• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Can one choose to believe?

stella83

New Member
Sep 6, 2009
3
0
✟15,113.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
You sound like a very intellectually curious person, and that is wonderful. As a child growing up in the Christian church, I was led to believe the bible was to be taken literally, those who do not accept Jesus will go to hell, etc. However, after studying the religions of the world and philosophies for and against the existence of God, I have come to see that, if there is a God, he does not want you to love him, but love humanity. The best thing you can do in this world is be a good person, and no God worth worshipping would ever send a good person to "hell".

Seems like you are already a good, caring, thoughtful person, but if you are still searching spiritually, I would suggest Buddhism or maybe one of the Eastern religions- they are more about investigating the self and do not require the leaps of faith that I as well find difficult.

May I suggest the book "Eat, Pray, Love" by Elizabeth Gilbert? You may identify with her spiritual search, and what she discovers on an ashram in India is truly interesting and uplifting.
 
Upvote 0

stella83

New Member
Sep 6, 2009
3
0
✟15,113.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I guess what I dont understand is why I shouldnt apply some sort of "test, reason, rhyme or logic" to the supernatural. In every other situation in life I apply that standard. Why should I apply a different standard here and what should that standard be?

I completely agree. I see no reason why religion shouldn't be held to the same standards as everything else we study. That's why faith is so important in most religions- it provides a convenient excuse to rigorous investigation, or even common sense.
 
Upvote 0

Digit

Senior Veteran
Mar 4, 2007
3,364
215
Australia
✟27,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I thought I answered that, but I will try again if you like. If you want me to prove I am "in a relationship with her" I welcome you over for a visit. I have got a marriage cerificate around here somewhere and there are a couple of kids about as well--one of them shows his goofy mug on my avatar. So that part can be easily proven.
But that isn't proof (especially not of the kind you are looking for in respects to God) - what if it's a lie? Just like the Bible? You won't accept their word, why should I accept yours - why should I not ask you for some sort of irrefutable evidence?

Now, as to whether I love my wife or not, obviously my simply saying so is not proof enough for you. And you would be right, my saying so is not proof of what sort of emotions I truly hold. You would have to study the evidence. You could, for instance, study the 15 year relationship we have had, interview friends and relatives, and examine my actions toward her--have I been faithful, honest, devoted, caring and steadfast in my loyalty to her. The single greatest piece of evidence would be my wifes testimony--does she believe that I love her.
Once again, if we view your evidence through the same lens you view the testimony of those who wrote the Bible as well surrounding evidence, it would not be enough would it?

But, as I said before, only I know the truth. Only I have access to my true feelings and emotions. Do I love my wife? That is something I do have to prove--to her. And I have done so. That is the only way I know how to answer your question, so if you are looking for me to say something different you will have to explain to me what it is you are after.
No, that's an honest answer, and I would have given the same if asked. The interesting thing is how much personal experience and the testimony of someone you trust, weighs for you. I trust the testimonies of those who wrote the Bible just as much, and now you see where I was going with that question.

I guess what I dont understand is why I shouldnt apply some sort of "test, reason, rhyme or logic" to the supernatural. In every other situation in life I apply that standard. Why should I apply a different standard here and what should that standard be?
Because, you cannot apply the same standard - not because anyone is stopping you, but because we cannot. I have to accept that, and so do you - currently with the tools and knowledge and power and whatever else available to us, it escapes us. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it also doesn't mean it DOES exist, it simply means we aren't able to test it - so we can keep hunting and that's cool, but we should rule out it's existence.

I bet people of old wanted to go to the stars, see the planets and so on, but it was out of their reach too.

Well, I dont pretend to have all the answers nor do I believe that mankind has all the answers. What I do believe is that mankind can find all the answers. To solve the mysteries of the natural universe requires studying the natural universe. I dont see how injecting into that study a supernatural that is not bound by the rules of the natural universe helps matters.
Well I feel it helps matters because everything else in the Bible I find to be good - the lessons, relationship advice, guidelines to living our lives. I find it all has a lot of power and that many people see many different things in it, and it touches everyone in different ways. Can I test the supernatural? No. Do I find it hard to grasp and believe in? Yes. Of course, I'm surrounded by the natural everywhere I look and step, it's there.

I also do not feel that it is beyond us to reach out to that world now, part of being a Christian is that personal experience that you talked about above, and that is why sometimes - it doesn't matter who has what facts, if someone believes, they believe. Just like it wouldn't matter who said what about you and your wife, you have that personal core experience and nothing can shake that.
 
Upvote 0

Digit

Senior Veteran
Mar 4, 2007
3,364
215
Australia
✟27,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I guess what I dont understand is why I shouldnt apply some sort of "test, reason, rhyme or logic" to the supernatural. In every other situation in life I apply that standard. Why should I apply a different standard here and what should that standard be?

I completely agree. I see no reason why religion shouldn't be held to the same standards as everything else we study. That's why faith is so important in most religions- it provides a convenient excuse to rigorous investigation, or even common sense.
I'm not sure what religion you are talking about, but Christianity demands you use your head:

1 Thessalonians 5:21
"Test everything. Hold on to the good."

You don't know what faith means - it isn't blind belief, it's trust.
 
Upvote 0

lordbt

$
Feb 23, 2007
6,514
1,178
62
Mentor, Ohio
✟34,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
But that isn't proof (especially not of the kind you are looking for in respects to God) - what if it's a lie? Just like the Bible? You won't accept their word, why should I accept yours - why should I not ask you for some sort of irrefutable evidence?
I said you could come over and see for yourself. Proof doesnt get any better than being a direct witness. If you could take me to the supernatural universe and I could poke around there, I would consider that proof of its existence.


Once again, if we view your evidence through the same lens you view the testimony of those who wrote the Bible as well surrounding evidence, it would not be enough would it?
The Bible is hearsay, at best. Actually it is hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay. It is not the type of evidence that could be used in court. The direct evidence from actual witness testimony would.


No, that's an honest answer, and I would have given the same if asked. The interesting thing is how much personal experience and the testimony of someone you trust, weighs for you. I trust the testimonies of those who wrote the Bible just as much, and now you see where I was going with that question.
But why? Why would you trust the word of strangers given second or third hand by other strangers? The only answer to that is that you want to believe their testimony, not that their testimony is believable. Take Mary for example. She never gave direct testimony, but her story is the centerpiece of Christianity. Is there any evidence that what others claimed happened to her actually happened to her? No. Those making the claim were not witnesses, so there is not much reason to trust their testimony. Even if these guys are credible sources, they werent there. So they cannot lend their credibility to that event. That is the difficulty I have. If I dont believe this account of Mary's pregnancy, and I see no reason to believe it, I cant believe much of what follows.

Well I feel it helps matters because everything else in the Bible I find to be good - the lessons, relationship advice, guidelines to living our lives. I find it all has a lot of power and that many people see many different things in it, and it touches everyone in different ways. Can I test the supernatural? No. Do I find it hard to grasp and believe in? Yes. Of course, I'm surrounded by the natural everywhere I look and step, it's there.
We agree on all of that.
 
Upvote 0

Digit

Senior Veteran
Mar 4, 2007
3,364
215
Australia
✟27,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I said you could come over and see for yourself. Proof doesnt get any better than being a direct witness. If you could take me to the supernatural universe and I could poke around there, I would consider that proof of its existence.
What would that prove? People live together all the time, people have kids together all the time. For every instance of evidence you could provide that showed you were in a relationship and that you loved your wife - I could show the precise same piece of evidence from another group of people who were not in a relationship and who were not in love.

The Bible is hearsay, at best. Actually it is hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay. It is not the type of evidence that could be used in court. The direct evidence from actual witness testimony would.
Interesting you mention that - because it's precisely the sort of evidence we do use in court - eye witness testimony, and there are methods used to validate it.

But why? Why would you trust the word of strangers given second or third hand by other strangers?
Because I know about the people who wrote it. I know that they were of sound character, that they came from mixed backgrounds and had no reason for collusion, that they were cool headed, calm, rational people. That they were consistent in their writings, that they were talked about outside of the Bible in some cases and that this image of them was held up there too. Basically, I have no reason to fault their witness - which is precisely how we judge whether a testimony in court is sound or not. We use the same methods to judge the credibility of the Bible authors, those that we know/can.


