An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[Doveaman]

Myself personally, I have a major issue with the flow from the OT to the NT and how both are canonized as legit, yet, they CAN NOT be reconciled with each other in any logical way.

It's simple really - law and grace.

The OT emphasize law. If you broke the law the law broke you.

The NT emphasize grace. We are delivered from the demands of the law because Christ payed those demands for us on the cross.

"For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." - (Rom 7:5-6).

We are now under the Spirit of grace, and no longer under the written code of law.

But let's not derail the thread.

 

[madaz]

The entire time I've been trying to get you to use *Jesus* to support any claims that you're making about *my* beliefs in God based on the Bible. You have consistently refused my request.

This entire time you have been "ducking and diving" by first positing that you have your own definition of God, then you rejected the word "omni", then you introduced Moses, then you blamed me for introducing Moses, then you introduced Jesus, then you claimed that you ignore parts of the Bible, then you dismissed the Deuteronomy citation as a belief of mine, then you said I am pushing my beliefs down your throat when I havent even shared a belief of mine, then you insisted multiple times that I substantiate the Deuteronomy quote with the teachings of Jesus.

Michael, when you understand WHY you will not demonstrate how Mickey Mouse is an anti-hero from modern accounts, you will understand WHY I ignore your ridiculous request.

 

[Doveaman]

Now, in the Old Testament, God commanded the Jews to commit genocide - specifically every man, woman, and child in Canaan (Deut. 7.1-2; 20.16-18).

Would an all-benevolent God give such a command?

Would a benevolent judge in a court of law give a command to implement the death penalty?

Do I need to introduce a few more of his malevolent acts to make my point?

In a court of law, a person convicted of a crime may be given the maximum penalty of the law or the judge may be merciful by setting aside the penalty of law and simply letting the person off with a warning not to commit crime again.

In the OT the maximum penalty of law was implemented.

In the NT we receive mercy and a warning not to commit sin (crime against God and His Universe) again.

In a court of law, the law may allow the death penalty for some felonies and the judge can command that the penalty be implemented without him being malevolent.

Hypothetically, if the law allowed for the death penalty of an entire ethnic group (genocide) after they committed a felony, the judge can command that the penalty be implemented without him being malevolent.

We may question why that law would include the death of children, but us not knowing the answer to that question does not mean the judge is malevolent. It may simply mean that we have no clue what was going on and are basing our conclusion on pure ignorance.

 

[Michael]

This entire time you have been "ducking and diving" by first positing that you have your own definition of God,

Woah! From day one you've *insisted* on handing me ownership of God, a *concept* that I personally lack belief in. What you *meant* to talk about (apparently) are *my personal beliefs* about God. You've consistently tried to stuff yet a second belief down my throat as well, specifically the notion of Biblical infallibility, yet *another* belief that I lack belief in.

Since you've *insisted* on talking about my beliefs about God in relationship to that particular book, I've consistently asked you to make whatever case you wish to make about *my* beliefs based on the words and deeds of Jesus the man. You've consistently refused to do so, therefore around and around we go.

How can it *possibly* be news to you that you're going to have to treat me as a unique *individual* if you want to discuss *my personal beliefs* about *any topic under the sun*?

then you rejected the word "omni",

Of course I rejected it. It's another of *your* beliefs which I do not hold! Why shouldn't I reject *your* claims when I don't even have such beliefs in the first place?

then you introduced Moses,

I *assumed* you'd be discussing OT content. I was *right* too. Unfortunately you haven't even had the common decency to actually *quote* from the Bible, so when you talk about genocide, I know for a fact you *are not* talking about the NT.

then you blamed me for introducing Moses,

Actually I blame you for blaming God for the sins of Moses. You don't even believe Moses was telling the truth in the first place, but apparently you *insist* that I personally am required to believe every word in the OT.

then you introduced Jesus,

You insisted on talking about *my* (beliefs about) God, as it relates to a particular text. In that particular text, the words attributed to Jesus can indeed provide you with insights into *my* beliefs about God. The OT isn't going to do that for you. You've consistently ignored the only material in that text that holds any special value to me personally, yet you insist on talking about *my* (beliefs about) God, based on that book? Why? Nothing else actually represents my personal beliefs about God. I've offered some other materials *outside* of the Bible as well for you to consider if you insists on talking about *my* beliefs.

