Your thoughts on God

[sandorski]

First of all, calm your tits.

Second of all, I think you need to learn about Christianity from someone besides other angry Atheists. There are many interpretations of the Bible, you seem to think the literal is the be-all-end-all.

His summation is not wrong. Nor was it based upon a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[moonbogg]

Perhaps, but reading from the New Testament:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter 2:6-8;&version=KJV



It would appear Lot was effectively suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

I suppose that's possible. I also suppose its possible that the entire bible, from cover to cover, is not supposed to be a timeless moral instruction manual. I don't believe it was written to be that way and I consider it unfair and dishonest for people to point to a passage or story and claim its immoral and therefor the bible is BS. I don't think the bible is true regarding the magical stuff, but I also don't think its fair to make it seem like its supposed to be something that it wasn't intended to be.
In other words, its a straw man thing for people to do what I've described and I don't feel it is useful for having a productive conversation. That being said, it is equally wrong for people to claim that the bible is a perfectly moral book or that the stories it contains should serve as moral cheat sheets for living in today's world. Clearly that is ridiculous.
In perhaps a sick way, for some strange reason, I can relate to the ugly stories and the ugly things people did in the bible. I can see myself living in an earlier time when such things were the norm. After all, people still do all of those terrible things today, and even worse things. We are still the same kind of people and haven't changed one bit, except for societal evolution in large parts of the world, but the ugly is always just beneath the surface and shows up quite often.

 

[ThinClient]

You seem to be taking things out of context again.

As I stated in my previous post, which you rudely said you wouldn't even read because you assumed you knew what I was going to say,

Wrong. I stated, quite clearly, that your premise was wrong and that's all I cared about refuting. If I destroy your foundational argument then it doesn't matter what you build on top of that argument.

an action performed under duress does not mean you condone those actions, at least not in all situations. Not to mention that no raping actually occurred in the story. What would you have done to those men? If you would have killed them, does that mean you condone murder? Certainly not! That's ridiculous!

If you're telling me that a loving father, a HOLY MAN, a RIGHTEOUS man is willing to offer up his daughter TO BE RAPED because he's scared of a crowd, fine, but don't expect others to believe him to be righteous for it and don't pretend that the god who he worships who allowed it to happen is somehow blameless or righteous either.

What an absolutely despicable father. What an absolutely atrocious thing to do. He, if anyone, deserves hell.

I'd have said no, go away, let the angels into my house, and closed the door. Whatever happens after that (angry violent crowd) is another issue and would be dealt with accordingly.

It is unbelievable that you people are justifying a father's condoning his daughter be raped and his OFFERING her up to them. Disgusting.

 

[Retro Rob]

His summation is not wrong. Nor was it based upon a literal interpretation of the Bible.

An atheist defending another atheists' summation of the Bible...color me shocked!

 

[ThinClient]

First of all, calm your tits.

Second of all, I think you need to learn about Christianity from someone besides other angry Atheists. There are many interpretations of the Bible, you seem to think the literal is the be-all-end-all.

I was raised in a charasmatic "non-demonimational" (read: protestant) church. I'm very well versed. You're making the assumption that I am not well versed in the bible. Interpretation is a cop-out way of saying "well I can make it say whatever I want it to say."

"Interpretation" is exactly how you turn an immoral and unethical action into a righteous action. It's one of the fundamental flaws of the book and the religion.

 

[ThinClient]

An atheist defending another atheists' summation of the Bible...color me shocked!

A theist attacking the messenger instead of the point their making to avoid acknowledging that the messenger is right... color me shocked!

 

[irishScott]

"Gods'" dealings with Moses and Pharaoh makes it clear that the "god" of the Bible has no qualms about violating "Free Will".

And at what point did he violate free will? Sure he pulled a lot of magic tricks, but if he'd been directly violating free will the Hebrews wouldn't have suffered at all. Hell if he'd been violating free will to maintain peace, the Hebrews would never have been slaves in the first place.

