Faith and Reason. My thoughts on God, science and the world

[sandorski]

Wouldn't even have to be that complicated.

I've often joked that if there was a truly omnibenevolent god who loved his people and wanted them to be healthy and happy, he would have replaced one of three he reserved for his own ego with "Thou shalt wash thy hands with soap and water before every meal and whenever they are soiled". To be fair, there are quite a few things in the OT about cleanliness, but most of them are oriented around ritual cleanliness. There's very little indication in there that the writers knew even the fundamentals of health science or any other type of science.

All the various Hygiene and dietary type Laws would have been based on understood principles of the time, at least in the local area or perhaps based upon the immediate cultural understanding gained through experience. Even the various attempts to describe the Earth and Universe tended to change depending on when various parts of the Bible were written and they echoed popular understanding of the time.

It seems quite clear to me that most of the Authors merely attributed "God" to things as an attempt to understand that which they couldn't understand at the time. Even when someone was declared to have talked to "god" or seen a Vision was likely just the Authors attempt to understand how someone may have "known" something. Some of those people, I propose, likely just made the right choice from sheer luck, although some probably just had a relatively higher capacity for Intelligence which caused them to succeed in exceptional ways.

Even Isaac Newton after he brilliantly invented the Math necessary to calculate Planetary Orbits ended up invoking divine intervention when he couldn't account how to calculate multiple bodies interacting upon each other. He concluded that without "God's" intervention, the solar system could not be held together.

 

[smackababy]

Even Isaac Newton after he brilliantly invented the Math necessary to calculate Planetary Orbits ended up invoking divine intervention when he couldn't account how to calculate multiple bodies interacting upon each other. He concluded that without "God's" intervention, the solar system could not be held together.

To be fair, we still don't understand why gravitation exists or what causes it. Sciences just accept we don't know what causes it yet and don't attribute it to some force of God holding us to the Earth.


And intelligent design always puzzles me. Our (human) design is rather unintelligent. We take a long time to reproduce, our young are particularly vulnerable for a very long time, we occupy a planet 71% of which is covered with water, but can't live in it, our atmosphere is 78% nitrogen and we can't breathe that either. What exactly is intelligent about human design? We are weak, have bad metabolism, poor natural defense and if it wasn't for our heightened intelligence would have died off a long time ago.

 

[sandorski]

To be fair, we still don't understand why gravitation exists or what causes it. Sciences just accept we don't know what causes it yet and don't attribute it to some force of God holding us to the Earth.


And intelligent design always puzzles me. Our (human) design is rather unintelligent. We take a long time to reproduce, our young are particularly vulnerable for a very long time, we occupy a planet 71% of which is covered with water, but can't live in it, our atmosphere is 78% nitrogen and we can't breathe that either. What exactly is intelligent about human design? We are weak, have bad metabolism, poor natural defense and if it wasn't for our heightened intelligence would have died off a long time ago.

The nature of Gravity wasn't what he had a problem with. He was able to calculate orbits of any 2 bodies(Earth around Sun, Moon around Earth, etc), but he ran into a problem when there was a third body involved, like how Mars affects the Earth's orbit around the Sun. A century later some dude figured out how to do it, but Newton had given up on it and just resorted to the Goddidit Hypothesis.

 

[Retro Rob]

NVM

 

[Retro Rob]

And intelligent design always puzzles me. Our (human) design is rather unintelligent. We take a long time to reproduce, our young are particularly vulnerable for a very long time, we occupy a planet 71% of which is covered with water, but can't live in it, our atmosphere is 78% nitrogen and we can't breathe that either. What exactly is intelligent about human design? We are weak, have bad metabolism, poor natural defense and if it wasn't for our heightened intelligence would have died off a long time ago.

Damn that evolution, and curse natrual selection....they've doomed us! @!^# that Big Bang for creating this water-world!

God, had he been real, would have done much better!

