Michael I really want an intellectually honest conversation with you, so please point out these *beliefs* of mine that you insist I'm trying to ignore and I will address them for you.
You introduced your own beliefs in the opening assertion when you assigned me personal ownership of God. You continued to assert your own beliefs by insisting the OT is the only relevant texts from that book that can and/or should be used to determine the *character* of God. You're also asserting claims about the *character* of God based on texts that you personally selected. All these are *your* beliefs, they certainly aren't mine.
For a person who demanded with great passion that I had no right to pass judgement, you sure do NOT practice what you preach do you Michael?
Eh? How is pointing out the obvious a "judgement" exactly? I simply noted that you're a registered atheist posting on a Christian forum, attempting to describe the nature of "God" from a book that you "lack belief" in apparently.
Anyway when you understand why YOU do not confine yourself to the Christian-only sections of CF, you will then understand why I post on various theist forums.
It's not a question of not understanding your desires and motives, it's a question of noting that you're here on *this* forum, making proclamations about the character of something you apparently 'lack belief' in to start with. It's also relevant because you brought up this topic with *me* for some reason.
That is "a bit rich coming from you" Michael, you are just psychologically projecting yourself on to me again. Characterizing a God is a ploy for theists.
Then why did *you* start this conversation between us by attempting to characterize God?
You are the one characterizing God as you see fit based on whatever portions of whatever texts YOU see fit to justify YOUR concept of God so He can be excluded from MY claim.
And why shouldn't I? You're the one that handed me ownership of God, I assume because you were attempting to talk about *my personal beliefs* about God. Why do you get the luxury of ignoring the NT texts you don't like (red letter parts), and I don't? You can't run around applying two different sets of standards.
I'm simply claiming the Christian concept of God AS DEPICTED is not ALL-benevolent as per point 3.
And as I've been trying to explain to you it depends entirely on *who's* concept we're talking about. Doveman doesn't seem to agree with you either, and we don't even share many of the same beliefs with me as it relates to the value of the OT.
I'd grant you that you're getting *closer* to a statement *I* might be able to agree with, *if* you noted that your claim *requires* an *assertion* (on your part) and an agreement with that assertion (like in Doveman's case) that the OT is somehow infallible. If you would *kindly* admit that requirement, I might be able to meet you half way. As it stands, apparently you think only *you personally* get to interpret the Bible, and nobody else get's an opposing opinion regardless of their beliefs on these topics.
My claim is supported by considering ALL scripture.
If it actually *was* supported by *all* scripture, then you could find red letter parts that supported it too.
Your argument *assumes* that all scripture is consistent, which it's not, and all scripture is relevant, which again is *not* true for every Christian.
You are defending the position that God is ALL-benevolent. You support your position by rejection of some scripture.
Actually, I'm not defending anything, I'm simply pointing out the errors of your claims and the errors of *your* logic. You're asserting your claims based on *old* texts that have been replaced with a "newer' testament. From my point of view, your argument is a bit akin to me claiming that all forms of science are useless and unreliable because epicycle maths of the past used to assert the Earth was the center of the universe.
I personally consider the method of rejecting scripture an intellectually dishonest method of forming an overall picture.
Intellectual honest means giving others the same privileges you give to yourself. You're not doing that with me. You're picking only *old* texts to support your claims, and ignoring the obvious moral conflicts between the OT and NT as it relates to "loving your enemy" and "turning the other cheek'. You're just as selective as everyone else. You're also asserting something you don't even believe to be true. Since you lack belief in God, you must necessarily lack belief that God told Moses to do what he did. How can I have an intellectually honest discussion with you about these topics when you won't address these issues?
You do not see it that way, that is your prerogative. I accept your prerogative, even if I disagree with it. But that does not justify you attacking my character and pushing your beliefs down my throat.
The throat stuffing started the moment you assigned ownership of God to me, and then tried to use the OT of the Bible to support some belief that you hold about *my* (beliefs about) God involving some sort of lack of benevolence. Your throat stuffing desire has continued, even after I offered to agree to disagree. If you simply gave up you emotional attachment to *winning* some ego battle out of your argument, this would be a lot easier IMO.