 

[ThinClient]

ThinClient, based on your posts I feel that I can strongly relate to you. I don't know how long you have been atheist, if you underwent a process of deconversion or not, but that's only my first point of inquiry. The second is the following. I am willing to bet that you have a deep sense of wonder and amazement about the universe and all its great mysteries. For me as an atheist, I find myself deeply intrigued by reality and i'd like to hear your thoughts on reality and the universe.
Assuming there is no multiverse, which there may or may not be, in this universe alone we seem to be a rare product compared to how much other stuff is out there. In other words, we seem to have hit the cosmic lottery, but...(snip)

This post is considerably comforting.

Yes, I went through deconversion. I also have a very passionate appreciation of the wonders of the universe. There's so much to talk about that I really don't think that this thread is the best place to have that conversation, but check out this video titled Science Saved My Soul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk

This video hits so amazingly close to home for me that the first time I saw it I was speechless and tearing up like a little bitch the first time I saw it. :wub:

do you ever wonder why it should even be possible, or how it could be possible for intelligent life to exist, no matter how rare it may be?

It's truly humbling to even consider that I am here to ponder such things. What a blessing. What luck, what odds, what an unspeakably profound gift.

...and it's heart breaking to see my fellow human beings pissing it away in some bronze age bullshit.

 

[Savatar]

Wrong. I stated, quite clearly, that your premise was wrong and that's all I cared about refuting. If I destroy your foundational argument then it doesn't matter what you build on top of that argument.


If you're telling me that a loving father, a HOLY MAN, a RIGHTEOUS man is willing to offer up his daughter TO BE RAPED because he's scared of a crowd, fine, but don't expect others to believe him to be righteous for it and don't pretend that the god who he worships who allowed it to happen is somehow blameless or righteous either.

What an absolutely despicable father. What an absolutely atrocious thing to do. He, if anyone, deserves hell.

I'd have said no, go away, let the angels into my house, and closed the door. Whatever happens after that (angry violent crowd) is another issue and would be dealt with accordingly.

It is unbelievable that you people are justifying a father's condoning his daughter be raped and his OFFERING her up to them. Disgusting.

Ok, I'll bite. What basic 'premise' in my post was 'wrong'?

I think you are misunderstanding me... I'm not justifying or condoning that at all, not at all! That is twisting what I said completely and utterly out of context! I'm just saying that, as with most things in life, a person's actions depends on their circumstances - and in this case that certainly seemed to be the case. My original post referenced that only the person and God can truly know a person's heart/intentions - and therefore God can be the more perfect judge. If God ever referenced Lot as a righteous soul, then we must accept that, because God would be in a position to know. All of our reactions or interpretations are just opinions operating on a small sampling of observations in comparison - it's incomplete data from which we cannot arrive at any conclusion on our own. We can only speculate, and you and I have obviously arrived at different conclusions. There's nothing wrong with arriving at different conclusions, except when you start suggesting that I therefore support things like child rape - I do no such thing and I take great offense to that ridiculous notion. I don't understand how or why you come to that conclusion, and therefore I can only assume your logic is deeply and fundamentally flawed.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So you'd argue that if God did exist and was loving and merciful, you'd want to sacrifice free will to ensure perfect peace?

He doesn't have to, because there is no reason to "sacrifice free will to ensure perfect peace." You're arguing a false dilemma because you lack the wherewithal to conceive of the other rational alternative -- that free will can exist in a world where evil is impossible.

 

[ThinClient]

And at what point did he violate free will? Sure he pulled a lot of magic tricks, but if he'd been directly violating free will the Hebrews wouldn't have suffered at all. Hell if he'd been violating free will to main peace, the Hebrews would never have been slaves in the first place.

It basically boils down to the fact that Free Will cannot exist under a god who is all knowing and all powerful.

 

[moonbogg]

I was raised in a charasmatic "non-demonimational" (read: protestant) church. I'm very well versed. You're making the assumption that I am not well versed in the bible. Interpretation is a cop-out way of saying "well I can make it say whatever I want it to say."

"Interpretation" is exactly how you turn an immoral and unethical action into a righteous action. It's one of the fundamental flaws of the book and the religion.