The only answer to that is that you want to believe their testimony, not that their testimony is believable. Take Mary for example. She never gave direct testimony, but her story is the centerpiece of Christianity. Is there any evidence that what others claimed happened to her actually happened to her? No. Those making the claim were not witnesses, so there is not much reason to trust their testimony. Even if these guys are credible sources, they werent there. So they cannot lend their credibility to that event. That is the difficulty I have. If I dont believe this account of Mary's pregnancy, and I see no reason to believe it, I cant believe much of what follows.
As per my post earlier - historical method doesn't function like that. No historian works like that, and when you read the Bible, you are stepping into a historians shoes temporarily. If there is a mistake somewhere, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. That's why it's such a meticulous process, and why we can be sure of these things. In respects to the eyewitness question - you have to put it all in context - this was created at a time where there was no internet, no e-mail and only very few could read, write and document. Those who could, were highly educated and it was once again, a very meticulous process for the sole reason that it was the only way they had of storing their knowledge and back then, culture, was EVERYTHING. Having people write down stories where a Jewish woman was the prime witness to something, would have been ridiculous had it not been true. In Jewish culture then, the women were submissive, they rarely spoke in public, they were considered poor witnesses and everything in culture was weighted heavily against them. Then here you have Mary rushing out, claiming she has seen Jesus and the empty tomb - she would have been laughed out of town were it not so - and to have all that recorded?!

It seems a small thing in our world of high-tech computers, databases and such, but back then it was MASSIVE. I cannot fully convey what a huge deal it is.

We agree on all of that.
In addition when I was looking into the Bible some time ago, I mailed some Biblical scholars and professors, and fired a few questions there way which were, at the time, representative of some beliefs I held. One question was how we can trust what is written, when we only have copies of copies, translations of translations, one response was:

It is not true that we have only translations of translations. The original Old Testament was written in Hebrew, for which we have manuscripts over a period of over 2,000 years. The manuscripts show virtually no changes over that period of time. Given the way that the manuscripts were produced (and still are, under orthodox Judaism), it is very unlikely that significant changes have been introduced. My boss's husband is a Rabbinical scholar and has produced the hand written copies of their scriptures. When he made an error in one letter in the copy and attempted to correct it, she brought it into lab so that we could blow up the letter to see if the entire page had to be redone. Now, that is dedication to accuracy. Since there are so many copies over such a long period of time, it is easy to determine when a change has been introduced. In addition, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (from the 3rd to 1st centuries BC) can be compared to the Hebrew, showing that the text has not changed appreciably. Before the 3rd century, we don't have any data. However, we can't assume the text got changed on the basis of a complete lack of evidence!

The New Testament might have been originally produced in Aramaic, but we don't actually have any evidence that this is so. All the manuscripts we have are in Greek, with the oldest confirmed one dating to 125 AD. Some scholars have argued that a fragment of Matthew dates to ~50 AD, but the manuscript would have to be destroyed to confirm the date by carbon-14. However, we have letters from the early church leaders that date to the late first century and quote from the New Testament letters, showing that the New Testament was in existence in the first century (within a few years after Jesus' death). The idea that the Bible has undergone massive changes over time is one of the great modern atheist myths.

So, despite atheists' claims, they can't present any evidence for any substantial alterations to the Old and New Testaments. It is still possible, but doesn't seem likely based upon the evidence we have.
The last sentence struck me:
It is still possible, but doesn't seem likely based upon the evidence we have.

That's pretty much how I now feel, in respects to God, it is possible I am caught up in some sort of elaborate delusion, but given the evidence and information that I know about our world, universe and lives - I just cannot see how it is likely at all.

Btw, congratulations on 15 years with your wife - I guess some of that was prior to marriage - how long have you been married for? I feel that's really quite a huge achievement. I've only got two years of marraige under my belt, but they've certainly been the best two years of my life. ;)
 
Upvote 0

lordbt

$
Feb 23, 2007
6,514
1,178
62
Mentor, Ohio
✟34,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Because I know about the people who wrote it. I know that they were of sound character, that they came from mixed backgrounds and had no reason for collusion, that they were cool headed, calm, rational people. That they were consistent in their writings, that they were talked about outside of the Bible in some cases and that this image of them was held up there too.
What can you tall me about the author of the Pentateuch


In respects to the eyewitness question - you have to put it all in context - this was created at a time where there was no internet, no e-mail and only very few could read, write and document.
Glad you brought that up, because it has always struck me as odd that God would choose this period to make His grand entrance. Before man was able to document much of anything, God was everywhere, talking with everyone and meddling in everything. Now that man has advanced beyond the Stone Age, God has fled the scene. Coincidence?
Those who could, were highly educated and it was once again, a very meticulous process for the sole reason that it was the only way they had of storing their knowledge and back then, culture, was EVERYTHING. Having people write down stories where a Jewish woman was the prime witness to something, would have been ridiculous had it not been true. In Jewish culture then, the women were submissive, they rarely spoke in public, they were considered poor witnesses and everything in culture was weighted heavily against them. Then here you have Mary rushing out, claiming she has seen Jesus and the empty tomb - she would have been laughed out of town were it not so - and to have all that recorded?!
But it was not recorded extemporaneously. Matthew is said to have written his gospel down around 70 A.D. What is that like 35 years after Jesus died? How accurate could that possibly be? If it was so important why wait so long to tell the story? Whatever credibility he might have had is erased by talk of saints rising from their graves and walking around town. (Matthew 27:52-53) The two other Gospels, I believe Mark and Luke, were testimonies of supposed eye witnesses, but those witnesses are never identified, so their veracity cannot be known. The fourth Gospel is attributed to John, but no one knows that for sure. The point being that there is no way of knowing or vouching for the honesty of the Gospels.


That's pretty much how I now feel, in respects to God, it is possible I am caught up in some sort of elaborate delusion, but given the evidence and information that I know about our world, universe and lives - I just cannot see how it is likely at all.
I suspect you and I agree on more things than we disagree, but we are people who look at the same evidence and arrive at opposite conclusions. But so long as people use reason to guide their lives and respect my right to believe as I choose, then whatever religious delusion that might have is of no real consequence to me. I am fascinated by it, though.

Btw, congratulations on 15 years with your wife - I guess some of that was prior to marriage - how long have you been married for?
Thank you, it has been 12 years this past June. My wife is a Christian who posts here occasionally under her own screen name. Believe it or not, we get along fine.
 
Upvote 0

Digit

Senior Veteran
Mar 4, 2007
3,364
215
Australia
✟27,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What can you tall me about the author of the Pentateuch
Who do you think the author is, may I ask?

I feel it was Moses and it was affirmed that it was he both within the OT and the NT. What do we know of Moses? Very little. What do we know of those who affirmed Moses' status as the man who penned the Pentateuch - a fair bit, and should we trust them - have faith in what they said or not - well, that's the decision. :)

Glad you brought that up, because it has always struck me as odd that God would choose this period to make His grand entrance. Before man was able to document much of anything, God was everywhere, talking with everyone and meddling in everything. Now that man has advanced beyond the Stone Age, God has fled the scene. Coincidence?
Says who? :) That's the issue I have with this, in that since Jesus rose, Christianity has exploded - I'm not sure if you know of the warnings in the Bible or not, but Jesus and the Rich Man, is a parable about salvation and who will be saved. It was a strong message to the Jews who at the time held a totally opposing view. Anyhow, long and short of it was that Jesus said if people do not believe the testimonies of those He has sent, they will not believe even if faced with Him himself.

I never thought a great deal about this, until like, I dunno really maybe a year or so later when I was reading a completely random article and it talked about the power of denial. It was about a man who was convinced he was dead - a rather rare thing indeed. But he was talking to a doctor and psychologist and several others, all who were trying to convince him otherwise. After much failure, the doctor had a pretty good plan, which was to convince him of a non-dead quality and then prove he had it. So he set about convincing him that dead people don't bleed - and after finally getting the magic words, "You're right, dead people don't bleed, ok I believe that." the doctor lent over and pricked him with a needle. The man watched a drop of blood blossom and then said, "Oh, dead people do bleed."

Sort of drove home Jesus' words to me, in that really, we hear what we want to hear. People around the world are claiming a relationship with God, and yet people don't believe them despite their testimony, despite anything and everything they say.

