not always good. You decry the so-called crimes of the Almighty for letting a couple of bears injure some children, but you have nothing to say about the "morality" of killing unborn children in the name of "choice" today. Is that the morality we're heading for? You can keep it.
@aThinkingChristian, if it is not based upon faith, then what is it based upon? Really, I would like to know. Yes, change in morality is not always "good." Slavery developed at some point in human history, the nazi's extermination of many different people, etc. On the whole though, morality is refining. Real morality is always choosing the option that does the least harm.
@naejimba Wait! What's wrong with Nazism? Hitler firmly believed he was helping evolution out. You can't fault a guy like that. That's resolve! That's a determination to bring about the better good for humanity! I'm surprised you would use that example. For without a God you have no right to call what Hitler did "wrong." If "survival of the fittest" works in the animal world, and humans are just "higher" animals, then there is NO FAULT in using higher forms of survival of the fittest.
@aThinkingChristian, now your defending the extermination of millions of people? How silly. Survival of the fittest is but one process in which organisms evolve over time. It is merely how things naturally occur, not necessarily the option which causes the least harm though. Our morality is an attempt to create justice in an unjust world, it fights against the way things "naturally occur." We help out the handicapped and the mentally ill, two groups that might die out naturally. It works (cont)
(cont) against evolution. Evolution has all but been destroyed by man. Now, again, if morality is a human invention, I have every right to say what Hitler did was wrong.. so do you. We all develop our own personal morality anyway. You are attempting to make an argument for your opponent, and misrepresent their position, so therefore this is fallacy #2. I get to define my position, not you. Such lame attempts at an argument is beneath me and again, a logical fallacy.
@naejimba No, I'm not defending it. I'm pointing out your faulty worldview is.
But these comments bring up more problems for you. Why would evolution ever want a cessation of what naturally occurs in nature? That's not what we see in the natural world that you all claim we all came from. In every other aspect of the natural world the strongest survive & the weak die, supposedly making way for the stronger. What right do humans have to subvert that natural law that evolution has installed?
@aThinkingChristian, "your faulty worldview." First, this is not my position, I never said any such thing, and actually you assume far too much again. That is not even close to what I do believe. You are making yourself look like a fool. Evolution is not some "law." You don't have to follow the way things naturally occur. If this was the case, why live in a house? Houses don't naturally occur. It makes life better, and that is what morality does for us.
@naejimba Why do animals build houses? Don't you believe that evolution has put into them the "instinct" to shelter themselves? Then, in that regard, house do occur naturally. You're comparing apples and oranges.
So, why not remove the mystery? Tell me what you DO believe and I'll try to refrain from misrepresenting you. :-)
@aThinkingChristian, I believe in that which must be assumed, but attempt to assume nothing after that. I constantly question my own beliefs, which are based upon empirical evidence. Where forms of evidence do not exist, I do not believe. Simple as that.
@naejimba So real morality is the option that does the least harm? Harm to whom? Is the legal killing babies up to 9 months harming anyone? Is choosing death for a human child against the basic rights of that child, or doesn't he have any rights? Is the child human? Is it not human until it's fully birthed at 9 months, or is it still human if it is birthed by C-section at 8? Full term inside the womb is still not human, but partial term outside the womb is? That's "real" morality, right?
@aThinkingChristian, you bring up a very interesting point. Our morality is not always logical. Yes, I said it. Also, what do we consider human? Is it a "soul" (that has yet to be proven no empirical evidence), is it intelligence? Pigs are actually relatively smart and we eat them, can't be that.. is it the capacity for pain? At what point can an unborn developing child feel pain? This is some harm that is done. It is not an easy question to answer, and I don't feel I have an answer at this time
@naejimba Well thank you for being honest. Do you see now that any morality that is strictly decided by the current culture will harm someone? There is no perfect morality in humanity, because humans are depraved by nature. The majority of humans, if put in the right negative circumstances, will become the worst selfish animals in trying to protect their lives. All morals to the wind!
We may not be able to scientifically test a "soul," but we all know it's there. It's an evolutionary conundrum.
@aThinkingChristian, with morality there are always scenarios in which some harm will be done. It is unavoidable, and no matter what you believe it will not change that. Second, NO, we don't all "KNOW there is a soul," a soul is bull crap, there is no empirical evidence or evidence of any sort to support it it is not rooted in reality at all. It has NOTHING to do with evolution, what are you talking about?
@aThinkingChristian So how would this justify using the depraved morality of a fictional character like god? One that was designed thousands of years ago by more primitive people? We've progressed beyond that. There's clearly an issue with your supposed perfect god when we can be more moral than it is.
@TekLok Sorry, but I found your questions to be opinion-based with little factual evidence. Thomas Jefferson said the doctrines of Jesus tend to all the happiness of mankind. You must disagree with him, yes? If so, where is the error in his thinking? As a matter of fact, how could most of those intellectual men have believed that which you so effortlessly call "depraved morality"? Perhaps your intelligence exceeds them all? Or, perhaps you have no idea what you're talking about. Which is it?
@aThinkingChristian You clearly just changed the subject from God to Jesus. They are clearly two different characters with different morals in the bible. You thought I wasn't going to notice that or what?
@TekLok So God only exists if people like you are convinced he does? Oh, and there is no evidence of him if you say there isn't?
Can I tell you a secret? He's only a "fictional imaginary man made concept" to the vast MINORITY on this planet, and you happen to be one of those. That fact alone does not mean God doesn't exist. It only means that you don't like the evidence. But be advised. God doesn't have to satisfy your demands for evidence. The obligation to believe rests squarely on you.
@TekLok Sorry, but I'm not going to hold your hand through the evidence. We have this powerful tool now called the internet and Google. Google "evidence for God" and read away. It's all out there.
@aThinkingChristian All I've ever read is that "god created the universe by magic". Its a baseless assumption. There is just as much evidence for the universe being a naturally occurring phenomenon.
@TekLok, more importantly, using occam's razor the possibility of it being a naturally occurring phenomenon is the more likely of the two, and therefore, we hold the more logical position, if one must assume or claim anything at all. Furthermore, when looking for evidence the most important and definitive type of evidence is empirical. No such hard evidence exists regarding "god." I'm not sure what other lines of evidence he would care to present, but I've heard nothing compelling.
@naejimba Plus we've never witnessed any evidence of real magic occurring. In genesis god essentially speaks things into existence. That's just straight up magic.
@TekLok And that reminds me did they make witchcraft a sin? I don't believe in that nonsense but when I suspend my reasoning just for the sake of this context then God is basically contradicting himself. Why follow the moral system of a something that doesn't follow its own rules?
@TekLok, actually, if you remember the verse "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," the official biblical stance, at least in the old testament, is that they should be put to death.
@TekLok That's funny. In the 25+ years that I've been a Christian I've never heard that God created the universe with magic. You must be reading some fringe articles. Why not try actually studying the issue for yourself in detail with evidence from reputable sources?
The big problem with your claim about a naturally occurring universe is that you're required to believe the ridiculous notion that NOTHING created SOMETHING. And your science for that is...? A Creator God is much more tenable.