Do you blame the religion and the book? Can you honestly blame a religion or a book for anything? I firmly suspect that if all religion disappeared over night, that in short order the same kind of thinking and issues we have today would resurface and become prevalent in a nearly identical form.
The bible was written by people. The religion was created by people. Both of those things are interpreted by people. If you get rid of both, you still got the same people.
This is why I agree with challenging the way people think instead of challenging what they think.

 

[ThinClient]

I consider it unfair and dishonest for people to point to a passage or story and claim its immoral and therefor the bible is BS.

My target is not people who already believe that the bible is simply a book of allegory. My target is a person who believes that the bible is the infallible word of a living, loving god.

Those people are the ones who are going to defend the actions of Lot, to argue and justify his actions as if any real father wouldn't do everything he could to defend his baby girl.

THOSE people are the ones that can be broken by showing their biblical heroes for the evil they are and that is my goal.

 

[irishScott]

I was raised in a charasmatic "non-demonimational" (read: protestant) church. I'm very well versed. You're making the assumption that I am not well versed in the bible. Interpretation is a cop-out way of saying "well I can make it say whatever I want it to say."

"Interpretation" is exactly how you turn an immoral and unethical action into a righteous action. It's one of the fundamental flaws of the book and the religion.

Well you seem to be doing your best to portray the stereotypical angry atheist, so sorry if I was mistaken in seeing it that way.

And yeah interpretation can do that (see Westboro Baptist Church); but it works both ways. Interpretation of the Bible is the reason Christianity had its enlightenment. Lack of interpretation of the Koran is one reason the middle east is the cesspool it is ("innovators", as they're called, are generally looked down upon in Islam).

A work that can be interpreted is not necessarily flawed. Some people interpret Harry Potter to be promoting Satanism, does that make Harry Potter flawed? I can interpret the wind blowing outside to be a sign from Zeus. Is the wind flawed?

 

[ThinClient]

Do you blame the religion and the book? Can you honestly blame a religion or a book for anything? I firmly suspect that if all religion disappeared over night, that in short order the same kind of thinking and issues we have today would resurface and become prevalent in a nearly identical form.
The bible was written by people. The religion was created by people. Both of those things are interpreted by people. If you get rid of both, you still got the same people.
This is why I agree with challenging the way people think instead of challenging what they think.

I blame weak-minded people. I blame the control that some have over others using fear (like telling kids they'll go to hell if they don't believe). I blame those who prey on the gullible. HEY GUESS WHAT THERE'S A HEAVEN AND A HELL AND IF YOU COME TO MY CHURCH AND TITHE THEN YOU WON'T GO TO HELL BECAUSE THE AFTER LIFE IS REAL! I PROMISE!

The bible is just a book. The religion is simply a collection of dogma. It's just an idea or an ideal. Those can't be blamed. Like the "war on terror" the "war on religion" is pointless.

However, the war on those who perpetrate terrorism is a very real and a very worthy war. When you offer truth to people, just like discovering more evidence that is involved with a conclusion that you have already drawn based on old evidence, the new evidence must then be rolled into the fold with the rest of the old evidence and a new conclusion must be drawn.

The people who follow the religion will reject that new evidence because it does not fit the conclusion that they cling to and that's not rational or logical or reasonable. That's how you fight the "war on religion" if you want to call it that. You bring light to the darkness. You show that the holy men these people follow are not holy. You show that the moral precepts they worship aren't really moral. You listen to why they object, you listen to how and why they came to the conclusion they cling to and you provide additional evidence to them for them to reconsider. You hand them the tools and you hope that they use those tools to break themselves out of the blinders, the oppressive chains of religion. If they aren't willing to, well, you keep working at it if they're willing to continue to discuss it. Never give up hope in the betterment of your fellow man.

 

[irishScott]

I blame weak-minded people. I blame the control that some have over others using fear (like telling kids they'll go to hell if they don't believe). I blame those who prey on the gullible. HEY GUESS WHAT THERE'S A HEAVEN AND A HELL AND IF YOU COME TO MY CHURCH AND TITHE THEN YOU WON'T GO TO HELL BECAUSE THE AFTER LIFE IS REAL! I PROMISE!