So far however you've spent all your time talking about your *own* strawman beliefs, and you've gotten nasty about the fact I'm not enamored by your strawman god.

then you claimed that you ignore parts of the Bible,

So what? You ignore *every single part* of the Bible, *except for* the genocide claims apparently. Pots and kettles my friend. I'm not obligated to hold faith in every word written in the OT. That's another of *your* beliefs that *must apply* in order for your argument to actually work properly. Since it doesn't actually apply to me personally, you get all upset about it apparently.

then you dismissed the Deuteronomy citation as a belief of mine,

Yep. It's a belief that you hold about the value of the texts attributed to Moses. You are in fact talking about the words of Moses even though you claim you're not!

then you said I am pushing my beliefs down your throat when I havent even shared a belief of mine,

Yes you did! You apparently believe in ownership of God. You apparently think everything Moses wrote about genocide as it relates to the to topic must necessarily be true, and also must apply to my beliefs as well. You apparently believe that Christians all think in lockstep on every topic. You apparently believe nothing else Moses wrote about God, other than the fact God is somehow responsible described in the OT.

then you insisted multiple times that I substantiate the Deuteronomy quote with the teachings of Jesus.

You've insisted on talking about *my* beliefs about God based on the texts of the Bible. The only ones that actually apply to me are the red letter texts found in the NT.

Michael, when you understand WHY you will not demonstrate how Mickey Mouse is an anti-hero from modern accounts, you will understand WHY I ignore your ridiculous request.

I'm tired of this nonsense at this point. You will have to treat me as a unique *individual* if you wish to discuss *my* beliefs about God. The only statements from that book that apply to *my* beliefs are the ones you'll find in the red letter parts of the four Gospels. I'll toss in the letter from his brother James, and I'll even toss in the Gospel of Thomas if you'd like an external reference that I also feel is representative of the teachings of *Christ*, my personal Lord and savior.

I personally don't care what Moses claimed in the Pentacheuch. Those are *his* statements. I don't place much value in many of the statements written by Moses. I don't care what he claimed about God or the character of God. Moses was a mass murder of innocent human beings IMO.

Either make your case about *my* (beliefs about) God based on the teachings of Jesus, or just drop the topic at this point. If you insist on citing Moses, I'm going to insist on ignoring your claims about God.

 

[bhsmte]

Woah! From day one you've *insisted* on handing me ownership of God, a *concept* that I personally lack belief in. What you *meant* to talk about (apparently) are *my personal beliefs* about God. You've consistently tried to stuff yet a second belief down my throat as well, specifically the notion of Biblical infallibility, yet *another* belief that I lack belief in.

Since you've *insisted* on talking about my beliefs about God in relationship to that particular book, I've consistently asked you to make whatever case you wish to make about *my* beliefs based on the words and deeds of Jesus the man. You've consistently refused to do so, therefore around and around we go.

How can it *possibly* be news to you that you're going to have to treat me as a unique *individual* if you want to discuss *my personal beliefs* about *any topic under the sun*?



Of course I rejected it. It's another of *your* beliefs which I do not hold! Why shouldn't I reject *your* claims when I don't even have such beliefs in the first place?



I *assumed* you'd be discussing OT content. I was *right* too. Unfortunately you haven't even had the common decency to actually *quote* from the Bible, so when you talk about genocide, I know for a fact you *are not* talking about the NT.



Actually I blame you for blaming God for the sins of Moses. You don't even believe Moses was telling the truth in the first place, but apparently you *insist* that I personally am required to believe every word in the OT.