In addition C.S. Lewis had an interesting take on the manifestation of God as a proof of God - saying that it counteracts free-will. Here is a short summary - this is assuming the above argument not withstanding. I don't really feel I can say, "You wouldn't believe anyhow." as I don't know that,

But it was not recorded extemporaneously. Matthew is said to have written his gospel down around 70 A.D. What is that like 35 years after Jesus died? How accurate could that possibly be? If it was so important why wait so long to tell the story? Whatever credibility he might have had is erased by talk of saints rising from their graves and walking around town. (Matthew 27:52-53) The two other Gospels, I believe Mark and Luke, were testimonies of supposed eye witnesses, but those witnesses are never identified, so their veracity cannot be known. The fourth Gospel is attributed to John, but no one knows that for sure. The point being that there is no way of knowing or vouching for the honesty of the Gospels.
Ok, I had to go look up 'extemporaneously' as I have never seen that word in my life before, or if I have, it's fled my memory. ;) The authenticity of the Gospels is a pretty large subject all by itself, let alone just touching on it. but I don't necessarily feel that that is relevant to whether we consider them authentic or not. Considering the methods and means available to them at the time, the authors did a great deal of work in making sure that their accounts were accurate. Not only do they substantiate events across each others writings but they also match (I believe) accurately the details (if you wish to raise specific Gospel contradictions we can talk about them too I don't mind, I know there are some that often pop up). I don't want to keep bombarding you with links as I know you may not feel inclined to read through them all but I need to save my fingers some typing. ;) If you want a fair high level summary of things, that link talks about them.

I suspect you and I agree on more things than we disagree, but we are people who look at the same evidence and arrive at opposite conclusions. But so long as people use reason to guide their lives and respect my right to believe as I choose, then whatever religious delusion that might have is of no real consequence to me. I am fascinated by it, though.
Yeah it seems so, and it's actually quite nice to find common ground and not get caught up with power-keg arguments. I must apologise if anything I posted seemed that way, I've just heard many arguments and questions in respects to God/Christianity and everything, that it's not terribly difficult to just jump the gun and assume that it's just another of the 'same old' ones heading my way. My failing is that I often don't treat people as individuals, so I easily to slip into a 'here we go again' mindset - I could make excuses for it, but they tend to sound very much like excuses and not a sincere apology. So if anything has seemed that way, I really do apologise for it, it's not my intent at all.

Thank you, it has been 12 years this past June. My wife is a Christian who posts here occasionally under her own screen name. Believe it or not, we get along fine.
:)

That's really great. I hope in 10 years time I can look back and say the same thing. I feel like a bit of a minor now. >_>! I'm not sure I'm qualified to talk about life experiences when it seems you the majority share. You know, the supernatural or miraculous or whatever you wish to term it, aside, I can't really fault the teachings in the Bible. I had a lot of issues with it, I mean it has mentions of slavery, stoning, child sacrifice and for ages never felt they were even important enough to spend time looking at. Reflecting on that now, and the time I did take, I think in a way, that it was part of it's strength. It has the ugly as well as the beautiful, and for those reasons I find it relevant. If it was all roses, I don't think it would accurately portray life, and as such I don't think it would be relevant - because life isn't all roses.

There is a book I read a few months back called The Shack (this one here) and I found it really great. I think I mentioned it earlier, but it deals with a guy whose youngest daughter is kidnapped and then murdered and how his relationship with God suffered as a result. Eventually he gets a face to face with the Trinity and whilst I don't think this will happen for everyone, it allows the writer to set the stage to ask God the tough questions. One part which I really liked, is that it didn't stop at the guy who did the evil act, when talking to the father God asked if he wanted Him to punish the killer. The father said "Yes!". That's pretty much where our naturalistic thinking stops I find. Crime->Punishment. But God asked, "What about the killers father?" and the girls father (Mackenzie he's called) says, "What?" God goes on to explain his question, saying what about the killers father, his father's father, what about all the people who contributed to warping and twisting this human into something that could do such an act - how far back should God go, what about, Adam? "No.", says God, "It needs to stop, and that's why I sent Jesus. ". I'm not saying anything more, as I don't want to ruin the book but it was interesting to say the least.

Many people don't hold the intellectual argument for God, they hold a faith and belief, and perhaps to others it seems stupid because they often lack the well grounded answers, saying odd things, but to them, God is everything, and I doubt there is a thing that could ever convince them otherwise because their relationship with God is as real as the air they breath. Anyhow, I've given you another huge post to read through - I hope it's not becoming a chore. ;) Maybe watch this with your wife, and see what her take on it is. It's a very short video that I think sums up the Christian belief pretty accurately. No words, no intellectual arguments, just the story of a life really.
 
Upvote 0

lordbt

$
Feb 23, 2007
6,514
1,178
62
Mentor, Ohio
✟34,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Who do you think the author is, may I ask?

I feel it was Moses and it was affirmed that it was he both within the OT and the NT. What do we know of Moses? Very little. What do we know of those who affirmed Moses' status as the man who penned the Pentateuch - a fair bit, and should we trust them - have faith in what they said or not - well, that's the decision. :)
Well, Moses didnt show up until Exodus which brings into question the accuracy of anything written in Genesis. Plus, the author of Deuteronomy discusses Moses's death and burial in chapter 34. That sort of eliminates Moses as the author even if one accepts the idea Moses would write what was effectively his own autobiography in the third person. It does appear that the same person could have written each of those books, but it is equally apparent that that person could not have been Moses.

Says who? :) That's the issue I have with this, in that since Jesus rose, Christianity has exploded - I'm not sure if you know of the warnings in the Bible or not, but Jesus and the Rich Man, is a parable about salvation and who will be saved. It was a strong message to the Jews who at the time held a totally opposing view. Anyhow, long and short of it was that Jesus said if people do not believe the testimonies of those He has sent, they will not believe even if faced with Him himself.
Well, he is wrong in that. I would believe Him if I saw Him. But what was the point, do you think, of going through all of this during a period of human history which could not be well documented? It does come down to believing "the testimonies of those He has sent." But there is no difference between that and believing the testimonies of those who claim to have been sent by Him. In both instances, you are not putting your faith in Christ, but in the testimonies of man. The easiest thing in the world for a man to do is lie. I can believe the testimony of a man if it fits the facts of reality. But a man claiming to have witnessed the supernatural, is going to need more than words to convince me. It is a matter of 'the likely' for me. What is more likely, that a man rose from the dead or that a man made it up?

Sort of drove home Jesus' words to me, in that really, we hear what we want to hear. People around the world are claiming a relationship with God, and yet people don't believe them despite their testimony, despite anything and everything they say.
I believe that they believe that, but since I dont believe that there is a God to have a relationship with, I believe that they are just kidding themselves.

The authenticity of the Gospels is a pretty large subject all by itself, let alone just touching on it. but I don't necessarily feel that that is relevant to whether we consider them authentic or not. Considering the methods and means available to them at the time, the authors did a great deal of work in making sure that their accounts were accurate. Not only do they substantiate events across each others writings but they also match (I believe) accurately the details (if you wish to raise specific Gospel contradictions we can talk about them too I don't mind, I know there are some that often pop up). I don't want to keep bombarding you with links as I know you may not feel inclined to read through them all but I need to save my fingers some typing. ;) If you want a fair high level summary of things, that link talks about them.
This points up the problem with accepting the existence of the supernatural in the first place. It does, as you say, change everything. And it does, as I say, make nothing certain and raises more questions than it answers. Accepting the possibility of a Divine Creator of the universe leads directly to the Bible. So, not only am I expected to believe that this Creator exists, but that He interacted with man. That He has some otherworldly desire to influence His own creation. That He has some desire to be worshiped and understood while all the while concealing Himself from view. And what of this supernatural world? Where did it come from? What is it like? What is God like? Why is He all alone? Is He all alone? What does He do all day? And, more directly, why does He care about what thoughts are running through the heads of some insignificant animal floating on a speck of dust in this infinite universe? Atheists are often accused of pride, but perhaps that banner flies best on the theist pole.


Yeah it seems so, and it's actually quite nice to find common ground and not get caught up with power-keg arguments. I must apologise if anything I posted seemed that way, I've just heard many arguments and questions in respects to God/Christianity and everything, that it's not terribly difficult to just jump the gun and assume that it's just another of the 'same old' ones heading my way. My failing is that I often don't treat people as individuals, so I easily to slip into a 'here we go again' mindset - I could make excuses for it, but they tend to sound very much like excuses and not a sincere apology. So if anything has seemed that way, I really do apologise for it, it's not my intent at all.
I dont pretend that my arguments are anything new, so if you treat them as old hat, you may have every reason to. But, to your credit, you have hung into this conversation longer than most theists would. Many theists see a debate like this and head for the hills--their faith not strong enough to handle a look under the hood. Clearly, you have thought this through and have reached a conclusion that you can defend. Surely, a God, if there be one, more respects a thoughtful conclusion than blind obedience, but that is just me speculating, there is no way to know that for sure. That is the problem with the supernatural. It can be whatever one wants it to be.
 