@aThinkingChristian Genesis clearly describes god simply speaking things into existence. Similar to spoken magic spells in Harry Potter. Also I did not say anything like "nothing created something". Not everything requires a sentient conscious creator. This is a bias of the human condition. Just because we create things does not automatically mean the the universe requires a creator. You get stuck with the question of "who created god?" Human have created hundreds of gods. None have evidence.
@TekLok@TekLok Wait! Are you implying that the universe is eternal and had no beginning? And your scientific proof for that is?
I'll assume that you believe in a so-called "Big Bang." If you do then you have to explain scientifically where the matter originated that blew up to begin with. There is no real empirical evidence for any such idea.
@aThinkingChristian Where is the scientific proof that god is eternal and had no beginning? Do you see this problem here? I'm making no assertions about the beginning of the universe. I'm only asserting that either possibilities are equally without evidence. At least the universe apparently exists where god does not. I'm trying to make you think (its your username after all). I'm not trying to convert you to atheism. Just showing you that its all in your head.
@TekLok There isn't any scientific proof. But that is not the end-all of reality. Christians believe it by faith, coupled with the evidence we do have, like complexity & order that could never have happened naturally.
Where's your scientific proof that nothing came into something by itself? You have none, but you still believe it. It's your only option. You cannot emphatically state that God doesn't exits because you are not omniscient. You should understand that.
@aThinkingChristian Yeah it is in. If it doesn't reside in reality then it doesn't exist. If something isn't established in reality then its imaginary. Again you obviously aren't reading anything anyone is saying here.
(cont) does that constitute PROOF that God exists? No. but I have faith that He does, and my faith is supported by a plethora of evidence. it seems to me that you have to defy everything you can observe to claim something as complex as life can originate by itself. Something or someone had to create it, and whoever that is is God. I have reasons for believing that this God is the one of the Bible, but I want to establish why I believe there is A god before I focus on which I believe in and why
flashinpon 2 months ago
(cont) life, not random chance. I don't see how a person could look at an automobile and know that someone somewhere had to create it, it didnt assemble itself-- but then look at a living cell (which is much more complex) and assert that it somehow did assemble itself. That, to me, defies logic--and anyone who says otherwise is probably in need of a tutorial on the inner workings of a living cell. so to me, every living cell in the universe is a testament to a creator God somewhere.
flashinpon 2 months ago
@naejimba since the concept of God includes the caveat that He is beyond human comprehension, no logical case can philosophically or scientifically disprove (or prove) His existence. To me, the existence of life is evidence enough to believe that there is a God. It is very telling that with all mankind's knowledge, our most brilliant scientists still cannot create living creatures from nonliving materials. If they ever do succeed, all it will prove is that it takes a supreme genius to create
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon, I would contend that imagining a yoctosecond (one septillionth of a second) is beyond human comprehension. However, it can still be measured (perhaps with a cesium atomic fountain? I'm no expert), and therefore, events occuring at such a scale can be proven. Typically, the main contention with "proving" god is when he is defined as being "immaterial," but I still feel it might be possible to infer the existence of such a being. For instance, (cont)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont) currently it would be impossible to measure anything inside a black hole, how could we determine that such a phenomena exists? What would be possible is to perhaps measure the orbital velocity of a star, from that get its escape velocity, and if this is faster than the speed of light, we could say with some amount of certainty that it is possibly being effected by a black hole. Essentially, we could measure the effects it has on visable matter. Now, (cont 2)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 2) if god interacts with the universe in any meaningful way (as many religions claim) it might not be possible to measure "god," but what would be possible is to observe the effects such a being would have on visable matter. In this sense, I do not think I am guilty of a category error. Also, using logic, it would be possible to disprove such a being, if how "god" is defined includes something which is logically contradicting (cont 3)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 3) (i.e. we can say with certainty that a four sided triangle does not exist). "To me, the existence of life is evidence enough to believe that there is a God." Not to be rude, but I find such a thing merely an assumption. Is it not at least possible that it could be some naturally occuring phenomena we have yet to fully understand? What if perhaps there is a "creator" but such a thing we might not call a "god?" (cont 4)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 4) (lacking true omniscience or omnipotence perhaps). Yet another possiblity is that there could be multiple "creators." You also said: "..our most brilliant scientists still cannot create living creatures from nonliving materials." Believe it or not, we did so a few years back (self-replicating synthetic life). (cont 5)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 5) Interesting stuff, here is a very short article: wired (.) com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/ (simply remove the parenthesis and spaces). Also, comparing an automobile to life I find to be a weak analogy. Furthermore, I am not asserting it assembled itself. I currently view abiogenesis as a fascinating unknown, (almost an "agnostic" position (cont 6)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 6) in which there is not currently enough information for me to justify a belief) although I see no reason as to why it could not occur naturally (and considering we have no evidence of anything supernatural, it seems the most likely of possibilities). Things like snowflakes and diamonds are examples of complexity arising through natural processes. (cont 7)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 7) Either way, if I were to make an argument "we currently do not know, therefore it is (fill in the blank with god or whatever you wish), this would be an "argument from ignorance."
naejimba 2 months ago
@naejimba nonsense, you're doing it right now. you dont know how life got here so you look at abiogenesis as a 'fascinating unknown'. you dont know how it happened and you cant explain it or demonstrate it, but you believe it in lieu of anything better. Since you have shown RNA has been artificially created by top scientists, you've effectively proven that it takes intelligence and genius to create the most basic semblance of life, not random chance. This only fortifies my position.
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon, first, that is a straw man. I clearly described my position on abiogenesis. Also, the synthetic life that was created WAS created by intelligence, but this says nothing of the beginnings of life on earth, let alone what caused it.
naejimba 2 months ago
@naejimba science is observable, testable, and repeatable. if I observed life springing forth spontaneously from non-life, then I would be scientific to say that life springs from non-life. if I observe life being created by hyper-intelligent beings, then I would be scientific to deduce that life is created by hyper intelligent beings. To see life created by intelligent beings and then deduce the opposite in complete absense of any evidence is the opposite of science.
flashinpon 2 months ago
*absence
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon, well, we have not observed scientifically life being created by a hyper-intelligent being, so I don't think that would apply. Plus, I'm not really deducing anything, I just think a naturalistic explanation might be more probable than a supernatural one (referring of course to occam's razor).
naejimba 2 months ago
@naejimba I would consider thousands of years worth of human learning, combined with this generations top scientists, FINALLY figuring out how to create the tiniest semblance of life-- I would call that hyper-intelligence creating life. If we were constantly seeing new organisms spring out of mud from chemical pools, then it would be obvious that life is created by natural processes. however this has never been observed and cannot be replicated. We have seen very smart scientists do it though.
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon No, we have not. No proto-cell has ever been synthesized in a controlled environment.