 

[Retro Rob]

It has always seemed awfully odd to me how people so rarely question why miracles stopped right around the time people would have been able to disprove them.

Actually, I've done a bit of digging on this, and the simplest way to put it is that those happened during the youth of Christianity and were necessary for Jesus to have proof he was from God -- giving people a basis for faith, and proving God was actually backing Christianity. Once it got big enough, there was really no need anymore.

I mean, imagine a man saying he "was the Son of God" but never performed one single supernatrual feat. Then no one would believe him. He would be no different than modern day "prophets" who don't provide a basis, or some strong evidence, that he's a prophet of God.

Secondly, people were around to disprove them.... they just aren't alive today. And sorry, 2000 years ago, there weren't a such thing as cameras and recording devices, so just be realistic about that, for starters.

 

[sandorski]

Actually, I've done a bit of digging on this, and the simplest way to put it is that those happened during the youth of Christianity and were necessary for Jesus to have proof he was from God -- giving people a basis for faith, and proving God was actually backing Christianity. Once it got big enough, there was really no need anymore.

I mean, imagine a man saying he "was the Son of God" but never performed one single supernatrual feat. Then no one would believe him. He would be no different than modern day "prophets" who don't provide a basis, or some strong evidence, that he's a prophet of God.

Secondly, people were around to disprove them.... they just aren't alive today. And sorry, 2000 years ago, there weren't a such thing as cameras and recording devices, so just be realistic about that, for starters.

How does repeating the miracles of Krishna, Hercules, and other previous mythical Deities prove that Jesus was a deity too?

 

[smackababy]

How does repeating the miracles of Krishna, Hercules, and other previous mythical Deities prove that Jesus was a deity too?

Well, I had a long reply about miracles, and then I hit Ctrl R instead of Ctrl T and lost it...

Suffice to say it was condescending towards those that believed and gave examples of previously considered miracles that have been shown to be natural.

I even had anecdotal evidence on what people interpret as miracles or signs from God being complete garbage. It involved a girl I knew that "asked God to change a red light to green before she got to it if it was a sign from God" and since it changed, she knew for a fact, God was real and listening.

 

[jackstar7]

Actually, I've done a bit of digging on this, and the simplest way to put it is that those happened during the youth of Christianity and were necessary for Jesus to have proof he was from God -- giving people a basis for faith, and proving God was actually backing Christianity. Once it got big enough, there was really no need anymore.

I mean, imagine a man saying he "was the Son of God" but never performed one single supernatrual feat. Then no one would believe him. He would be no different than modern day "prophets" who don't provide a basis, or some strong evidence, that he's a prophet of God.

Secondly, people were around to disprove them.... they just aren't alive today. And sorry, 2000 years ago, there weren't a such thing as cameras and recording devices, so just be realistic about that, for starters.

WOW. So Jesus needed to prove he was god now? That's new. I thought faith was the important part of the whole thing... otherwise why the lesson of doubting Thomas?



Oh and the god of the bible killed children in a story that takes place in the book used to proclaim his infinite wisdom. No. Just no. Shame on any who praise such a being.

 

[Retro Rob]

WOW. So Jesus needed to prove he was god now? That's new. I thought faith was the important part of the whole thing otherwise why the lesson of doubting Thomas?

Well, as I always say, the best cure for ignorance is education....

Oh and the god of the bible killed children in a story that takes place in the book used to proclaim his infinite wisdom. No. Just no. Shame on any who praise such a being.

Let me ask you: If God says, after proving he's God, to "sprinkle the blood of a lamb of the doorposts"(a simple, easy task...so simple, the Israelites did it) or I will strike your firstborn, who's fault is that your son died?

Remember, this applied to Israel too.

In more practical usage, your weather service says: "take all your children into the home, and barricade them in because a deadly storm is coming and your kids will die if you don't"... and you don't and they die, then you can blame the weather service too! Shame on anyone who would listen to that weather channel again...buncha murderers!!

Yeah, education > ignorance.