Upvote 0

Digit

Senior Veteran
Mar 4, 2007
3,364
215
Australia
✟27,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well, Moses didnt show up until Exodus which brings into question the accuracy of anything written in Genesis. Plus, the author of Deuteronomy discusses Moses's death and burial in chapter 34. That sort of eliminates Moses as the author even if one accepts the idea Moses would write what was effectively his own autobiography in the third person. It does appear that the same person could have written each of those books, but it is equally apparent that that person could not have been Moses.
I must admit this isn't something I've invested a great deal of time researching, there are a few beliefs it seems, and also that Moses's death is recorded in Deut 34 doesn't eliminate him as the author of all the other books, including everything except Deut 34. Moses may not have written it though, but I think the main belief of scholars is that he did. I would need to research more though.

Well, he is wrong in that. I would believe Him if I saw Him.
Ok, what about that other guy over there, or the next one, or guy number 1536000? How many hoops do you feel God should jump through, how many tricks before everyone is satisfied AND do you really think and omnipotent divine being, is going to perform at our whim like that? I'm sure it's of no surprise but the words in the parable of the Rich Man tend to account for this - which is that if people won't believe in Christ and those who came with Him, then they won't believe period. It's a hard thing for me to justify, as obviously I am not in possession of a mind-reading device, so I can't say and prove you wouldn't believe - but general life experience has lead me to believe nothing is as simple as first ventured.

But what was the point, do you think, of going through all of this during a period of human history which could not be well documented?
My argument however is that it was well recorded, most people around that time would commit things to memory, in order to preserve their culture - losing elements of their culture and history was a very real threat when surrounded with so many different cultures, different ways and a much more wild world than now, culture was everything then. Recoding these things, is not analogous to just writing a story today in the 21st century, it was a monumental task performed with great care and purpose. I mean look at us today, we spend hundreds of millions making epic films like Lord of the Rings, and not an hour in, continuity errors are leaping out. How many hundreds of people contributed to that, and how much technology did they have, and yet the mistakes were so obvious - now take that and compare it to the Bible. Irrespective of the things you don't believe specifically, there are few if any mistakes. I will leave the door open a bit as I know there are some verses which are contested and criticised, and we can go into those if you want, but the disparity between tech and contributing people between that and any modern day endeavour is huge, yet the accuracy of results differ in equally large amounts.

My point, is that I really don't think it was a communication from God at any other time than the perfect one. One where there wasn't the ability to effect a large scale alteration, cover-up - lie basically, one where everything like the people and land they lived in had a very low noise ratio - compared to the advertisement ridden, neon sign infected, glowing flashing metropolises we live in today. Something I've learned to do a fair bit, is to look at what isn't there, as well as what is. At that time, I really feel it was beneficial that their means of recording history was so limited, because it's not like today, we can even get a clear picture of what happens when we have hundreds of video tapes, recordings and proofs. Look at the 911 fiasco, desert storm... I can list a lot more I think, and I bet you can too if you see where I'm going with this. :) Limited methods of recording events, I do not feel equates to inaccurate records. The two are different.

It does come down to believing "the testimonies of those He has sent." But there is no difference between that and believing the testimonies of those who claim to have been sent by Him. In both instances, you are not putting your faith in Christ, but in the testimonies of man. The easiest thing in the world for a man to do is lie. I can believe the testimony of a man if it fits the facts of reality. But a man claiming to have witnessed the supernatural, is going to need more than words to convince me. It is a matter of 'the likely' for me. What is more likely, that a man rose from the dead or that a man made it up?
The testimonies of those He sent, gave me a reason to try and find God on His terms not mine. By that I mean, no God in a test-tube. I prayed and I read the Bible. I wanted to know what mankind knew about our universe/world, I compared it to the Bibles account and I prayed. I asked for guidance, questions and direction and I followed them and they lead me from one doubt to another like a domino trail through everything I needed to know. Right up to, and including, God Himself. I know you think I'm imaging it all, and I'm talking to invisible agents which is just crazy-speak, but much like a relationship with a loved one, I cannot say otherwise - in this case, lying is the hardest thing I could imagine doing.

I believe that they believe that, but since I dont believe that there is a God to have a relationship with, I believe that they are just kidding themselves.
I know. :)

This points up the problem with accepting the existence of the supernatural in the first place. It does, as you say, change everything. And it does, as I say, make nothing certain and raises more questions than it answers. Accepting the possibility of a Divine Creator of the universe leads directly to the Bible. So, not only am I expected to believe that this Creator exists, but that He interacted with man. That He has some otherworldly desire to influence His own creation. That He has some desire to be worshiped and understood while all the while concealing Himself from view. And what of this supernatural world? Where did it come from? What is it like? What is God like? Why is He all alone? Is He all alone? What does He do all day? And, more directly, why does He care about what thoughts are running through the heads of some insignificant animal floating on a speck of dust in this infinite universe? Atheists are often accused of pride, but perhaps that banner flies best on the theist pole.
Well it doesn't directly lead to the Bible, remember Intelligent Design isn't aligned with theism, though they share many similarities by their nature so I feel you are right in saying it would be a fairly easy step. Have you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis? You could probably skip his evidences/proofs for God, the most awesome part is his simplistic notion of God and us. He covers it really well. That aside there are some answers to these questions, but many are speculative and you must admit you can speculate forever about things like this. To answer your questions, that can be answered:

God wasn't created, He didn't come from anywhere. He is described in the Bible as an 'un-created' being, eternal.

God doesn't experience time like we do, so to Him a day is irrelevant. God is outside of time.

God isn't alone, He has a host of angels and us.

He cares about us/our thoughts/our actions, because He loves us and wants us to experience a relationship with Him, to His standards and to His degree of fulfilment for our benefit. That means free of sin, sickness, suffering.

In respects to the pride issue, Christians are taught humility - whether we walk like we talk is another thing, but the Bible certainly doesn't paint a picture of a prideful follower. Christians lead through servitude, just like Christ did. Jesus didn't get the apostles to wash His feet, He washed theirs. Everything He did was in service to us.

I dont pretend that my arguments are anything new, so if you treat them as old hat, you may have every reason to. But, to your credit, you have hung into this conversation longer than most theists would. Many theists see a debate like this and head for the hills--their faith not strong enough to handle a look under the hood. Clearly, you have thought this through and have reached a conclusion that you can defend. Surely, a God, if there be one, more respects a thoughtful conclusion than blind obedience, but that is just me speculating, there is no way to know that for sure. That is the problem with the supernatural. It can be whatever one wants it to be.
Well I quite enjoy talking about this stuff and even though I probably don't hold all the keys and guard all the gates, nothing beats faster learning than trial by fire. The reason I've hung around is because this is actually a discussion, whereas many of these threads and others I've been in on other forums turn into a 'I am right!' war with each person just waiting for their turn to pick apart the other's post. I mean, ok, to a degree we are doing that but I dunno, it doesn't seem malicious or venomous like a lot of those other threads are. Maybe, because you have a Christian wife, so the issue is closer to home for you, maybe not - I don't know. I wouldn't necessarily take those without the intellectual arguments for their faith as less than those with - as I said earlier, I really believe it depends on your experience as a human to date, on your personality, character and abilities. My mother is a Christian, and wouldn't know half of what we were talking about, but no argument could shake her faith. I don't know why, but some people just have that 'root' faith, and that's their life they don't need anything else. But I think there are many factors to it - I'm a naturally confrontational person (sometimes to my detriment) and so this sort of comes naturally to me.
 
Upvote 0

lordbt

$
Feb 23, 2007
6,514
1,178
62
Mentor, Ohio
✟34,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
I must admit this isn't something I've invested a great deal of time researching, there are a few beliefs it seems, and also that Moses's death is recorded in Deut 34 doesn't eliminate him as the author of all the other books, including everything except Deut 34. Moses may not have written it though, but I think the main belief of scholars is that he did. I would need to research more though.
Well, I suspect that most scholars have no idea who wrote those books so they attribute them to the main character. Clearly Moses didnt write Deut 34, so who did? And why is it not reasonable to believe that whoever wrote Deut 34 wrote the rest of Deuteronomy? Particularly since each of those books attributed to Moses was written in the third person. No, the truth is, no one knows who wrote those books and there is no independent verification that anything written in there is factual. Sure, many of the cities may have actually existed, but the towns named in the Sherlock Holmes mysteries actually exist, but the stories that are purported to take place in those cities are fiction. The Bible is no different.