DomeSwag 1 month ago
@naejimba and on this point I will not equivocate. there is no such thing as life originating from non-living matter spontaneously, any more than there is any such thing as cars assembling themselves in tornado-stricken junkyards (which I do believe is a fair illustration, considering that a single living cell is far more complex than a machine like a car, which is relatively simple by comparison)
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon, hmm. I think the point about complexity would do little for either of our arguments (like the snowflakes and diamonds I used as an example; essentially complexity != design). Either way, we are essentially discussing the watchmaker argument, which perhaps we could discuss in detail at some point.
naejimba 2 months ago
@naejimba so if we can establish the case for a creator (as I believe I have), then we can get down to the nitty gritty of figuring out WHO or WHAT that creator is, and what His attributes are. is He omnipotent? is He omniscient? is He material or immaterial? these are all good questions that deserve exploration, but only if we first allow that there is probably a creator to be sought. if we can't even agree on that then there's not much point to pursuing this further.
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon, well.. I offered contentions with the case presented. If you wish to continue on as you plan, I'm afraid it will have to be with me disagreeing, as I do not think the probability of a creator (if defined as "god") is very high (you would have to see some of my other videos, or I could elaborate as to why). Either way, I am not offended by differing opinions, and I still think a civilized and interesting discussion could be had.
naejimba 2 months ago
@naejimba well you don't have to call it 'God' if that offends your sensitivies. for now lets just use the term 'creator'. later on we could get in to why I believe the creator was God. also, I'm not offended by your disagreement either. I'm actually pleasantly surprised at how reasonably you can hear a differing opinion, unlike the oh-so-many trolls out there on the internet
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon, oh... I should elaborate. It is not that the term offends me, it is simply implying certain attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, etc.) that I think does complicate the matter (perhaps a point of agreement). I too agree it is nice to have a civilized conversation in which neither side is emotionally attached to their position. =)
naejimba 2 months ago
Really what would be needed here is two separate arguments.
1. does God exist
and
2. is He the one portrayed in the Christian Bible? it is impossible to argue 'for' or 'against' the character of a nonexistent being. Since I believe He exists and is good, I can argue that He is good to someone who believes He exists, but is a fiend. What I cannot do is argue that a non-existent being is 'good'. So really there's two separate conversations that would need to take place.
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon, First, it is not the "Hollywood" definition of faith; this definition is seen in respected dictionaries such as the Merriam-Webster: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Your example and definition I would call the fallacy of equivocation, since your definition I do not think adequate to describe religious faith and such a definition can apply to many other things, such as your example, which is quite different than faith in a deity. (cont)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont) The biggest difference is that we "know" the grand canyon and tightropes exist, but the same cannot be said of god (it is merely we have no demonstrable evidence). "I think we see eye to eye on this issue, but simply refuse to adopt the other's position."I respectfully disagree. You also said though: "I think part of the problem with the world today is that people don't stop to think on such topics and concern themselves... (cont 2)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 2) soley with trivial things (definitely a problem in the US, anyway)." which is a FANTASTIC point. Now, I do agree that we do have two separate arguments here, but I disagree with the statement: "it is impossible to argue 'for' or 'against' the character of a nonexistent being." The character Hannibal Lecter is fictional, yet I think it is entirely possible to argue against his character/behavior (however we might word it).
naejimba 2 months ago
@naejimba merriam-webster says 'no proof'. Obviously the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. You said in your earlier statement that faith was 'believe in something for which there is no EVIDENCE', a key distinction. There is plenty of evidence to believe that there is a God. Faith is when you can't prove it. That doesn't mean you have no evidence or reason to believe in it. you may have faith that there is no God, although it can't be proven. I have faith that there is one.
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon, Really we are arguing semantics here. Evidence is "ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood," and proof is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact." Evidence is required to "prove" something. "There is plenty of evidence to believe that there is a God." Not a problem, if you wish to present such evidence we could discuss it in length. (cont)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont) I do disagree with the notion that god can neither be proven or disproven though. If a god is found to be logically contradicting, in that sense a particular "god" can be disproven. As for proving the existence of god, evidence is all that is required. Lastly, I should mention that I would not make the statement that I have "faith" that there is no god, simply to avoid any confusion, this would not be my position on the matter.
naejimba 2 months ago
@patchesrips I dont recall including you in this conversation. however, if you must know that was a double-post because of an 'error'. so when i realized that it double-posted i took down the second one. I don't care if you find anything I say praiseworthy or not. This conversation is not for your benefit, I was simply answering some questions from naejimba. I'm not trying to impress you or him, so kindly keep your combative sniping to yourself.
flashinpon 2 months ago
(last comment also had excerpt from chapter 38)
Point is, it goes on and on like that. Job tries to accuse God, but is forced to admit that He cannot fathom God.When I saw the picture of God painted here, I like Job had to say
(chapter 42)
5 My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon "but is forced to admit that He cannot fathom God"
I can fathom him. He was nothing more than the asshole who was showing off to a boozing buddy how he can torment his dog and the poor thing will still wag his tail and nuzzle his hand. If you'd rather worship that guy than punch him in the mouth, there's something not quite right with you.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
@PatchesRips then you've made your choice. you've set yourself up as more righteous than God and attempted to judge his character. your pride will be your downfall on judgment day unless you repent.
flashinpon 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flashinpon "you've set yourself up as more righteous than God and attempted to judge his character."
Yeah, I can do that with any character out of fiction, same as you can worship one.
"your pride will be your downfall on judgment day unless you repent."
On what evidence should I believe this?
PatchesRips 2 months ago
@flashinpon BTW, I see you toned it down a little... decided the "blaspheming" and "getting down on bended knee" version was a little OTT, did you? :) Good call.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
Comment removed
flashinpon 2 months ago
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon "Do you have an arm like God’s"
No, Naejimba's arm is real.
"Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm."
Then Peter Pan said, clap if you believe in fairies, and save Tinker Bell.
PatchesRips 2 months ago
1 The LORD said to Job:
“Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!” Then Job answered the LORD:
“I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth. I spoke once, but I have no answer— twice, but I will say no more.” Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:
“Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. “Would you discredit my justice? ...
flashinpon 2 months ago
and for the record, I'm not just up here preaching at you like I'm some kind of saint. I admit, there have been things in my own life that have caused me to question God. there's been times when I had circumstances I just couldn't believe were happening to me, and I wanted to say 'GOD! I DON'T DESERVE THIS! You are NOT dealing righteously with me! ...you are a FIEND!' but I believe God answers my accusations in the same way He responded to Job in chapter 40
flashinpon 2 months ago
the choice to either say 'God, this doesn't make sense to me. Why did _____ have to die? Why did _____ happen? How could this possibly be good? You are a fiend!' and shake the fist or we can admit
"God, I'm not all-knowing. I don't know why this had to happen, but I accept that You are in control and You are wiser than me. Help me to trust You even when I don't understand." that's real faith.
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon "that's real faith"
And we're supposed to find your belief in and one-sided conversation with your imaginary friend praiseworthy in what aspect?