 

[jackstar7]

Well, as I always say, the best cure for ignorance is education....




Let me ask you: If God says, after proving he's God, to "sprinkle the blood of a lamb of the doorposts"(a simple, easy task...so simple, the Israelites did it) or I will strike your firstborn, who's fault is that your son died?

Remember, this applied to Israel too.

In more practical usage, your weather service says: "take all your children into the home, and barricade them in because a deadly storm is coming and your kids will die if you don't"... and you don't and they die, then you can blame the weather service too! Shame on anyone who would listen to that weather channel again...buncha murderers!!

Yeah, education > ignorance.

So you defend a god that slaughters children (and not just in the story you're talking about) by blaming the victims and label me as ignorant.

Carry on.

 

[jackstar7]

Oh right, and god makes the rule: Thou shalt not kill (as it is in the KJV and NIV -- not murder-- but maybe you go by some other translation, which then forces the issue, why does he permit imperfect translations of his word OR is he just above his own rules, which is stupid). Then orders people to break that rule, or breaks it itself, depending on whims. Hypocrite is just the start of how it unravels. The fact that children are being killed is just shameful.

 

[Retro Rob]

So you defend a god that slaughters children (and not just in the story you're talking about) by blaming the victims and label me as ignorant.

Carry on.

No, I am no longer going to defend anything -- I just wanted to point out your willful ignorance while watching you jump to another example while failing to defend the one you initially presented, which is purely based on emotion and prejudice and not with a mind to learn anything.

Anti-Bible people are always prejudice and halfway, selectively, read texts.

 

[PowerEngineer]

No, I am no longer going to defend anything -- I just wanted to point out your willful ignorance while watching you jump to another example while failing to defend the one you initially presented, which is purely based on emotion and prejudice and not with a mind to learn anything.

Anti-Bible people are always prejudice and halfway, selectively, read texts.

I'm thinking that we're now pushing hard on the limits of a discussion, and maybe it's time to stop (while knowing that we'll likely revisit all this in response to some other thread in the near future).

That said, some of us have grown similarly exasperated with you. If we just deleted the "Anti-" from your post then the same words could be as fairly directed back at you.

 

[jackstar7]

No, I am no longer going to defend anything -- I just wanted to point out your willful ignorance while watching you jump to another example while failing to defend the one you initially presented, which is purely based on emotion and prejudice and not with a mind to learn anything.

Anti-Bible people are always prejudice and halfway, selectively, read texts.

I moved on from nothing, sir. And as someone raised in the bible and christianity, I do not appreciate your leaps to label me. All you had to do was ask questions. The one you asked was rhetorical, no? If not, then it was foolish as why should god kill ANY children? No, instead you chose to denigrate what you assumed about my understanding of the book.

I'm not anti-bible either. It's a terrific piece of literature.

I'm against those who champion it as the word of a deity that is not a monster, as evidenced by the multiple events (Passover and the Amalekites for two, leaving out god's testing of people's devotion to him... because... of... unknown). EDIT: To clarify, you guessed my example wrong. Something only possible because there are multiple examples.

You praise a being that disobeys his own rules. You have no reasoned defense, and so you attack me instead.

 

[Retro Rob]

I moved on from nothing, sir. And as someone raised in the bible and christianity, I do not appreciate your leaps to label me. All you had to do was ask questions. The one you asked was rhetorical, no? If not, then it was foolish as why should god kill ANY children? No, instead you chose to denigrate what you assumed about my understanding of the book.

I'm not anti-bible either. It's a terrific piece of literature.

I'm against those who champion it as the word of a deity that is not a monster, as evidenced by the multiple events (Passover and the Amalekites for two, leaving out god's testing of people's devotion to him... because... of... unknown). EDIT: To clarify, you guessed my example wrong. Something only possible because there are multiple examples.

You praise a being that disobeys his own rules. You have no reasoned defense, and so you attack me instead.

You're right -- there was no need for me to go there and I should have asked.