You insisted on talking about *my* (beliefs about) God, as it relates to a particular text. In that particular text, the words attributed to Jesus can indeed provide you with insights into *my* beliefs about God. The OT isn't going to do that for you. You've consistently ignored the only material in that text that holds any special value to me personally, yet you insist on talking about *my* (beliefs about) God, based on that book? Why? Nothing else actually represents my personal beliefs about God. I've offered some other materials *outside* of the Bible as well for you to consider if you insists on talking about *my* beliefs.

So far however you've spent all your time talking about your *own* strawman beliefs, and you've gotten nasty about the fact I'm not enamored by your strawman god.



So what? You ignore *every single part* of the Bible, *except for* the genocide claims apparently. Pots and kettles my friend. I'm not obligated to hold faith in every word written in the OT. That's another of *your* beliefs that *must apply* in order for your argument to actually work properly. Since it doesn't actually apply to me personally, you get all upset about it apparently.



Yep. It's a belief that you hold about the value of the texts attributed to Moses. You are in fact talking about the words of Moses even though you claim you're not!



Yes you did! You apparently believe in ownership of God. You apparently think everything Moses wrote about genocide as it relates to the to topic must necessarily be true, and also must apply to my beliefs as well. You apparently believe that Christians all think in lockstep on every topic. You apparently believe nothing else Moses wrote about God, other than the fact God is somehow responsible described in the OT.



You've insisted on talking about *my* beliefs about God based on the texts of the Bible. The only ones that actually apply to me are the red letter texts found in the NT.



I'm tired of this nonsense at this point. You will have to treat me as a unique *individual* if you wish to discuss *my* beliefs about God. The only statements from that book that apply to *my* beliefs are the ones you'll find in the red letter parts of the four Gospels. I'll toss in the letter from his brother James, and I'll even toss in the Gospel of Thomas if you'd like an external reference that I also feel is representative of the teachings of *Christ*, my personal Lord and savior.

I personally don't care what Moses claimed in the Pentacheuch. Those are *his* statements. I don't place much value in many of the statements written by Moses. I don't care what he claimed about God or the character of God. Moses was a mass murder of innocent human beings IMO.

Either make your case about *my* (beliefs about) God based on the teachings of Jesus, or just drop the topic at this point. If you insist on citing Moses, I'm going to insist on ignoring your claims about God.

Didn't Moses play for the Sixers?

 

[Michael]

Didn't Moses play for the Sixers?

There's a Moses I'd enjoy hanging out with.

 

[madaz]

Either make your case about *my* (beliefs about) God based on the teachings of Jesus, or just drop the topic at this point. If you insist on citing Moses, I'm going to insist on ignoring your claims about God.

Michael I'm not interested in challenging your beliefs, I was only substantiating my assertion in point 3 because you requested that I do so, we were getting nowhere so I did eventually drop the topic, but then you insisted we stay on topic.

Stick to the topic. What statements from the lips of Jesus actually support your claims about God being malevolent? Any?

My claim was specifically NOT ALL as in NOT ALL-benevolent.

 

[Michael]

Michael I'm not interested in challenging your beliefs, I was only substantiating my assertion in point 3 because you requested that I do so, we were getting nowhere so I did eventually drop the topic, but then you insisted we stay on topic.

My claim was specifically NOT ALL as in NOT ALL-benevolent.

My impression at this point is that our conversation is going in circles because point three involved *my* (personal beliefs about) God, as it relates to the contents of the Bible, and because your claim *requires* a belief in Biblical infallibility. Since that requirement doesn't apply to me, your argument simply doesn't work in this specific case. It *might* work in many other cases mind you, but in terms of *my* beliefs about God and the Bible, it doesn't actually apply.

As I mentioned before, *if* we *assumed* that everything written in the Bible is accurate, *then* you could make claims about the character and nature of the "god" that is described by that book. You don't even personally subscribe to the concept of Biblical infallibility, nor do I, so it's not that simple.

IMO you should simply acknowledge that your claims about *my* (beliefs about) God based on the Bible would *necessarily* have to relate to the red letter parts of the Bible. You could then at least logically attempt to make your case about *my* (beliefs about) God, but your can't do it any other way.