PatchesRips 2 months ago
sometimes we see things that God does and to be honest we don't see how it could possibly be good. We see kids die, or people starving, or natural disasters and we wonder ... how in the world could a 'good' God allow or command these things to happen? That is where faith comes into play. If we could understand everything God did, he wouldnt be much of a God. How can the infinite be fathomable to the finite? when we come across circumstances that don't make sense to us, we have a choice.(cont)
flashinpon 2 months ago
on the Euthyphro dilemma... I think it's bad framing of the dilemma to say something is moral because God 'commands it'. Things are 'good' which reflect God's nature. In other words, grace is a quality because God is gracious. boldness is a quality because God is bold. justice is a quality because God is just. love is a quality because God is love. God does not 'try to be these things' so that He can be perfect, He IS these things and that is why they are good. (cont)
flashinpon 2 months ago
this video is dumb. the bible passages dealing with war and bloodshed are because israel was at war at the time these were written. as such, it was destroy-or-be-destroyed. pretending a verse about israel defeating its enemies somehow implies that christians are ordered to 'kill non christians' today shows a gross lack of understanding about the context in which it was written
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon, First, this is a straw man. At no point did I say or imply that these verses mean that "christians are ordered to 'kill non christians' today." Ignoring this though, if the verses are "ok" because Israel was at war at the time, we are left with a problem. I see on your profile you are a marine. If you were sent to war, and you were ordered to kill the religious leaders, elderly, children, etc. of any other country, I'm sure you would (cont)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont) find it immoral (let alone I imagine you might refuse your orders). If you find it immoral now, how is it that it was acceptable then? Theists are the ones arguing for an "absolute" unchanging morality, and they argue that the nature of god does not change. Why is it so hard for a christian to admit that something like killing the children of a person who breaks a law is immoral?
naejimba 2 months ago
@naejimba i would of course find it immoral if an officer ordered me to kill children. Israel was not under the orders of officers. God has the right to say whether a nation's sin is so great that they deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth. If He has decided that, who are you--and who am I--and who is Man to impugn the righteousness of God and say that He has erred in His judgment? The real question is, will we submit to what God requires or insist we know better.
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon, First, we could delve straight into the Euthyphro dilemma. Either something is moral because god commands it, or god commands something because it is moral. From your comment it is clear you would agree with the former (either presents serious problems which must be accounted for). If it is moral because god commanded it (sometimes referred to as divine command theory), then morality is not only arbitrary and not based upon reason, (cont)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont) but one could present an argument from this perspective that morality is not truly objective (which would disagree with the bible). Also, it then means that literally anything COULD be considered moral. If it was then god instead of your commander that called for you to kill children, would you do it? Also, if what is defined as "good" is merely god's will, then attempting to define god as "good" or "perfect" loses all meaning. C. S. Lewis said, (cont 2)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 2) "if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the 'righteous Lord.'" Not to mention that according to this view, without god there would be no morality and everything would be permitted. However, the Piraha people of the amazon have no concept of a deity, yet the exhibit their own morality just as does every other culture on earth. (cont 3)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 3) Furthermore, if all of those people the Israelites killed deserved it, could you tell me what "sins," as you put it, the infants and children they slaughtered committed to deserve such a punishment? Even better, can you give me even ONE instance in which it is moral to kill a child, or especially when it is moral to do so based on the actions of another person? (cont 4)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 4) "The real question is, will we submit to what God requires or insist we know better." I am imperfect, and yet I can find imperfection with your god. What does that say of such a being? It is, rather, that what I require (in regards to morality) is higher than a god who is supposedly perfect, and yes, I would insist that I "know better."
naejimba 2 months ago
@naejimba as to the specifics of WHY he felt certain people needed to be wiped out (like the nations Israel went to war with) and why certain people were allowed to repent (Ninevah, for example) really the only difference is that I have faith that God's reasons are just and righteous, and you assume that you know better and God must be a fiend. your argument is with God Himself, not me. I suggest you read the book of Job for a bit of perspective on this.
flashinpon 2 months ago
@naejimba it is true that morality may seem arbitrary. however, morality IS based on reason, just not yours or mine. according to Christian theology, there is no one righteous. All have sinned. this being the case, God would be perfectly good and just executing us all. this does not make him 'fiendish', and if our reasoning says so it is our reasoning which is flawed, not His. it is only by grace that any of us live. why does God extend grace to some and judge others? (cont)
flashinpon 2 months ago
@flashinpon, "according to Christian theology, there is no one righteous. All have sinned." I would agree that we are all imperfect, but this idea that anyone (even god) would be justified in killing someone for merely being human I find ridiculous and immoral (especially since it was he that decided to create imperfect beings to begin with, only to punish us for being precisely how he created us, with full knowledge of this beforehand). (cont)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont) To argue that it is acceptable because he is god is merely the fallacy of special pleading. Also, simply because someone has not committed a particular immoral act (or any at all) does not give that individual (god or not) some special priviledge to kill (again, this would be special pleading). Justice would be to punish the person according to the severity of the crime.. and this notion of infinite punishment for a finite crime I would not call justice, but rather, sadistic and (cont 2)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 2) unnecessary. "God would be perfectly good and just executing us all. this does not make him 'fiendish', and if our reasoning says so it is our reasoning which is flawed, not His." Essentially, you are saying that if I disagree with what some ancient text says, that I am automatically incorrect (meaning you can ignore any argument I present, no matter how logical). Now, if my reasoning is flawed, I would challenge one to point out the error. (cont 3)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 3) It would follow that the supposed creator of reason would himself be reasonable; that the author of logic would be logical.. if this is not the case, what else am I to conclude but that such a being is perhaps not a "god" at all and that such a thing is not worthy of worship? Your argument, instead, is that we are too stupid to understand... and I am calling BS. Why would a god give us reason if we are not supposed to use it? (cont 4)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 4) Why would a god have behavior that he considers immoral, and then do the same exact things he condemns us for? This is hypocritical, and (yet again) merely the fallacy of special pleading. Simply because one makes a rule or law, does not give that person special priviledge to ignore it. "really the only difference is that I have faith that God's reasons are just and righteous, and you assume that you know better and God must be a fiend." (cont 5)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 5) The literal definiton of faith is "a strong belief without evidence." I contend that it is YOU who are assuming, not I. I have already proposed reasons why I feel this way, (and again) if you find a flaw in my logic please point it out. It is literally BECAUSE I am not assuming such things that I am able to challenge these notions, and your assumption that such things cannot be challenged is no argument at all. In fact, (cont 6)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 6) you have not addressed most of my points nor have you answered any of my questions, instead you have quoted scripture I am already familiar with along with logical fallacies. "your argument is with God Himself, not me. I suggest you read the book of Job for a bit of perspective on this." First, I do not think it is possible to debate with something that does not (cont 7)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 7) respond back (not being smart here, I would enjoy such an opportunity if such a being were to exist), and, second, I do have contentions with what you have stated. Lastly, I have read Job many times, and although I find it gives me "perspective" on the matter, I doubt it is the perspective you would have me hold. So this