In fact I have made it clear that I would even agree with you assertion *if* you would *admit* that your argument depends upon a 'belief' in Biblical infallibility. That's all I asked as well as to quit assigning me personal ownership of God (which you already did).
Your insistence to project your beliefs on to me is wearing thin.
Honestly? Go back to point three and reread it again. Your entire argument (as written) depended upon you projecting your beliefs about God onto me personally. Really. Go check it out.
I'm actually almost entirely agnostic, but if I use an agnostic icon that would create confusion among Christians, the reason I use an atheist icon is to prevent any confusion because I'm atheist towards anthropomorphic God concepts and Christians in general reject the existence of the other Gods. I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of all most all the other Gods. I just cant believe in the relatively modern Hebrew concept of a God on pure faith any more than you couldn't just believe in the ancient Hindu or Aboriginal concept of a God on pure faith. I'm open to believe and accept other concepts of a God, if one can convince me and compel me of a God concept with intellectual honesty and credible scientific or factually reliable evidence then I will gladly accept the concept. Keep in mind it is theism that creates the demographic of atheism. I contend you Christians are atheist towards more Gods than I am.
I've yet to hear you comment on any of the scientific materials I've presented in these threads.
Baloney! I do not reject what Moses said and you reject EVERYTHING Moses said, we couldn't be any more different in this sense.
If you didn't reject his statements, why do you lack belief in God again?
That's YOUR belief don't pretend it is MY belief.
You're the one trying to characterize God from OT commentary, not me.
I sincerely apologise if I offended you. I respect the rights of people to form whatever concept of God they want and that includes you Michael. I will even fight for the right of my own wife and children to believe in God if they want.
My point is there is a crucial difference in the method between ignoring some scripture to form a God concept of that scripture and interpreting ALL the available scripture to form a God concept from that scripture. This is the essence of my criticism of you.
Your criticism rings hollow to me because in the end you're doing the same thing I'm doing. You're fixating on text that you personally belief represent some sort of 'Christian' ideals about God, and attempting to judge God's character from that texts. You're ignoring the conflicts between even the "laws" Moses claimed were God's laws, and the *behaviors* of Moses. Moses claimed that God told him "Do not kill'. He killed *thousands* of human beings. Why do you pick the actions of a man as being representative of the will of God, rather than the so called "Laws" that Moses claimed were from God?
But I do acknowledge the need for a belief in "Biblical infallibility" and why wouldn't I? I also did "depersonalize" the issue in terms of *YOUR* God way back in (#575) which you agreed to and you saw the logic in my claim when you agreed with my claim.(post #600)
Well, then, I think maybe were done. So long as you *admit* that your argument requires a belief that I do not personally hold, I'm fine with your claims.
I don't understand why you "see" that in my statements, because I do not deny the fact that not all "Christians" interpret the Bible exactly the same way. Not once have I denied this obvious fact.
You've never given me that personal luxury like you've given yourself IMO.
Michael an evaluation based on ALL evidence at hand will always be superior to an evaluation based on omitting some of the evidence at hand,
I agree, but you left out the NT, and you left out the obvious conflicts between claiming "Do not kill" is the will of God, and then claiming genocide is also the will of God. Moses wasn't even consistent. Jesus was at least consistent.
so as a result of my evaluating ALL the evidence of the God as depicted in the Bible, I have concluded that God logically can not be OMNI-benevolent or ALL-benevolent, just benevolent. If you deny my conclusion then we have to agree to disagree. Its that simple.
Actually, I think if you're willing to concede that this conversation isn't about *me* or my beliefs, and your argument *requires* the belief in Biblical infallibility, I'd say your argument might have merit. I'll have to see how you do with Doveman, but I suspect it's going to be an awkward conversation for both of you.
There is no need to be so upset over my conclusion, stop fabricating my beliefs, stop attacking my character, please just lighten up and move on from all this nonsense.
Fine, but then kindly stop hijacking *my* thread now, and go over to the
other thread Doveman started to continue that part of your conversation.
Assuming you are interested in discussing a purely empirically physical definition of God, you're welcome to respond to any of the other points I've made in these threads.