But the facts are you seemed to deliberately misrepresent God (as being a murderer, I guessed from the passover account, it seems you verified this was one you were referring to) when this was a simple command of obedience, which his people willingly obeyed. Monsters don't give warnings and offer forgiveness, while extending it (as in the case with a Canaanite tribe belonging to them, which he extended mercy to called the Gibeonites).

Monsters don't forgive, they don't save enemy nations, allow prostitutes (Rahab was obviously one before turning to Israel) to come to their organizations, and even Egyptians were part of Israel's crossing the Red Sea -- and this is a nation that enslaved Israel!

So I, though wrongly perhaps, called ignorance because of your deliberate misrepresentations.

You talk about God breaking the ten, those were for them! Would you say it's hypocritical for a parent to give kids an 8pm bedtime while going to bed at midnight?

No, because its for their protection, and quite frankly, they have the right to have you abide by a separate set of rules based on your position relative to theirs.

 

[sandorski]

You're right -- there was no need for me to go there and I should have asked.

But the facts are you seemed to deliberately misrepresent God (as being a murderer, I guessed from the passover account, it seems you verified this was one you were referring to) when this was a simple command of obedience, which his people willingly obeyed. Monsters don't give warnings and offer forgiveness, while extending it (as in the case with a Canaanite tribe belonging to them, which he extended mercy to called the Gibeonites).

Monsters don't forgive, they don't save enemy nations, allow prostitutes (Rahab was obviously one before turning to Israel) to come to their organizations, and even Egyptians were part of Israel's crossing the Red Sea -- and this is a nation that enslaved Israel!

So I, though wrongly perhaps, called ignorance because of your deliberate misrepresentations.

You talk about God breaking the ten, those were for them! Would you say it's hypocritical for a parent to give kids an 8pm bedtime while going to bed at midnight?

No, because its for their protection, and quite frankly, they have the right to have you abide by a separate set of rules based on your position relative to theirs.

How about the Flood? The numerous Cities Raped and Pillaged? Even by your(erroneous)definition these would make him a "monster".

 

[jackstar7]

The story I was referencing is thus:

1 Samuel 15

2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.

5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.

6 And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.

7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.

8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

God was then pissed that Saul pillaged... but Saul did apparently kill all the women and children as instructed.


Now, that you compare killing to a bed time is absurd. Also, note that god, in this instance, didn't do the killing directly. Rather he makes people break his commandment in order to obey his instructions. In this case including the killing of children.

That is monstrous behavior. I do not believe that is in any way a mischaracterization. There is no standard one can have that permits child killing simply because it's god asking that it be done. To say there is I can only view as shameful.

 

[busydude]

Isn't there an incident when God summoned bears to kill 42 children?

Also, when God smites fig tree for not having fruits(he was apparently unaware that they only grow in certain seasons?).

 

[Retro Rob]

The story I was referencing is thus:

1 Samuel 15
God was then pissed that Saul pillaged... but Saul did apparently kill all the women and children as instructed.

No doubt, Saul didn't do what he was told...and he spared the King of Amalek and tried to keep the animals for a sacrifice to God and was chastised by Samuel, then Saul later regretted and apologized for his not obeying God, which was apparently the issue, as he (Saull) himself stated in verse 24 in which, he said "I've sinned for overstepping the voice of God".

It's clearly apparent you're trying to paint God in a certain, negative light. The Amalekites were lontime enemies of Israel, since the Exodus from Egypt, and God was protecting his people and allowing foreigners to become a part of his people. Its fairly clear up to this point, that even if they changed, they would not have had any issues with Israel and God, as the Gibeonites changed, some of the Egyptians changed, and others not mentioned in this discussion changed and were a part of the protection given to Israel.

Monsters don't protect members of his enemies.

Now, that you compare killing to a bed time is absurd. Also, note that god, in this instance, didn't do the killing directly. Rather he makes people break his commandment in order to obey his instructions. In this case including the killing of children.