Ok, what about that other guy over there, or the next one, or guy number 1536000? How many hoops do you feel God should jump through, how many tricks before everyone is satisfied AND do you really think and omnipotent divine being, is going to perform at our whim like that? I'm sure it's of no surprise but the words in the parable of the Rich Man tend to account for this - which is that if people won't believe in Christ and those who came with Him, then they won't believe period. It's a hard thing for me to justify, as obviously I am not in possession of a mind-reading device, so I can't say and prove you wouldn't believe - but general life experience has lead me to believe nothing is as simple as first ventured.
I require evidence to believe anything. If you told me that this huge, multi-ton hunk of metal aircraft would lift into the air and fly around I would not believe you until I actually saw it take off and fly around. I dont expect God to do anything other than bother to demonstrate that He actually exists. That sholdnt be too difficult. After all, I can do it. So obviously, can He. But He does not. Which leads to two possibilities: 1. He doesnt want to. 2. He doesnt exist. Clearly, I go with 2 and you accept 1. But if you accept 1, you must have some reasonable explanation for why God chooses to remain hidden.


My argument however is that it was well recorded, most people around that time would commit things to memory, in order to preserve their culture - losing elements of their culture and history was a very real threat when surrounded with so many different cultures, different ways and a much more wild world than now, culture was everything then.
But the Gospels are more than just recorded events, they are transcripts. They supposedly hold the actual words spoken by Jesus. The trouble is, no one bothered to write them down as He spoke them. They were written down decades later. That makes them approximations (at best) not quotations. That is why no matter how hard you wish it to be true, the Bible is not the word of God. It is the word of man. Sorry, but I do not trust the word of man in any regard. I trust what I can verify to be true, and nothing in the Bible can be verified as truthful. That is why they call it faith. But in my view that faith is misplaced. Having faith in the accuracy of the Bible is having faith in man, not God.

The testimonies of those He sent, gave me a reason to try and find God on His terms not mine. By that I mean, no God in a test-tube. I prayed and I read the Bible. I wanted to know what mankind knew about our universe/world, I compared it to the Bibles account and I prayed. I asked for guidance, questions and direction and I followed them and they lead me from one doubt to another like a domino trail through everything I needed to know. Right up to, and including, God Himself. I know you think I'm imaging it all, and I'm talking to invisible agents which is just crazy-speak, but much like a relationship with a loved one, I cannot say otherwise - in this case, lying is the hardest thing I could imagine doing.
I believe you, but that is the thing I find most disturbing about theism. There is a prayer thread here on CF that I find very disturbing. A young girl is breaking off a relationship to become a missionary because she believes God has somehow guided her to do so. I cant post there so I could not respond, but I genuinely feel bad for the girl. As I non-believer, I see someone say those sorts of things and equate it to a person about to throw themselves off a tall building. The idea that God speaks to people or leaves signs for them to follow is so disturbing to me. I have had relatives and friends say such things and I just want to grab them and shake some sense into them. I see that girl as about to throw her life away because she attributed some random event as a message from God. To be so disconnected from reality is sad. What is needed is a new kind of missionary--a missionary of reason to save people like her from herself.

Have you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis?
I havent, but I have been meaning to read him. I will pick up that book next time I am in the book store and report back.

He cares about us/our thoughts/our actions, because He loves us and wants us to experience a relationship with Him, to His standards and to His degree of fulfilment for our benefit. That means free of sin, sickness, suffering.
Why does He care? Why does He love us? Whats in it for him?

Well I quite enjoy talking about this stuff and even though I probably don't hold all the keys and guard all the gates, nothing beats faster learning than trial by fire. The reason I've hung around is because this is actually a discussion, whereas many of these threads and others I've been in on other forums turn into a 'I am right!' war with each person just waiting for their turn to pick apart the other's post. I mean, ok, to a degree we are doing that but I dunno, it doesn't seem malicious or venomous like a lot of those other threads are.
I generally prefer a good discussion to a slugfest, but I have been known to do both. I never begin with malice, venom, sarcasm or insults, but I have them in my arsenal if I need them. If people have it coming, I let 'em have it. (There are a couple of Mods and a couple of posters who can attest to that)
 
Upvote 0

Digit

Senior Veteran
Mar 4, 2007
3,364
215
Australia
✟27,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well, I suspect that most scholars have no idea who wrote those books so they attribute them to the main character. Clearly Moses didnt write Deut 34, so who did? And why is it not reasonable to believe that whoever wrote Deut 34 wrote the rest of Deuteronomy? Particularly since each of those books attributed to Moses was written in the third person. No, the truth is, no one knows who wrote those books and there is no independent verification that anything written in there is factual. Sure, many of the cities may have actually existed, but the towns named in the Sherlock Holmes mysteries actually exist, but the stories that are purported to take place in those cities are fiction. The Bible is no different.
I sort of feel the mistake here is that we try to view these things through our 21st century lenses, where information is everywhere. Whilst we do discover more and more about various things written in the Bible, at the end of the day, what we have is finite in scope. There is a pretty informed summary here about Moses and Deut 34. The main objection, appears to have a presupposition - which I feel yours does too. I don't agree that it is clear that Moses didn't write it. There are some writings which appear to contain information that we believe Moses would not have. But if we believe in the context, that the Bible is a communication from God authored by man, I don't feel we need to impose naturalistic limitations on the scope of it's contents. Ultimately however, this is but a subset of what I was referring to when talking about testing the character of the authors, because there are other books, specifically the gospels which detail the lives and characters of the authors and in some cases they are mentioned externally too, that we can look at.

I require evidence to believe anything.
As do we all, but the degree of evidence accepted is different.

If you told me that this huge, multi-ton hunk of metal aircraft would lift into the air and fly around I would not believe you until I actually saw it take off and fly around. I dont expect God to do anything other than bother to demonstrate that He actually exists. That sholdnt be too difficult. After all, I can do it. So obviously, can He. But He does not. Which leads to two possibilities: 1. He doesnt want to. 2. He doesnt exist. Clearly, I go with 2 and you accept 1. But if you accept 1, you must have some reasonable explanation for why God chooses to remain hidden.
Out of interest, if God did reveal Himself to you, then what would your response be? How would it impact your life, and also, why would you / would you not make the decision you do?

But the Gospels are more than just recorded events, they are transcripts. They supposedly hold the actual words spoken by Jesus. The trouble is, no one bothered to write them down as He spoke them. They were written down decades later. That makes them approximations (at best) not quotations. That is why no matter how hard you wish it to be true, the Bible is not the word of God. It is the word of man. Sorry, but I do not trust the word of man in any regard. I trust what I can verify to be true, and nothing in the Bible can be verified as truthful. That is why they call it faith. But in my view that faith is misplaced. Having faith in the accuracy of the Bible is having faith in man, not God.
May I ask, what do you believe 'the word of God' to mean?

I don't when people began holding distrust as their default attitude towards things. I find it rather sad. I don't feel that the Bible requires you to abandon evidence or a line of inquiry - but I do believe it requires you accept our position at the moment, which is that we cannot take a physical manifestation of God and present it to someone else. That is only one line of inquiry, there are many others.

I believe you, but that is the thing I find most disturbing about theism. There is a prayer thread here on CF that I find very disturbing. A young girl is breaking off a relationship to become a missionary because she believes God has somehow guided her to do so. I cant post there so I could not respond, but I genuinely feel bad for the girl. As I non-believer, I see someone say those sorts of things and equate it to a person about to throw themselves off a tall building. The idea that God speaks to people or leaves signs for them to follow is so disturbing to me. I have had relatives and friends say such things and I just want to grab them and shake some sense into them. I see that girl as about to throw her life away because she attributed some random event as a message from God. To be so disconnected from reality is sad. What is needed is a new kind of missionary--a missionary of reason to save people like her from herself.
I don't think a missionary of reason would reveal anything new about her situation. I'm not aware of this thread, but I will just venture a few thoughts on what I feel is a common problem here:

1) Yes, Christians have a relationship with God. This is in respects to two-way communication with God. Through prayer, and also in respects to how we feel convicted through the Holy Spirit that dwells within us. This is pretty much the center-piece of how Christians live their lives according to how they feel God wants them to live according to His will. On top of this we have free-will to act how we desire. Think of God as the father and us as a child. The parent gives advice, the child chooses what it will do.