being who is all "good" makes a bet with someone in which he already knows the outcome. (cont 8)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 8) He allows an innocent man to suffer needlessly to make a trivial point (and since he is god, couldn't he come up with another way to do so?) Everything Job has is destroyed and all of his children are killed. If this were not bad enough, he then allows satan to do anything to him but kill him, causing even more torment which serves no real purpose. Now, at this point you might mention that (cont 9)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 9) at the end of the story he is returned to health, gets twice as many livestock that he started with, and gets a new family. However, I would like to know, do you have a son or daughter? Imagine they died some horrible death, and I told you not to worry, that you could always just make another one. Could ANYTHING replace your child? Does having another kid erase the pain of losing the first one? (cont 10)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 10) Now imagine that it was I who killed your child, and did so to fulfill some bet I made with another person. Such a thing would be horribly immoral, correct? Shouldn't I be punished to the full extent of the law? Now, if it is immoral for me to do so, what makes it ok for "god?" Is this not just another example of special pleading? How can a being who is all "good" just go around killing children; how can you justify this? (cont 11)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 11) How is such a being deserving of worship? Also, you mention that "Job tries to accuse God".... but Job 42:11 clearly states: "Then all his brothers and all his sisters and all who had known him before came to him, and they ate bread with him in his house; and they consoled him and comforted him for all the adversities that the LORD had brought on him." You also say, "the Bible also covers this topic when it asks 'can the clay say to the potter...?' in other words, (cont 12)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 12) human beings are his property. we are a wicked, rebellious people and we all deserve to die." First, the idea that any person should be "property" is disgusting (that is slavery, something god never mentions he has a problem with btw). Apparently, I value human life and care about human suffering much more than your god does. Second, just because he supposedly made us does not in any way justify such treatment. Technically, (cont 13)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 13) if I had children myself and my significant other would have made them. Does this mean I could kill his/her own family and burn down his/her house to make a point or teach a lesson? Again, if it is immoral for me to do so, why is it magically ok for god? Even if he/she was "wicked" and "rebellious" such behavior is not excused, and certainly not moral. Lastly, this idea that all of humanity is wicked, rebellious, and deserves to die, I find absurd. (cont 14)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 14) True, no one is without error, but this does not mean one is either wicked or rebellious.. in fact, I do not believe I am either one. As for the notion of deserving death, tell me precisely what the infants who were killed did to deserve death? (this is a question you had previously dodged). Ironically, most theists insist that abortion at any stage is immoral since even a fetus is human life... yet they will defend the Israelites (cont 15)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 15) taking infants and smashing their heads against rocks in front of their parents. Again, I'm calling BS.
naejimba 2 months ago
@naejimba I disagree. 'strong belief without evidence' is the Hollywood definition of faith, and I don't think it's a good one. A better definition of faith is 'belief in action'.
If I say I can carry a man over the grand canyon while walking a tightrope, you may well believe me, and say so. But if you have faith in me, you'll volunteer to be the man I carry during the stunt. If you are smart, you will not put your faith in me without strong evidence that I can do what I say I can.
flashinpon 2 months ago
@naejimba by this definition, faith is not the antithesis of reason, as you seem to think. It is true that people CAN put faith in something for stupid reasons, or no reasons at all, but that does not mean that said stupidity is integral to the definition of the word 'faith'. the actual definition is
"confidence or trust in a person or thing."
it is the responsibility of the individual to ensure that the object of his faith is deserving. If you have found the object of my faith lacking that is
flashinpon 2 months ago
@naejimba really your business, and I'm not going to try to sway you. I think we see eye to eye on this issue, but simply refuse to adopt the other's position. I will never try to tell someone to believe something they find unreasonable, because to do this and be wrong makes you doubly accountable in the final reckoning (if there is one, as I believe there is). I will pray, though, that at some point in the future your position on this may change.
flashinpon 2 months ago
@naejimba It is good to meet someone who has thought through what they believe as thoroughly as you have, even if we have come to different conclusions. I think part of the problem with the world today is that people don't stop to think on such topics and concern themselves soley with trivial things (definitely a problem in the US, anyway). What we think about our souls, God, and eternity is vitally important, and I laud you for your attentiveness to this subject regardless of our disagreement
flashinpon 2 months ago
@naejimba the Bible also covers this topic when it asks "can the clay say to the potter...?" in other words, human beings are his property. we are a wicked, rebellious people and we all deserve to die. for some inexplicable reason, He loves us anyway. He has done SO MUCH to get us to turn back to Him. We can't give him a reason why He should choose to be gracious to ANY of us, nor can we shake our fist at him if He decides to judge. I don't think it is my place to answer for God (cont)
flashinpon 2 months ago
Therefore our morality and the process of labeling our actions are necessarily subjective, based on our experience and emotions. Possibly, sympathy and empathy are embed in our nature for such purposes through evolution...
Regards, Lachezar Simeonov, Bulgaria.
lachezar43 5 months ago in playlist More videos from naejimba
Even if we think that education and development of science will bring happiness to the people, the only way to know is to predict the future, which is impossible. It is possible that a sequence of events may cause the annihilation of mankind because of science. Though we think it is good (i.e. it perpetuates our species and brings order and positive feelings), we don't know.
lachezar43 5 months ago in playlist More videos from naejimba
Then the humans (or the first hominids) label the first type of actions evil and the last type of actions - good. But this labeling is subjective. These concepts evolve and are ever changing. The illusion that good and evil are objective is obvious. For example we don't know a priory whether any action will bring harm or happiness to the society in the long run.
lachezar43 5 months ago in playlist More videos from naejimba
I think it is obvious that good and evil are human inventions. Why? Here is my theory – let us we imagine the first hominids didn't know what is good and evil. However they knew that some actions brings sadness, harm, pain and chaos. Other actions bring peace and happiness (the pain and the happiness are feelings, which are functions of our biological organism. These are objective and necessary).
lachezar43 5 months ago in playlist More videos from naejimba
all idol or entity based religion is evil,satan is a fake construct created by whom hath created man,anything and everything humanity has brought supposedly from the allmighty has been tampered and streched or watered down to suit their need.whatever happens, happens that's what i'm going with,and if the earth rises and fire rains it won't change a thing,i'll just have to bring my sword to fight whatever gets in my way be it demon or corrupted man,i will fight until i fall!
burn19ballz 10 months ago
I meant symbolic in the sense that the prophet was talking to the altar. The killing was real, however. Being a priest of a different religion isn't a crime... in today's world society. But that's our standard. Don't put God to your standards. There's too much to explain, but for now i'll say that these priest were bringing evil into Israel. These pagan priests were indeed the ones who offered child sacrifice. I'm glad that your making a distinction of what is and isn't a sacrifice unto God.
evanom2 11 months ago
@evanom2, it is not that I am "putting god to my standards," but rather, what should one think when the god of a religion does not live up to the standards of an imperfect being? What are we to think when his so called "perfect" morality is less developed than our own? When a so called "god" has a morality like that, I might ask "why call such a being 'god'?" I will now ask you if you think killing children is immoral. Furthermore, is there ANY circumstance in which killing children is moral?
naejimba 11 months ago
Joshua 7 doesn't refer to human sacrifice but criminal execution. Neither II Kings nor anything else said. All executions refer to God's nation of Israel, since He would be among them, hence no room for sin, rebellion, etc. It isn't referring to gentile nations, nor permission to kill. Jeremiah and Isaiah speak of curses from disobedience including death of children. God isnt demanding child sacrifice, he's informing of curses that follow rebellion.