I personally think we should just agree to disagree and let it go at this point, since you don't really seem to be discussing *my* (concepts about) God, but something closer to the beliefs of a Southern Baptist.

 

[madaz]

My impression at this point is that our conversation is going in circles because point three involved *my* (personal beliefs about) God, as it relates to the contents of the Bible, and because your claim *requires* a belief in Biblical infallibility. Since that requirement doesn't apply to me, your argument simply doesn't work in this specific case. It *might* work in many other cases mind you, but in terms of *my* beliefs about God and the Bible, it doesn't actually apply.

As I mentioned before, *if* we *assumed* that everything written in the Bible is accurate, *then* you could make claims about the character and nature of the "god" that is described by that book. You don't even personally subscribe to the concept of Biblical infallibility, nor do I, so it's not that simple.

IMO you should simply acknowledge that your claims about *my* (beliefs about) God based on the Bible would *necessarily* have to relate to the red letter parts of the Bible. You could then at least logically attempt to make your case about *my* (beliefs about) God, but your can't do it any other way.

I personally think we should just agree to disagree and let it go at this point, since you don't really seem to be discussing *my* (concepts about) God, but something closer to the beliefs of a Southern Baptist.

It is going around in circle because YOU insist point 3 involves YOUR beliefs.

 

[Michael]

It is going around in circle because YOU insist point 3 involves YOUR beliefs.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137-52/#post64272852

Michael, I make the assumption for the following reasons.

1. I am led to believe your god is omniscient so he must know of the suffering.

2. I am led to believe your god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent so he must be ignoring the suffering.

3. The bible demonstrates your god is not omnibenevolent.

4. I am led to believe your god has a plan for us.

Emphasis mine. You included the term "your" in every claim you made about God. You made it "personal" from day one. You've really not done much to reduce the problem either since you refuse to discuss the parts of the Bible that actually matter to me or describe *my* (beliefs about) God.

 

[madaz]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137-52/#post64272852

Emphasis mine. You included the term "your" in every claim you made about God. You made it "personal" from day one. You've really not done much to reduce the problem either since you refuse to discuss the parts of the Bible that actually matter to me or describe *my* (beliefs about) God.

That was post #512, you seem to have conveniently forgotten that later in post #575 that I did make a concession to reduce this *problem* which YOU agreed upon.

Michael to be fair to you we both need to be "on the same page" and reffering to the same character to make any progress, Im simply trying to avoid the "Mickey Mouse/Donald Duck" problem you introduced earlier. Since you insist on regressing this debate into an infinite circle, may I suggest I omit the "your" from now on and simply refer to your god as "god". The god that is depicted in the bible. Do you accept?

 

[Michael]

That was post #512, you seem to have conveniently forgotten that later in post #575 that I did make a concession to reduce this *problem* which YOU agreed upon.

But you didn't focus on material from the lips of Jesus, nor did you "agree" that I have the right to accept or reject various materials as I see fit, just like you do. Instead, you went right back to the OT and insisting that any rejection of the statements of Moses is a form of 'denial'. Those were your words.

I never denied that Moses did what he did and wrote what he wrote. I simply doubt the validity of his statements, just like you do.

 

[madaz]

But you didn't focus on material from the lips of Jesus, nor did you "agree" that I have the right to accept or reject various materials as I see fit, just like you do. Instead, you went right back to the OT and insisting that any rejection of the statements of Moses is a form of 'denial'. Those were your words.

I never denied that Moses did what he did and wrote what he wrote. I simply doubt the validity of his statements, just like you do.

I never said I doubted the validity of Moses statements.

Ok Michael I will turn this around on you, consider this scenario-

Lets say you make this claim to me-

The Disney Company demonstrates Mickey Mouse is not all-benevolent.

I request you to explain?

You respond with evidence from early Mickey Mouse cartoons of anti-hero behaviour.

I then reject that evidence because I claim to be a unique individual who personally doubts the validity of Ub Iwerks depictions. So therefore I will ignore any more evidence sourced from Ub Ilwerks.

You then make multiple claim's that I am in denial.