The bible is just a book. The religion is simply a collection of dogma. It's just an idea or an ideal. Those can't be blamed. Like the "war on terror" the "war on religion" is pointless.

However, the war on those who perpetrate terrorism is a very real and a very worthy war. When you offer truth to people, just like discovering more evidence that is involved with a conclusion that you have already drawn based on old evidence, the new evidence must then be rolled into the fold with the rest of the old evidence and a new conclusion must be drawn.

The people who follow the religion will reject that new evidence because it does not fit the conclusion that they cling to and that's not rational or logical or reasonable. That's how you fight the "war on religion" if you want to call it that. You bring light to the darkness. You show that the holy men these people follow are not holy. You show that the moral precepts they worship aren't really moral. You listen to why they object, you listen to how and why they came to the conclusion they cling to and you provide additional evidence to them for them to reconsider. You hand them the tools and you hope that they use those tools to break themselves out of the blinders, the oppressive chains of religion. If they aren't willing to, well, you keep working at it if they're willing to continue to discuss it. Never give up hope in the betterment of your fellow man.

Well I'll admit that's healthy enough, although like Moonbogg said I think you'd have better luck persuading them to alter the nature of their faith as opposed to eliminating it.

 

[moonbogg]

My target is not people who already believe that the bible is simply a book of allegory. My target is a person who believes that the bible is the infallible word of a living, loving god.

Those people are the ones who are going to defend the actions of Lot, to argue and justify his actions as if any real father wouldn't do everything he could to defend his baby girl.

THOSE people are the ones that can be broken by showing their biblical heroes for the evil they are and that is my goal.

Oh. Forgive me for a moment if you would, for temporarily forgetting that such people exist. They are such a minority today that I don't really consider it worth my time to do battle with them. As you have seen, such battles are futile in the here and now, but having those battles may plant seeds that can blossom in the future. So, if I may, I would say proceed, but do so gently

 

[ThinClient]

Ok, I'll bite. What basic 'premise' in my post was 'wrong'?

I've already taken the time to type out the explanation in a previous post.

And actions or no actions, I understand what you're saying about acting under duress. However, no real father who is a holy, righteous man would offer his daughter to be raped. I don't believe that for a second. The kind of man who does that is a piece of shit and not righteous at all.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of angels going to find even one holy family, finding them, watching them do something entirely evil, saying and doing nothing about it, but then god turning around and KILLING Lot's wife for doing something entirely innocuous as turning to look over her shoulder at the city they were leaving behind... her friends... her distant relatives... cousins or whatever... other people's families... CHILDREN for god's sake...

It seems as though Lot's wife is the only one in the story showing any real empathy for the suffering of her fellow human being and for that she is KILLED.

...oh, but please, rape my daughter instead of these angels.

 

[irishScott]

He doesn't have to, because there is no reason to "sacrifice free will to ensure perfect peace." You're arguing a false dilemma because you lack the wherewithal to conceive of the other rational alternative -- that free will can exist in a world where evil is impossible.

How do you know? Some might define "free will" as being able to choose between good and evil.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well I'll admit that's healthy enough, although like Moonbogg said I think you'd have better luck persuading them to alter the nature of their faith as opposed to eliminating it.

Just ask Stalin how well that worked out, or the League of Militant Atheists -- all you'll end up doing is strengthening their resolve to hold on to their religion, because as many Christians believe: "Christ said his true followers would be persecuted, so stand firm...we're fulfilling prophecy".

Outwardly oppose religion, it simply retreats underground and still thrives, too harshly criticize them, and they'll close their ears and refuse to listen (after all, NO ONE likes being berated for deeply-held beliefs) and claim that's a form of persecution.

Find me an atheist who is intelligent, patient, and civil enough to persuade them, now you have something.

History proves that the hardline, angry militant atheist approach has NEVER worked.

 

[ThinClient]

This is why I agree with challenging the way people think instead of challenging what they think.

Most people aren't willing to change the way they think until they realize that the way they think has brought them to a faulty conclusion about what they think.