2) As with everything that involves man, this is not perfect. We can abuse this relationship, citing that God is telling us to do things which we are really only wanting to do for ourselves, and we can claim some sort of diplomatic immunity because of this, and because of the fact we cannot put someone else on the line with God so He can tell them directly. However - religion does not have a monopoly on this behaviour. As long as people want to do things regardless of the consequences, we will find ways to justify them. For me, it may be God, for you, it may be because the situation calls for it. For someone else, it's because 'they had no choice'. And so on.

3) Lastly, we need to put these things in context. In fact, everything needs to be in context - but this especially I feel. One of my relatives has had an affair, which deeply hurt his wife naturally. It was during a pretty troubling time for them and he basically handled the situation really badly, and he basically went to prostitutes and all sorts to satisfy his needs without any thought to his marriage covenant. Many years later, things are back on track with them and they have rebuilt a lot of trust. But recently he has been wanting to re-establish contact with this one woman - we don't know if he had ever had an adulterous relationship with her but considering all the trust issues and the history, this is just a massively bad idea. It doesn't take a Mensa graduate to see this. He has been citing that he feels God is telling him to do this, so he can attempt to witness to this woman. He recently agreed to talk with a Christian counsellor and pastor about this along with his wife, as she is deeply concerned about this idea. He sat for three hours arguing about it with them, they all agreed it was a bad idea and not God's calling, but he refused to listen. This is why I think context is important - do you really think (assume for the moment that which is required) that God would tell him to do this - in light of all the pain it would cause his wife, in light of their past and history and all the progress they have made?

Mankind is striving for a monopoly on stupidity. Stupidity isn't ignorance in my opinion, it's doing the wrong thing when in full possession of the facts.

We love to be stupid, and we love to justify it and we love to pursue our own desires above those of others. We have done since they the Bible was written, and we still do today.

Only that woman in the thread can make her decision and I pray that it takes into account both what she desires and the interests of those around her, who she has commitments with. I've often wondered about missionary work. I mean, don't you want to help people? At what cost, to yourself, will you help someone? I sit in my cozy apartment, working from home, living in the lap of luxury pretty much and wanting more for myself and my wife, but what of those who have nothing. Like literally, nothing. My honest opinion is that without God we have nothing. The guy on the street might have less nothing than a guy in a mansion, but neither are happy with their situation, and they both keep striving for more, but they are looking in the wrong place.

Why does He care? Why does He love us? Whats in it for him?
Why do you care for your kids - what's in it for you?

I generally prefer a good discussion to a slugfest, but I have been known to do both. I never begin with malice, venom, sarcasm or insults, but I have them in my arsenal if I need them. If people have it coming, I let 'em have it. (There are a couple of Mods and a couple of posters who can attest to that)
I do my best not to rise to the occasion in that respect. Evil begets evil and all of that. :)
 
Upvote 0

lordbt

$
Feb 23, 2007
6,514
1,178
62
Mentor, Ohio
✟34,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
There is a pretty informed summary here about Moses and Deut 34.
From the link:

"it seems that the objection is basically that Moses couldn’t have known or wouldn’t have known the necessary information needed to catalog the events. This is done in direct contrast to the basic nature of divine revelation. Divine revelation is, in the God-breathed Scriptures, is the revealing of what was previously unknown, unknowable or hidden."

I could go through all the mental gymnastics required to buy into the notion that a supernatural being breathed into Moses facts that he had no way of knowing for the purpose of writing them into the opening of the Bible. Or, I could just conclude that someone else wrote the story of Moses long after his death. Which is more likely? Clearly, the latter. All natural explanations lead in that direction. I see no reason to jump to a supernatural explanation for something when a natural explanation fits perfectly. There is no way you could read any of the books attributed to Moses and come away thinking "yeah, Moses wrote that." No one relates a story of their own life in the third person. No one. The reason scholars attribute the books to Moses, is because they have to attribute them to someone. There is no way they could say these books are 'anonymous' and expect anyone to give them any credibility.

And therein lies the problem for me (at least one of them, anyway). If the authorship of a claim cannot be determined, the validity of the claim cannot be determined either unless it is verified elsewhere. And none of the supernatural events claimed in the books attributed to Moses can be independently substantiated anywhere. So I do what must be done is such a circumstance--reject it as fiction.


Out of interest, if God did reveal Himself to you, then what would your response be? How would it impact your life, and also, why would you / would you not make the decision you do?
Well, for one, I would no longer classify myself as an atheist. As for my response, I dont think I would drop to my knees, although I might, who knows. But I would have a million questions. How would it impact my life? Not that I am trying to aid your argument here, but I would likely do what many early Christians did--spread the word of my experience.


May I ask, what do you believe 'the word of God' to mean?
The word of God. Spoken by God. Not filtered through man.



1) Yes, Christians have a relationship with God. This is in respects to two-way communication with God. Through prayer, and also in respects to how we feel convicted through the Holy Spirit that dwells within us. This is pretty much the center-piece of how Christians live their lives according to how they feel God wants them to live according to His will. On top of this we have free-will to act how we desire. Think of God as the father and us as a child. The parent gives advice, the child chooses what it will do.
How do you know what that advice is? This strikes me as more a monologue than a two way conversation. I guess I can understand praying for an answer to something, but unless you actually hear a voice or something in your head, it is just you answering your own prayer.

This is why I think context is important - do you really think (assume for the moment that which is required) that God would tell him to do this - in light of all the pain it would cause his wife, in light of their past and history and all the progress they have made?
I could make an argument for it if you like. Your relative has turned his life around and now God is calling him to help save this woman who has continued in her own sinful and adulterous behavior.

Only that woman in the thread can make her decision and I pray that it takes into account both what she desires and the interests of those around her, who she has commitments with. I've often wondered about missionary work. I mean, don't you want to help people? At what cost, to yourself, will you help someone? I sit in my cozy apartment, working from home, living in the lap of luxury pretty much and wanting more for myself and my wife, but what of those who have nothing. Like literally, nothing. My honest opinion is that without God we have nothing. The guy on the street might have less nothing than a guy in a mansion, but neither are happy with their situation, and they both keep striving for more, but they are looking in the wrong place.
I have no problem with people wanting to help others. As a non-believer,what bothers me is people following a path they do not necessarily wish to follow because they hear a voice or see a 'sign.' I have heard people say something to the effect of "That bird just landed in front of me. That is a sign that God is telling me to do X." It is hard for me to deal with that level of irrationality. My brain starts to hurt.
 
Upvote 0

Digit

Senior Veteran
Mar 4, 2007
3,364
215
Australia
✟27,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
From the link:

"it seems that the objection is basically that Moses couldn’t have known or wouldn’t have known the necessary information needed to catalog the events. This is done in direct contrast to the basic nature of divine revelation. Divine revelation is, in the God-breathed Scriptures, is the revealing of what was previously unknown, unknowable or hidden."

I could go through all the mental gymnastics required to buy into the notion that a supernatural being breathed into Moses facts that he had no way of knowing for the purpose of writing them into the opening of the Bible. Or, I could just conclude that someone else wrote the story of Moses long after his death. Which is more likely? Clearly, the latter. All natural explanations lead in that direction. I see no reason to jump to a supernatural explanation for something when a natural explanation fits perfectly. There is no way you could read any of the books attributed to Moses and come away thinking "yeah, Moses wrote that." No one relates a story of their own life in the third person. No one. The reason scholars attribute the books to Moses, is because they have to attribute them to someone. There is no way they could say these books are 'anonymous' and expect anyone to give them any credibility.

And therein lies the problem for me (at least one of them, anyway). If the authorship of a claim cannot be determined, the validity of the claim cannot be determined either unless it is verified elsewhere. And none of the supernatural events claimed in the books attributed to Moses can be independently substantiated anywhere. So I do what must be done is such a circumstance--reject it as fiction.
I can't help but feel your only real objection to nearly all of this, is the supernatural. I can't fault your logic here as it's quite good and I don't know enough about that specific book to explore deeper. I've heard some very interesting facts about the various books but cannot recall them in enough detail to put them forward as a good case. I guess my issue is more the emphasis on how important these things are you to. Ultimately we don't need the Bible to know God. You can talk to Him right now. As can I. The Bible gives a context for this, it has instruction on how to pray for instance. I dare say this is something you have tried prior to no avail, and it's not really my place to elaborate on why it was an uneventful experience - from my side, I remember the first time I truly spoke to God, and asked Him for forgiveness and how I felt a huge rush of energy flooding into me. It just felt like I was really alive, for the first time again. That was the only time I ever tried to meet God on his terms openly and honestly and for me, I feel it with me now everyday.