I then constantly respond to those claims with-

But you didn't focus on material from Robert (Fred) Moore and others. Dont you understand I have the right to doubt the validity of Ub Iwerks depictions. Why would you keep attempting to shove Ub Iwerks beliefs down my throat as if I should take personal ownership, why do you insist we stick with Ub Iwerks depictions? Ub Iwerks depictions of Mickey Mouse are your beliefs. Until you demonstrate Mickey Mouse was a bully as depicted by Robert (Fred) Moore and others you are failing to make your case. Either make your case about *my* (beliefs about) Mickey Mouse based on the depictions of Robert (Fred) Moore, or just drop the topic. If you insist on citing Ub Iwerks, I'm going to insist on ignoring your claims about Mickey Mouse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you see my apparent denial in this scenario?

 

[madaz]

Would a benevolent judge in a court of law give a command to implement the death penalty?
In a court of law, a person convicted of a crime may be given the maximum penalty of the law or the judge may be merciful by setting aside the penalty of law and simply letting the person off with a warning not to commit crime again.

In the OT the maximum penalty of law was implemented.

In the NT we receive mercy and a warning not to commit sin (crime against God and His Universe) again.

In a court of law, the law may allow the death penalty for some felonies and the judge can command that the penalty be implemented without him being malevolent.

Hypothetically, if the law allowed for the death penalty of an entire ethnic group (genocide) after they committed a felony, the judge can command that the penalty be implemented without him being malevolent.

We may question why that law would include the death of children, but us not knowing the answer to that question does not mean the judge is malevolent. It may simply mean that we have no clue what was going on and are basing our conclusion on pure ignorance.

I'm sorry but I just can't accept the act of worshipping God(s) to be a "felony" crime worthy of execution, people should enjoy the freedom to believe in God(s) without fear of having their families and societies slaughtered by other people because of it.

My point is a God who instructs his followers to commit genocide can not be ALL-benevolent, only partly benevolent at best.

 

[Michael]

I never said I doubted the validity of Moses statements.

Ya know.....

It's hard to have an "intellectually honest" conversation with you when if you're going to try to ignore *your own* beliefs, and how they keep creeping into the conversation. You're a registered "atheist", apparently a rather *evangelical* one at that, posting on a "Christian" website. You're quite intent on characterizing God as you see fit, based on whatever portions of whatever texts you see fit.

You absolutely do *lack belief* in the statements of Moses, or you'd have no reason to label yourself as an atheist. In the sense that I don't believe everything he said anymore than you do, we're not different in any way. He's just another genocidal maniac from my perspective that like many others before him, and many others after him, used *religion* and *nationalism* to divide humanity, and for his own egotistical purposes. IMO he's no different from Bin Laden, no different from *anyone* that attempts to justify violence via religion.

Jesus, Ghandi, and Dr. Martin Luther King used *nonviolence* to achieve their religious and political objectives.

You're ignoring the night and day differences between these behaviors IMO.

I'm sorry but I just can't accept the act of worshipping God(s) to be a "felony" crime worthy of execution, people should enjoy the freedom to believe in God(s) without fear of having their families and societies slaughtered by other people because of it.

My point is a God who instructs his followers to commit genocide can not be ALL-benevolent, only partly benevolent at best.

I tend to agree with you on both points, but.....

I *really* hate to be the bearer of bad news here but, A) Christians don't all think alike as Doveman's statements, and my statements demonstrate, and B) your argument depends *entirely* on how much emphasis one places on the value of the OT, vs the value of the NT. I personally *interpret* the Bible quite differently than say a "Southern Baptist" who might prefer an entirely *literal* interpretation. I believe the Earth and Universe are *ancient*, in the later case, perhaps eternal. I have very *unique* beliefs compared to various other individuals, and until you allow me to *be unique*, your bigotry toward how 'I should' interpret the Bible is irrelevant to me personally. It's offensive, but ultimately irrelevant.