Most of the time, you have to give them reason to question WHAT they think in an effort to show that the WAY they think led them to that faulty conclusion.

THEN you can begin reconstructing reason. You can't just rip out a foundation that's been built upon. You have to destroy the building resting on it before you can rebuild the foundation.

 

[ThinClient]

(after all, NO ONE likes being berated for deeply-held beliefs)

That's rich, coming from you, someone who has no qualms about berating me and others for our deeply held beliefs. This is hypocrisy at it's finest.

History shows that bringing truth and reason to someone who is already closed-minded is nearly pointless too, like you've demonstrated, but that doesn't stop us from trying. I was civil with you for quite a while before you started playing frustrating semantics games and playing your typical "no, you didn't counter that argument in another thread and I'm going to sling all my countered arguments over and over again, denying that they've been deconstructed" that gets me riled up.

You are blatantly intellectually dishonest and when someone calls you on it you get nasty and then you play the holier-than-thou game, turning your nose up at people who understandably respond to you negatively, demanding that they apologize and kiss your ring before you're willing to listen.

It's a shame, too. I see MASSIVE passion in you in what you believe. You must be a very passionate person. Indomitable spirit is a noble and honorable thing and you have it in spades, which I very greatly respect in you. It's just a shame that you're batting for the side that's been wrong for thousands of years -but a bigger shame that you're willing to lie to yourself to defend that belief.

 

[Savatar]

I've already taken the time to type out the explanation in a previous post.

And actions or no actions, I understand what you're saying about acting under duress. However, no real father who is a holy, righteous man would offer his daughter to be raped. I don't believe that for a second. The kind of man who does that is a piece of shit and not righteous at all.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of angels going to find even one holy family, finding them, watching them do something entirely evil, saying and doing nothing about it, but then god turning around and KILLING Lot's wife for doing something entirely innocuous as turning to look over her shoulder at the city they were leaving behind... her friends... her distant relatives... cousins or whatever... other people's families... CHILDREN for god's sake...

It seems as though Lot's wife is the only one in the story showing any real empathy for the suffering of her fellow human being and for that she is KILLED.

...oh, but please, rape my daughter instead of these angels.

I could write some commentary on the [entirely new] topics you bring up in this post - if you want me to. How the town that was destroyed, indeed every person that lives, could be seen as fit for destruction - and a symbol of all of our own mortality as a whole, and consequently about the rapture of the righteous and Christ's redemption of those that accept Him as savior... and some commentary about Lot's wife looking back, why she might have done so and why people suspect she was punished... you could probably gather some of the highlights from that - especially if you searched for those topics on your own and thought about it.

But... would you read it this time, should I even bother, since you didn't read my original post (though I honestly still don't understand why you didn't)? Or are you really not interested at all in trying to understand scripture, and only twisting it to fit your misguided notions of 'enlightening' people by turning them away from religion?

 

[moonbogg]

...but then god turning around and KILLING Lot's wife for doing something entirely innocuous as turning to look over her shoulder at the city they were leaving behind... her friends... her distant relatives... cousins or whatever... other people's families... CHILDREN for god's sake...

I may be wrong here, but I think that a main central theme of the bible is faith. When it was written, terrible acts were common and not out of the ordinary, but when Lot's wife turned around, that was showing that her faith floundered for a moment. I think the thing here is that faith is the big deal, and she lost it enough to turn back, and she was killed for that reason.
This part of the story would be more important and should stand out more than the other parts, because faith is the big deal while women getting raped is just another daily thing to avoid if you can.

 

[Retro Rob]

I may be wrong here, but I think that a main central theme of the bible is faith. When it was written, terrible acts were common and not out of the ordinary, but when Lot's wife turned around, that was showing that her faith floundered for a moment. I think the thing here is that faith is the big deal, and she lost it enough to turn back, and she was killed for that reason.
This part of the story would be more important and should stand out more than the other parts, because faith is the big deal while women getting raped is just another daily thing to avoid if you can.

And he claims HE is "well-read"? What you said is basic stuff, BASIC stuff and fundamental to understanding why his wife was killed.