Never let a talking dog teach you scripture.
evanom2 11 months ago
@evanom2, what about this? " At the LORD's command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice. Then at the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you." (1 Kings 13:1-2 NLT) Furthermore, (cont)
naejimba 11 months ago
(cont) lets say that Joshua 7 is criminal execution. The death penalty for stealing is unjust... the punishment does not fit the crime. Either way, an atrocity has occurred. As for your claim that it is not "permission to kill".. well quite frankly it is ridiculous. On numerous occasions god commanded the slaughter of other people. "You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. (cont 2)
naejimba 11 months ago
(CONT 2) With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! (cont 3)
naejimba 11 months ago
(cont 3) I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26) This sounds not like mere permission, but a PROMISE that violence will come to another people, and "god's chosen" will deliver it. A point of interest is (cont 4)
naejimba 11 months ago
(cont 4) that even after this promise, they lose the battle against the babalonians in the next chapter. Lastly, go read the story of Jeptha and tell me that is not child sacrifice. What "rebellion" did Jeptha commit? He followed everything, including keeping his covenant with god. God did not forbid or stop the child sacrifice. Even better, since everything "works according to his will" it was part of his "plan." Sick to say the least. The point stands, atrocities occur in the bible.
naejimba 11 months ago
@naejimba Again this isn't human sacrifice, it's criminal execution. The prophet is talking... to the altar! It's symbolic throughout. Basically God is saying that since the king and his priest didn't leave their wicked ways, God is gonna use that same altar on which they practiced demon worship and make the priest the sacrifice for such. It's divine judgement and punishment with symbolic acts and words.
Read the Torah, understand what God declared to be acceptable, holy sacrifices.
evanom2 11 months ago
@evanom2, so burning priests of another religion is criminal execution? Just what crime did they commit? Even if it is "criminal execution" it is still an immoral act. Besides that, the "lord" says that is what will occur. What makes you think it is "symbolic?" Often times theists just say something is not meant to be taken literal when the implications are unfavorable. However, I could make an argument for the bible being taken literally, the creation story is a great example.
naejimba 11 months ago
(CNT..) I think his hope was that we would not turn our back to him, but since we did any way, he loves us so much and to combat the sin and the turning of our backs to him is he sent his son to die for us so that we may live with him and be with him after our work here on earth is done. Why God did what he did back then is any ones best guess.
blva888 11 months ago
Boy you have no idea what you are saying. The bible does not state any where that you HAVE to kill. You talk about what God commands like you know something, but you do not. This is what God commands. Love your God with all your heart, and love your neighborhood as yourself. This is the first above all commandments. Where do you get killing out of that?
blva888 11 months ago
@blva888, boy you must be cherry picking your bible. Here are a couple of verses to brighten up your day. ;) (Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, "All of you who are on the LORD's side, come over here and join me." And all the Levites came. He told them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." (cont)
naejimba 11 months ago
(cont) The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT) Oh, and as far as your claim that you don't HAVE to kill, let me AGAIN mention this bible verse: Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, (cont 2)
naejimba 11 months ago
(cont 2) cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB) Welp, there it is in black and white, from your own bible. Oh, and by the way, you are DEAD WRONG about the commandments. Long before Jesus came along, supposedly, god issued a series of commandments, the first few of which were just about having no other gods, no idols, and keeping the sabbath day "holy." If loving your neighbor as yourself is the "first above all commandments," why didn't god bother to (cont 3)
naejimba 11 months ago
(cont 3) mention it? If it is so important, why did he leave it out? In fact, if "god" or "jesus" are supposedly the authors of morality, as your religion claims, then why does it not mention anywhere in the bible that we shouldn't molest little children? If I were making a list of "commandments" I think not raping little kids would be pretty high on the list. Go read your bible before you accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about... the WHOLE thing too... not just the parts (cont 4)
naejimba 11 months ago
(cont 4) they teach about in sunday schoool. Go read about absurdities such as Jacob's flock, noah's flood, and talking donkeys, go read about attrocities such as geneocide and infanticide. Go read the old testament, THEN come back and have a debate with me.
naejimba 11 months ago
@naejimba You just don't get what the verse meant that I had wrote. Does any verses you know of come from the new testament? Do you lack that much knowledge that you just don't understand the reasons why Jesus came down here for? I do hope one day you will understand.
blva888 11 months ago
@blva888, I understand entirely, I merely do not think the bible represents reality. Furthermore, I find it odd that so many christians are able to overlook the atrocities of the old testament and instead simply look at the new testament. It is part of your supposed "holy book." How can you just ignore it? Beyond all of this, I love how you completely dodged any of the questions I presented, and simply claimed that I just "don't understand." So... let me get this straight (cont)
naejimba 11 months ago
(cont) you say I don't understand the "reasons why jesus came down?" In a nutshell, god creates man knowing they will sin. Apparently, its part of his plan. So he impregnates a woman with himself, so he can sacrifice himself to himself, to save us from the sin he decided to create us with in the first place... yeah, that makes perfect sense. Sounds like the plan of a perfect being to me. (notice the sarcasm)
naejimba 11 months ago
@naejimba I dodged yours because you dodged mine. To answer your questions, your view of sin is different from Gods view of sin. Would you love a person who did things wrong toward you over and over? I think God Loves us so much but hates the sin so much and hates the fact that he created something that turns his back on him. (CNT..)
blva888 11 months ago
@blva888, first, which question did I dodge? Second, sin is defined as a thought or action which goes against the will of a god or gods. In order to believe in sin, one must first believe in a god. Since I do not believe in a god, I cannot believe in "sin." Your explanation is horribly flawed. You ask if I would love someone who did things wrong to me over and over. However, I do not have any power over another's actions, let alone the ability to create a sentient being. Suppose I created (cont)
naejimba 11 months ago
(cont) a robot which would walk across the floor. I purposely left out part of one of the robot's legs, meaning it would fall from time to time. Would I be justified in being mad at the robot when it falls? Who is to blame when the robot falls? Clearly, since I designed it (knowing full well) that it was flawed, as the designer I am responsible for my creation. If god is perfect, and his creation is perfect (since the bible says not only that all works according to his will, but also that (cont)
naejimba 11 months ago
(cont 2) everything he does is perfect) how could he "hate" anything he created? Hate is defined as: "to dislike intensely or passionately." How could he dislike anything he created, since his "plan" is supposedly perfect? This would imply that there is something in some way imperfect in order for one to be able to dislike it. ... and if god creates something that is not perfect, then god himself cannot be perfect. Furthermore, if his plan was perfect, why create something that will (cont 3)
naejimba 11 months ago
(cont 3) as you put it, "turn his back on him." If god exists, and the bible is correct, we are left with a horrendous realization. Since the bible says "wide is the path that leads to destruction," we can easily see that the majority of humanity will go to "hell." Therefore, according to his PERFECT plan, the majority of humanity was created simply to be punished for all of eternity, merely for not believing in something of which no evidence was provided. Something does NOT add up here.(cont 4)
naejimba 11 months ago
(cont 4) I'm sure you have critical thinking skills. I am sure you have the ability to be skeptical. Why not use it? Learn to think for yourself, if you truly want to learn anything, you must be willing to question everything. Do you HONESTLY believe in talking snakes and donkeys? I mean, come on... a talking.. donkey... like on shrek or some shit! Religion is merely a collection of the most improbable claims made in all of human history, and there is not one SHRED of evidence to back ANY of it.