As I mentioned to you *early* in this conversation, *if* you acknowledged the need for a belief in "Biblical infallibility" *and* you "depersonalized" the issue in terms of *my* (beliefs about) God, I could see the logic of your statements.

Since you've never acknowledged the need for part A), your claims ultimately have no merit, particularly in *my* case, if not in Doveman's case. Until you treat all "Christians" as unique individuals, just as I must treat all atheists as unique individuals, your argument can't really work.

Do you see my apparent denial in this scenario?

What I see in your statements is a denial of the fact that not all "Christians" interpret the Bible exactly the same way. How many different "denominations" of "Christianity" exist today? How many variations on a "Bible" exist today?

The bottom line here is that while Doveman seems to have an intellectual and emotional need to justify the OT, I do not. I love *Christ*. I follow *his* teachings. They came *thousands* of years *after* Moses committed genocide in the name of God. Moses was not the first to do that. Bin Laden is another current example of the way personal ego can kludge and butcher religions to do their bidding. Anyone that *wants* to commit violence will do so.

Jesus however *did not* use violence as a "means to an end". Quite the opposite in fact. Like Dr. King, Jesus taught *non* violence, in fact that's where Dr. King got the idea, and it's where he drew his strength from as well.

Sooner or later you're going to have to acknowledge the fact that your point three failed for several reasons.

A) You tried to assign personal ownership of God to me, rather than assigning ownership of all humans to God as I do. That's *your* belief, not mine.

B) You failed to accept that point three *requires* (necessitates) a "Biblical infallibility" agreement in order for your point to have merit.

While you seem to have acknowledged point A), you've yet to acknowledge point B).

 

[Doveaman]

I'm sorry but I just can't accept the act of worshipping God(s) to be a "felony" crime worthy of execution,

That’s because your finite mind is not seeing the big picture. But that's okay, not every individual accept every law in their own country.

people should enjoy the freedom to believe in God(s) without fear of having their families and societies slaughtered by other people because of it.

If you take a closer look at the world you will notice that people who do believe in gods are often the ones who slaughter families and societies. The law against worshiping gods is designed (in part) to prevent that.

Just think what the world would be like if everyone worshiped Jesus alone. I can guarantee you the world would be a much safer place.

My point is a God who instructs his followers to commit genocide can not be ALL-benevolent, only partly benevolent at best.

That's like saying a judge in a court of law who instructs the executioners to carry out the death penalty can not be humane, only partly humane at best.

 

[madaz]

If you take a closer look at the world you will notice that people who do believe in gods are often the ones who slaughter families and societies.

This fact is so glaringly obvious it doesn't require a "closer look".

The law against worshiping gods is designed (in part) to prevent that.

A law against worshipping Gods that is punishable by slaughtering families and societies actually motivates the crime of slaughtering families and societies.

Just think what the world would be like if everyone worshiped Jesus alone. I can guarantee you the world would be a much safer place.

Maybe so, but that would depend on all of them following Jesus teaching's. Anyway I'm "sure" Jesus wouldn't preach the slaughtering of babies and children for the crime of being born unto theistic parents is the humane way of creating a safer place.

That's like saying a judge in a court of law who instructs the executioners to carry out the death penalty can not be humane, only partly humane at best.

Kind of.

 

[madaz]

That's like saying a judge in a court of law who instructs the executioners to carry out the death penalty can not be humane, only partly humane at best.

Well I don't think that judge could be ALL-humane.

Do you think an "ALL-humane" judge in a court of law would instruct the execution children and babies for the crime of their parents theism?

 

[Doveaman]

Well I don't think that judge could be ALL-humane.

Do you think an "ALL-humane" judge in a court of law would instruct the execution children and babies for the crime of their parents theism?

No.

And that is not what the Bible says God did. That’s your interpretation.


To avoid derailing Michael’s “An Empirical Theory Of God” thread I decided to respond to your previous post here: Is God Malevolent?

 

[madaz]

No.

And that is not what the Bible says God did. That’s your interpretation.

Since it was you who introduced the " humane Judge in a court of law" analogy to justify God instructing genocide, it was your interpretation I responded to.