Well, for one, I would no longer classify myself as an atheist. As for my response, I dont think I would drop to my knees, although I might, who knows. But I would have a million questions. How would it impact my life? Not that I am trying to aid your argument here, but I would likely do what many early Christians did--spread the word of my experience.
Hah, well 2000 years from now, who would believe you. ;)

The word of God. Spoken by God. Not filtered through man.
The actual word used in the Bible doesn't have a direct English translation, the best we've come up with is 'God breathed' which is pretty vague when it comes down to it. The general consensus is that scripture is 'from' God, whether it was penned by man, is not important. It has been delivered to us in the perfect form for our edification as according to God's will. This is, if we are to believe that everything is happening according to God's will, then we must believe too that it was intended for the Bible to be in this form and state for us at this time.

How do you know what that advice is? This strikes me as more a monologue than a two way conversation. I guess I can understand praying for an answer to something, but unless you actually hear a voice or something in your head, it is just you answering your own prayer.
Well I can give you an example. I felt that God gave my wife and I very valuable lesson in appreciation. We live in a pretty nice little apartment, it's small, made smaller by our two large cats, but it's nice, modern etc. It also happens to be located on an awesome high-street. It seriously has everything. I think it has one of every bank in Australia. It has supermarkets, cafes, bakeries, clothing stores, op-shops, hardware, mechanic and garages, video and dvd rentals, it's in zone 1 for public transport and there is a tram stop right over the road and a station 3 blocks down - it basically just has the works.

We really love it here, and it's not surprising. Now a while back we got the dreaded letter that says, "Dear so and so, this is a 60 day letter of notice to vacate the premises, due to sale of the property." We were just like O_O. We were pretty devastated, so we started looking around. The problem in Aus at least, is the way real estate and rental properties work - you basically show up at an inspection time along with 30 other people/couples and all cram in the property looking around and then grab an application form from the agent if interested and it's a bit like the lottery. It's pretty bad really. So anyhow, we started looking, we visited maybe 8 or so properties and looked at about 300+ listings before we began to realise we may not find anything or at least, what we may end up getting would be pretty inadequate compared to what we had. None of the ones we went to had any sort of public transport nearby or even any shops etc. Those that did were about $100 per week extra, which was more than we could afford. It was looking like we were royally screwed. We came home and we had been praying throughout this for some help and guidance, but that night we prayed in thanks for what we had and then we talked a but afterwards about how much we had at this place and how badly we wanted to stay here. It was a case of only realising what we had when it was gone kinda thing. Anyhow, we had come to realise how much we had taken it for granted. We had one more property to look at the next day. So we went along expecting the worse given our past experiences and we surely weren't disappointed. When we came home I went to open the gate and suddenly stopped, I felt something very different, something was wrong and out of place. I looked around and then saw it, a large red sign on the right side of the gate. Walking over I read it out aloud "Spacious 1 bedroom apartment for lease." We were living in #8 at the time, and #1 had just come up for lease, I called the agent and we accepted. We moved a grand total of 10m. Now that could have been just an awesome coincidence. But it was more than that for us, it was a deeply humbling experience and really made both my wife and I not only take care of what we have - regardless of how little or great - but to be appreciative for it too. It was something that prior, was really lacking in our lives and it all just became so evident, and I don't think that without that experience and without God guiding and helping us, we would have come to the same fulfilment and level of understanding and it's been the cause of blessings for others too, because since we have come to understand and be more compassionate to others for what they have, and don't have and how it is affecting them personally.

I can honestly list so many more examples. But the trend is the same,

I could make an argument for it if you like. Your relative has turned his life around and now God is calling him to help save this woman who has continued in her own sinful and adulterous behaviour.
But this doesn't stand up in the Biblical context. Why would God suddenly call him to do something that is detrimental to to his marriage covenant? That would cause hurt, pain and suffering to his wife, that could tear his family apart and that is a constant source of stress, anxiety and worry for them all? This is precisely my point, in that we very much have methods and a means to reason out how we are being lead. Now, if on the other hand his wife had prayed about this, and felt peace and security about not their relationship, their trust and in fact this woman being in contact with her husband - then I would feel differently. But this is not the case, they have both prayed and reached totally different understandings and in addition the church has prayed for them and reached the same conviction as the wife as have her friends and her church group. It's my belief that he is using this as an excuse to further his own ends or at least he wanted to, I think since he has changed his mind and overcome it.

I have no problem with people wanting to help others. As a non-believer,what bothers me is people following a path they do not necessarily wish to follow because they hear a voice or see a 'sign.' I have heard people say something to the effect of "That bird just landed in front of me. That is a sign that God is telling me to do X." It is hard for me to deal with that level of irrationality. My brain starts to hurt.
Ok but this is my point - don't abandon all sense and reason. ;)

In my opinion, you are just as guilty for accepting that as an accurate representation of how Christians interact with God, as is the person who claims they are convicted by a bird landing in front of them, to follow some path. That's superstition, much akin to bad luck being related to walking under a ladder or black cats.

I know there are Christians out there who do such things, just as I know there are Christians out there who picket funerals and claim that God hates gays. Don't look to the Christian, look to God, and if you can't find God, look to the Bible which is His communication to us.
 
Upvote 0

lordbt

$
Feb 23, 2007
6,514
1,178
62
Mentor, Ohio
✟34,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
I can't help but feel your only real objection to nearly all of this, is the supernatural.
Well, that kind of is what it all boils down to, and why I focused on it at the beginning of this discussion. Accepting that all natural events have a natural cause, leads ultimately to the question of the First Cause--what caused the natural universe. Jumping to the supernatural for an answer to this question actually does not answer the question at all, but only leads to more unanswerable questions. What caused God? is the first such question. Replying that God has always been there or that the supernatural is an effect that does not require a cause is only adding another layer of confusion. A universe once thought to be knowable to man is now uncertain. What we know to be laws that govern the universe can now be altered by a supernatural being who can change them by simply changing His mind.

What is more, we have no ability to see, touch or in any way sense this supernatural world or the supernatural being that rules it. It is not open to our minds for investigation and understanding, but can only be reached through feelings. Feelings are not a tool of cognition. They cannot replace your mind.

The supernatural cannot be demonstrated to exist. So a book inspired by and based upon the actions of a supernatural being must be looked at with skepticism at the very least, if not dismissed outright.

The Bible is a tale of God as created by man, not the other way around. Man needed a Creator to account for the things he could not explain, so he created one. The Creator of the universe was given divine qualities by those who believed He existed. They created a fantasy world of the supernatural, crowned a king of that realm and blessed Him with limitless powers and gave Him an obsession with morality. The evidence is not for the existence of God, but that He lives only in the imagination of man. Since I do not buy into the notion of the supernatural, it is impossible for me to view the Bible as truth.
I remember the first time I truly spoke to God, and asked Him for forgiveness and how I felt a huge rush of energy flooding into me. It just felt like I was really alive, for the first time again. That was the only time I ever tried to meet God on his terms openly and honestly and for me, I feel it with me now everyday.
I believe you. I believe that people who believe in God feel something. What that something is, I have no idea. But like any emotion it is the result of a value judgment of yours--the way love is. You may just be attributing it to some outside/supernatural force.


Hah, well 2000 years from now, who would believe you. ;)
Not me.


The actual word used in the Bible doesn't have a direct English translation, the best we've come up with is 'God breathed' which is pretty vague when it comes down to it. The general consensus is that scripture is 'from' God, whether it was penned by man, is not important. It has been delivered to us in the perfect form for our edification as according to God's will. This is, if we are to believe that everything is happening according to God's will, then we must believe too that it was intended for the Bible to be in this form and state for us at this time.
Thats one possibility. The other possibility is that the whole story was invented by man. Men do have a penchant for stretching the truth, after all, so when I see of hear a fantastic tale of supernatural beings walking among us, I am going to need something other than their own word that it is true for me to believe it.


Well I can give you an example. I felt that God gave my wife and I very valuable lesson in appreciation.
I am glad things worked out for you, but my question would be why would God wish to intervene in such a fairly insignificant way on your behalf yet does nothing in the face of truly monstrous evil? Not to be too much of a downer, but why would God busy himself with your living arrangements when He could have been helping this girl:

Jessica Lunsford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It's my belief that he is using this as an excuse to further his own ends or at least he wanted to, I think since he has changed his mind and overcome it.
I suspect you are right. But this is why I distrust the word of man.