naejimba 11 months ago
@naejimba I stand by what I said, you don't understand at all. I'm not going to address everything. God created man perfect, and he created them with the ability to choose (the robot example you gave is flawed) Unfortunately Adam and Eve chose the wrong thing. I"m sure you wont get this at all. Most people with your views don't.
blva888 11 months ago
@blva888, so again, you claim I "just don't understand." Instead of addressing points I brought up, you instead attack the person and not the argument. If god created man "perfect" then how is it at the same time that we are "not perfect?" This is a direct contradiction, and quite illogical. If we were perfect, we would not need salvation. Furthermore, since god planned everything out, and had all knowledge beforehand, that means he PLANNED for us to sin. If he is the creator, he is responsible.
naejimba 11 months ago
the crusades and witch trials are kind of ancient history. what about some more resent stuff, like; blowing up abortion clinics and the anti homosexual laws in uganda.
AceofDiamonds0 1 year ago 2
@AceofDiamonds0, good point... or that christian right wing militia type group that was planning on going to war with the government.
naejimba 1 year ago
I thought this was about CHRISTIAN atrocities. Then the cute puppy rattles off a bunch of Old Testament verses that related ONLY to the Jewish nation of that time. LOL.
Psssst...Jesus Christ, the Founder of Christianity, wasn't born for more than a thousand years after that time. Levitical laws don't' apply to Christians. It's time for Mr. Puppy to educate himself a little before trying to bark with the big dogs. ;-)
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian, it is literally part of your so called "holy book!" What about the crusades, the spanish inquisition, or the salem witch trials? Educate myself? ha! You think you are telling me something I have not already heard? Furthermore, this only shows the changing nature of god from the new to old testament. Which is a direct contradiction to biblical verses stating he is never changing. Why don't you explain that? I would watch my tone, I might make you look like a fool.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba So a factual telling of history in a holy book can't ever been negative? And the fact that there are some very bad things done by PEOPLE in the Bible means that the Bible ceases to be a holy book? What kind of logic is that? The Bible records ancient HISTORY. Did God approve of it all? Ever read it? Didn't God warn them to turn from their wicked ways or judgment would fall? How then can he be to blame for their actions? You gotta think these things through before making silly claims.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian "factual telling of a history book..." oh like talking snakes, virgin births, noah's flood, jacob's flock, ressurection from the dead, etc etc. Sounds completely true to me (notice the sarcam). God COMMANDED and did horrible things in the bible, such as infanticide, tearing children apart with bears, human sacrifice (on separate occasions), etc. You are failing miserably so far.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba Yep! All those things. If there is an all-powerful God you'd have to admit that nothing is too hard for him. As for your judgment of God's actions, that is your opinion. You weren't there so your understanding is limited. You can't call something "wrong" when you don't know all the facts.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian, is killing children wrong? Is raping young girls wrong? Is human sacrifice wrong? Is infanticide wrong? Answer yes or no to each of these. If you answer yes, then how do you live with the cognitive dissonance that your god commanded it? If you answer no, give me examples in which any of these things could be seen as moral acts. I dare you to answer this one. Don't dodge it.
naejimba 1 year ago
I dunno, is it? Who says it's wrong? How old were the "children" in that text? Were they 5, 12, or 19? In ancient Israel you weren't a "man" until you were 20 & could go to war. Under 20=child. Does it make sense for 40 five year olds to be in a crowd mocking the nations Prophet, calling him "empty headed" (the literal meaning)? You see? Not everything is as you want to make it to be. You have limited information. The difference between you and me is that I give God the benefit of the doubt.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian, killing children is always wrong. How do you even justify that statment? So the punishment for mocking someone is death? Gee, that sounds logical. Your morality is appauling if you think you can justify such an action.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba No, I just choose to give God the benefit of the doubt since I wasn't there. Besides, define "children." Were they 5, 10, 19? There is nothing wrong with my morality. Shoot, if you're worldview is correct you have no basis for judging me like you just did, because there is no "right" or "wrong."
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian, so you are saying you just choose to believe without any evidence, mind you... and just accept it without any proof! ... and this is a GOOD thing? You sir, are not interested in truth, but rather, accept a comforting lie instead. Again, morality is a human invention. Using occam's razor, my claim that it is created by humanity is more probable than your claim of it coming from a "god."
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba Not at all! Why would I believe something blindly? Christianity is not a blind faith religion. If morality is human created then it evolves and can change, and change is not always good. You decry the so-called crimes of the Almighty for letting a couple of bears injure some children, but you have nothing to say about the "morality" of killing unborn children in the name of "choice" today. Is that the morality we're heading for? You can keep it.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian, if it is not based upon faith, then what is it based upon? Really, I would like to know. Yes, change in morality is not always "good." Slavery developed at some point in human history, the nazi's extermination of many different people, etc. On the whole though, morality is refining. Real morality is always choosing the option that does the least harm.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba Wait! What's wrong with Nazism? Hitler firmly believed he was helping evolution out. You can't fault a guy like that. That's resolve! That's a determination to bring about the better good for humanity! I'm surprised you would use that example. For without a God you have no right to call what Hitler did "wrong." If "survival of the fittest" works in the animal world, and humans are just "higher" animals, then there is NO FAULT in using higher forms of survival of the fittest.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian, now your defending the extermination of millions of people? How silly. Survival of the fittest is but one process in which organisms evolve over time. It is merely how things naturally occur, not necessarily the option which causes the least harm though. Our morality is an attempt to create justice in an unjust world, it fights against the way things "naturally occur." We help out the handicapped and the mentally ill, two groups that might die out naturally. It works (cont)
naejimba 1 year ago
(cont) against evolution. Evolution has all but been destroyed by man. Now, again, if morality is a human invention, I have every right to say what Hitler did was wrong.. so do you. We all develop our own personal morality anyway. You are attempting to make an argument for your opponent, and misrepresent their position, so therefore this is fallacy #2. I get to define my position, not you. Such lame attempts at an argument is beneath me and again, a logical fallacy.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba No, I'm not defending it. I'm pointing out your faulty worldview is.
But these comments bring up more problems for you. Why would evolution ever want a cessation of what naturally occurs in nature? That's not what we see in the natural world that you all claim we all came from. In every other aspect of the natural world the strongest survive & the weak die, supposedly making way for the stronger. What right do humans have to subvert that natural law that evolution has installed?