You can believe what you wish, you can read the entire OT and see many occasions where God has done stuff on his own, so he was really determining the extent of his people's obedience.

With the above case, Saul admitted error (by not obeying) because he new God was right in asking him what he did.

You are welcome to judge God's actions based on your standards, but you're hardly in a position to say he's wrong.

That is monstrous behavior. I do not believe that is in any way a mischaracterization. There is no standard one can have that permits child killing simply because it's god asking that it be done. To say there is I can only view as shameful.

Yeah, saving enemies is shameful, forgiving prostitutes is shameful, keeping your promise to protect a group of people (and former enemies that are a part of that group) is monstrous behavior, I guess you'd rather have a cold, unforgiving God who doesn't change his mind toward people who at one time, fought against his people, and even extended forgiveness (later on) to those who killed his Son.

Remember Jesus' plea: Please forgive them Father, for they do not know what they're [Romans] doing."? Yeah, even the Romans who carried out the execution of Christ was offered forgiveness.

What a monstrous God! How dare he forgive the people who killed his son!!

 

[WilliamM2]

Well, as I always say, the best cure for ignorance is education....




Let me ask you: If God says, after proving he's God, to "sprinkle the blood of a lamb of the doorposts"(a simple, easy task...so simple, the Israelites did it) or I will strike your firstborn, who's fault is that your son died?

Remember, this applied to Israel too.

In more practical usage, your weather service says: "take all your children into the home, and barricade them in because a deadly storm is coming and your kids will die if you don't"... and you don't and they die, then you can blame the weather service too! Shame on anyone who would listen to that weather channel again...buncha murderers!!

Yeah, education > ignorance.

The difference being that the weather channel doesn't create the weather, they just report it. And they didn't punish anyone.

With your logic, if someone breaks a law, rather than send them to prison, we should kill their first born. Sounds forgiving to me.

 

[Retro Rob]

The difference being that the weather channel doesn't create the weather, they just report it. And they didn't punish anyone.

With your logic, if someone breaks a law, rather than send them to prison, we should kill their first born. Sounds forgiving to me.

I was making the point that ignoring warnings causes consequences, and you can't blame anyone else if you ignore it -- I wasn't comparing the two situations, just similar elements -- issuing a warning, and failing to heed it.

It's clear Egypt was outright defiant, as even after that supernatural display of Gods angel, they even chased after Israel after they released them, showing further evidence that they just outright didn't care about Israel's God.

And when someone breaks a law, there is a death penalty....not in every State, and its not out of blood thirst, its proper justice for a crime that calls for it.

We here in the US have wrongly put people to death, and yet, people still support it! Then some of you turn around and say God was wrong for determining whether death is proper punishment?

Even humans judge a matter, and based on evidence, determine if the punishment of death is justified in light of the crime committed.

 

[JD50]

What a bunch of nonsense. If you murder someone, you're a monster. Warning someone that you're going to kill them unless they do X, Y, and Z doesn't make it any better, it actually makes it worse.

 

[Retro Rob]

What a bunch of nonsense. If you murder someone, you're a monster. Warning someone that you're going to kill them unless they do X, Y, and Z doesn't make it any better, it actually makes it worse.

Explain how its murder.

Murder is determined by intent, so how can you judge Gods intent?

Secondly, he has the right to set parameters and determine what's offense is punishable by death.

While I appreciate threads like this, it seems as if God doesn't fit the mode of an idealistic, "back-patting" sin allowing, permissive diety people think he should be. At the same time, we have standards as a groups and individually, and there are things we simply won't accept. Yet God set certain standards, and says "don't do XYz and you'll get a promise land, be in good health, and have my protection", and on he flip-side, "this is said punishment for doing XYZ" and its murder when you break the law?

How is that? Or are you gonna find another "he killed kids" passage?

 

[JD50]

What an intriguing (and scary) look into the mind of religious extremists.