In my opinion, you are just as guilty for accepting that as an accurate representation of how Christians interact with God, as is the person who claims they are convicted by a bird landing in front of them, to follow some path. That's superstition, much akin to bad luck being related to walking under a ladder or black cats.
Fair point.
 
Upvote 0
F

freeport

Guest
How does one get faith when he lacks it? How can I choose to believe when I do not? I have read the Bible and I enjoy reading and discussing theology. I am fascinated by the history of Christianity and absolutely love St. Thomas Aquinas. The trouble is, when it comes to the Bible, I dont believe a word of it. Now, it would be quite easy for me to say that I believe that the Bible is the word of God and I embrace the truths held within, but I would be lying, and God, if there be one would surely know it. There is no way I can see to choose to believe what I do not believe. So why would God hold that against me?


Everybody believes some of the Bible, it would be absurd to literally "not believe a word of it", because everybody knows good from evil...

But, yes, one can not believe unless God grants that belief to them.


How does God hold that against you? Who are you to complain? What if He has chosen to make some heroes and some villains by a moral standard which you can not even fathom? What if some are deigned to be vessels of wrath so others may be vessels of praise?

And saying, "God, no fair", doesn't help the matter, especially not when anyone can get down on their knees and go, "Okay, God, I admit it, I do not believe your word, so please, humble me and help me believe, please give me faith".

Would He not if you but asked?

Of course... one actually has to be led to asked in the first place.


But, the truth is I can run through "what if" scenarios all I want to. Paul does it, saying exactly what I wrote above in slightly different words. "What if some are created as vessels of wrath"... "what if"...


However, as you actually are firm on the core belief of election, I think God is leading you as many Christians don't even understand this. So, it just takes the designated course God is leading you on.


Otherwise, as for what happens in the end: surely, God is just, and those who have lived easy lives and received all their good things while the saints lived horrible lives and received their bad things... matters will turn around.

That is only fair.

Nobody will repent unless God forces them to... they have to believe. God has a way of getting people to believe and repent, sooner or later.
 
Upvote 0

lordbt

$
Feb 23, 2007
6,514
1,178
62
Mentor, Ohio
✟34,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
How does God hold that against you? Who are you to complain? What if He has chosen to make some heroes and some villains by a moral standard which you can not even fathom? What if some are deigned to be vessels of wrath so others may be vessels of praise?
Then we are pawns in some cosmic game and not free men. Lets say you are right, and I have been deigned to be a vessel of wrath and you a vessel of praise. Neither one of us is either moral nor immoral. We are amoral robots. If we are not free to choose our behavior then morality nor more applies to us than it would a puppet on a string.

The same holds true if I am being judged by a moral standard I "can not even fathom." The best example of that would be a child. You do not judge a child the way you would an adult because a child 'can not even fathom' such a moral code. If there is a God, and He is to judge us, it must be based upon a moral code that we can comprehend. And it is equally important that the decision to follow that moral code or abandon it be wholly ours.

If a man is somehow preordained to be evil then his actions are not his own, but willed by another. Such a man is not, therefore, responsible for his actions. A moral judgment cannot be rendered against such a creature who is evil by his very nature. It is the author of that nature that would be to blame for his actions. Since God is the author of nature, and He is not capable of creating evil, no man can be evil by nature. Evil, to be evil, must be the result of choice.
 
Upvote 0
F

freeport

Guest
Then we are pawns in some cosmic game and not free men. Lets say you are right, and I have been deigned to be a vessel of wrath and you a vessel of praise. Neither one of us is either moral nor immoral. We are amoral robots. If we are not free to choose our behavior then morality nor more applies to us than it would a puppet on a string.
<snip>

Hold it... right there. Okay? You missed entirely what I was saying.

Key term - listen closely: "What if".

I am moral. I am not judging you, either. But, I know I am moral. My conscience commends me, it does not condemn me. I have a track record of changing people's lives for the better. I care... even though the creation sometimes can seem like some sort of cosmic joke. It isn't a joke, however. It is a process. It is so more Children of God can be made.

As for "freedom", no, the only true freedom is through Jesus. We are either "slaves to sin" or "slaves to righteousness". Now, I am a slave to righteousness, but what is righteousness? Righteousness is being right, good, getting away from error. I don't want to have error.

I do not want to be a hypocrite. And make no mistake about it: all sin is hypocrisy. We know good from bad.

When one does bad they invariably condemn themselves and they know the truth: the same bad they do, they condemn in others.

So true freedom is being a slave of righteousness.


In sin a person 'does what they do not want to do', and 'they do not do the good they know they should do'. In righteousness, through faith, we have the power to not do what we do not want to do. And we have the power to do the good we know we should do. So, we are free.


Am I a robot? My steps are ordered by God, but I am not a robot. I can barely perceive God controlling me, and to me it seems as if He does not. But, if I do good - which I know I do do - then I know that good comes not from me, but from God.


Those who sin: adultery, fornication, stealing, cheating, lying, and so on... that is not them doing it, but sin in them. When people envy famous people, rich people, people who live in material luxury... they are living in sin, chasing after the wind. It is useless vanity. When they strive night and day to earn some good words from their peers instead of trying to earn praise from God -- that is sin. It is all useless. Utterly useless.


All of creation has been subjected to futility... become an artist, a great cop, a super spy, President, whatever... super scientist... all useless. And why shouldn't it be? Books close, they end, what does anything achieve?

But, love is not useless. What is in the heart is not useless if what is in the heart is pure and true.


Then, there is no question about futility or "being a pawn". One then sees God. And who is God, but Love.


A remaining question you seem to harp on is "eternal Hell". Hell is mentioned, yes. But, not eternal. Hell is destroyed with death "thrown into the Lake of Fire". And it merely says, "Whosever name is not written in the Book of Life is thrown in as well". But, what does that mean?

For me it means a spiritual death. It is called "the second death".

And I believe with any death there is a rebirth.

But, you have to understand God plainly says in His Word that He will always relent if people repent. Jonah is a great example of this. God intended to send Jonah to a sinful city with a message of condemnation. But, God had shown He would use that message to cause Nineveh to repent.

And so Jonah ran. He did not think it fair. He spent his whole life striving, and now God would save these sinful people who never did what he did all along?

If that sounds familiar at all, it should be: the parable of the Prodigal Son speaks of this, as does the parable of the workers in the field.

Anyway, so Jonah eventually is sent to Nineveh with God's message. And that message is one of destruction -- certain destruction. No chance for repentance is given. But, they repented saying, "Who knows, maybe God will save us". And the city was saved.


That is how God works. Parents do the same thing.

Judgment Day is coming, believe me, and everyone will be at that point where they will either repent or face some very serious spiritual fire.

I will admit, I have been through a lot of fire. And I see what it does. It is good, not bad.


As for trying to persuade people and such, all I can do is try and reason with people. It is coming, and I am so sure of it I am not all bothered about saying, "Repent"... because by now people either believe us or not.


I haven't been able to escape God. And, I really doubt anyone else will be able to, either.

All I can do is throw a rope before the flames start coming.
 
Upvote 0

Digit

Senior Veteran
Mar 4, 2007
3,364
215
Australia
✟27,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I will talk about the prayer and other matters shortly - also apologies for my whole "Where have you gone." and then I pull the same trick, just been really busy with work and so on - life has too many distractions! >_<;

Not to seem like I'm dodging the rest of your response, but I want to ask if you see a problem with this?

A truth, is going unnoticed, because you refuse to apply any other sort of method to divine your reality, other than the scientific one which requires a subject to observe/test.

What about personal testimony, how it's used around the world in both relationships and professional capacities like in courts of law?
 
Upvote 0

lordbt

$
Feb 23, 2007
6,514
1,178
62
Mentor, Ohio
✟34,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Not to seem like I'm dodging the rest of your response, but I want to ask if you see a problem with this?

A truth, is going unnoticed, because you refuse to apply any other sort of method to divine your reality, other than the scientific one which requires a subject to observe/test.

What about personal testimony, how it's used around the world in both relationships and professional capacities like in courts of law?
Personal testimony is only of value if those giving that testimony are reputable. The gospels are not first hand accounts, however. Their authorship is in question and neither the authors, whoever they may have been, nor the witnesses, whoever they may have been, are alive to be cross examined. So what we are left with is a story with no basis in reality, told by people who are not known, and whose credibility cannot be judged.
 
Upvote 0