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian, "your faulty worldview." First, this is not my position, I never said any such thing, and actually you assume far too much again. That is not even close to what I do believe. You are making yourself look like a fool. Evolution is not some "law." You don't have to follow the way things naturally occur. If this was the case, why live in a house? Houses don't naturally occur. It makes life better, and that is what morality does for us.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba Why do animals build houses? Don't you believe that evolution has put into them the "instinct" to shelter themselves? Then, in that regard, house do occur naturally. You're comparing apples and oranges.
So, why not remove the mystery? Tell me what you DO believe and I'll try to refrain from misrepresenting you. :-)
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian, I believe in that which must be assumed, but attempt to assume nothing after that. I constantly question my own beliefs, which are based upon empirical evidence. Where forms of evidence do not exist, I do not believe. Simple as that.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba So real morality is the option that does the least harm? Harm to whom? Is the legal killing babies up to 9 months harming anyone? Is choosing death for a human child against the basic rights of that child, or doesn't he have any rights? Is the child human? Is it not human until it's fully birthed at 9 months, or is it still human if it is birthed by C-section at 8? Full term inside the womb is still not human, but partial term outside the womb is? That's "real" morality, right?
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian, you bring up a very interesting point. Our morality is not always logical. Yes, I said it. Also, what do we consider human? Is it a "soul" (that has yet to be proven no empirical evidence), is it intelligence? Pigs are actually relatively smart and we eat them, can't be that.. is it the capacity for pain? At what point can an unborn developing child feel pain? This is some harm that is done. It is not an easy question to answer, and I don't feel I have an answer at this time
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba Well thank you for being honest. Do you see now that any morality that is strictly decided by the current culture will harm someone? There is no perfect morality in humanity, because humans are depraved by nature. The majority of humans, if put in the right negative circumstances, will become the worst selfish animals in trying to protect their lives. All morals to the wind!
We may not be able to scientifically test a "soul," but we all know it's there. It's an evolutionary conundrum.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian, with morality there are always scenarios in which some harm will be done. It is unavoidable, and no matter what you believe it will not change that. Second, NO, we don't all "KNOW there is a soul," a soul is bull crap, there is no empirical evidence or evidence of any sort to support it it is not rooted in reality at all. It has NOTHING to do with evolution, what are you talking about?
naejimba 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian So how would this justify using the depraved morality of a fictional character like god? One that was designed thousands of years ago by more primitive people? We've progressed beyond that. There's clearly an issue with your supposed perfect god when we can be more moral than it is.
TekLok 1 year ago
@TekLok Sorry, but I found your questions to be opinion-based with little factual evidence. Thomas Jefferson said the doctrines of Jesus tend to all the happiness of mankind. You must disagree with him, yes? If so, where is the error in his thinking? As a matter of fact, how could most of those intellectual men have believed that which you so effortlessly call "depraved morality"? Perhaps your intelligence exceeds them all? Or, perhaps you have no idea what you're talking about. Which is it?
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian You clearly just changed the subject from God to Jesus. They are clearly two different characters with different morals in the bible. You thought I wasn't going to notice that or what?
TekLok 1 year ago
@TekLok That's because God and Jesus are one in the same.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian So Jesus is responsible for these atrocities as well? That doesn't really help your position. You follow an evil god.
TekLok 1 year ago
@TekLok According to your OPINION, as I've already stated, which, by the way, is not the belief of the majority.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian Until you guys can prove that god is actually real then he will remain a fictional imaginary man made concept.
TekLok 1 year ago
@TekLok So God only exists if people like you are convinced he does? Oh, and there is no evidence of him if you say there isn't?
Can I tell you a secret? He's only a "fictional imaginary man made concept" to the vast MINORITY on this planet, and you happen to be one of those. That fact alone does not mean God doesn't exist. It only means that you don't like the evidence. But be advised. God doesn't have to satisfy your demands for evidence. The obligation to believe rests squarely on you.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian What evidence?
TekLok 1 year ago
@TekLok Sorry, but I'm not going to hold your hand through the evidence. We have this powerful tool now called the internet and Google. Google "evidence for God" and read away. It's all out there.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian All I've ever read is that "god created the universe by magic". Its a baseless assumption. There is just as much evidence for the universe being a naturally occurring phenomenon.
TekLok 1 year ago
@TekLok, more importantly, using occam's razor the possibility of it being a naturally occurring phenomenon is the more likely of the two, and therefore, we hold the more logical position, if one must assume or claim anything at all. Furthermore, when looking for evidence the most important and definitive type of evidence is empirical. No such hard evidence exists regarding "god." I'm not sure what other lines of evidence he would care to present, but I've heard nothing compelling.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba Plus we've never witnessed any evidence of real magic occurring. In genesis god essentially speaks things into existence. That's just straight up magic.
TekLok 1 year ago
@TekLok And that reminds me did they make witchcraft a sin? I don't believe in that nonsense but when I suspend my reasoning just for the sake of this context then God is basically contradicting himself. Why follow the moral system of a something that doesn't follow its own rules?
TekLok 1 year ago
@TekLok, actually, if you remember the verse "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," the official biblical stance, at least in the old testament, is that they should be put to death.
naejimba 1 year ago
@TekLok That's funny. In the 25+ years that I've been a Christian I've never heard that God created the universe with magic. You must be reading some fringe articles. Why not try actually studying the issue for yourself in detail with evidence from reputable sources?
The big problem with your claim about a naturally occurring universe is that you're required to believe the ridiculous notion that NOTHING created SOMETHING. And your science for that is...? A Creator God is much more tenable.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian Genesis clearly describes god simply speaking things into existence. Similar to spoken magic spells in Harry Potter. Also I did not say anything like "nothing created something". Not everything requires a sentient conscious creator. This is a bias of the human condition. Just because we create things does not automatically mean the the universe requires a creator. You get stuck with the question of "who created god?" Human have created hundreds of gods. None have evidence.
TekLok 1 year ago
@TekLok @TekLok Wait! Are you implying that the universe is eternal and had no beginning? And your scientific proof for that is?
I'll assume that you believe in a so-called "Big Bang." If you do then you have to explain scientifically where the matter originated that blew up to begin with. There is no real empirical evidence for any such idea.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian Where is the scientific proof that god is eternal and had no beginning? Do you see this problem here? I'm making no assertions about the beginning of the universe. I'm only asserting that either possibilities are equally without evidence. At least the universe apparently exists where god does not. I'm trying to make you think (its your username after all). I'm not trying to convert you to atheism. Just showing you that its all in your head.
TekLok 1 year ago
@TekLok There isn't any scientific proof. But that is not the end-all of reality. Christians believe it by faith, coupled with the evidence we do have, like complexity & order that could never have happened naturally.
Where's your scientific proof that nothing came into something by itself? You have none, but you still believe it. It's your only option. You cannot emphatically state that God doesn't exits because you are not omniscient. You should understand that.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian Yeah it is in. If it doesn't reside in reality then it doesn't exist. If something isn't established in reality then its imaginary. Again you obviously aren't reading anything anyone is saying here.
TekLok 1 year ago