PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
-_- nah, because explicitly Noah and his family did the construction, not god. Your explanation does not follow with your adherence to a literal biblical interpretation.
Upvote
0
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.
-_- nah, because explicitly Noah and his family did the construction, not god. Your explanation does not follow with your adherence to a literal biblical interpretation.Since you are speculating on events relating to the ark and the flood - I offer a Christian alternative - you may reject it - but you should at least know what it is.
THE FLOOD
1. Warning mankind and Building the ark 3 minutes ago#1412
2. The flood – the Storm Breaks - 4 minutes ago#1413
Darwin certainly was, he even went to higher education to be in the ministry. As for the others, it would not shock me if they were raised as Christian. Most atheists were, at some point in their life, religious. People like me that never were are uncommon, and I wasn't raised to be non religious either. Not intentionally, anyways..
-_- nah, because explicitly Noah and his family did the construction, not god. Your explanation does not follow with your adherence to a literal biblical interpretation.
I am well informed about not just Christianity, but a few religions. Knowing the full story of every religion would be unrealistic, though. And, if that is your take on it, I assume that you have read the Koran, the Hindu Vedas, the Odyssey and other Greek tales... if it is logical to read about the alternative YOU want people to believe, it is equally reasonable to be just as demanding that you read up on every other religion. Would it even be possible to convince you to read the Koran? If not, then you must abandon your own argument, because it would make you a hypocrite.Regardless of the name given - it is irrefutable logic. There is in fact no risk to 'not being atheist" -- so since you can only be at risk in the alternate conditions - it is "logical" to at least 'read' about that alternative, and be well informed about it. This is irrefutable.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ially-in-the-ot.7919979/page-69#post-69266611If you really are seeking - I have given you several avenues to "explore" -
Starting with one person's testimony who was not Christian at all Monday at 10:27 PM #1376
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ially-in-the-ot.7919979/page-71#post-69279527And I have given these - on this same thread.
ORIGINS
1. The Creation , Adam and Eve in Eden- 23 minutes ago #1404
2. Satan and his angel after their fall 20 minutes ago #1405
3. Demons plot the fall of man 19 minutes ago #1407
4. Temptation and fall 15 minutes ago #1408
5. Eve becomes Tempter 14 minutes ago #1409
6. Adam is shown Gospel future 7 minutes ago #1410
That's your bias talking. Unless solid, repeatably demonstrable evidence for deities is found, it is possible that they do not exist.That is not at all correct. Atheism has zero% of being correct.
I disagree with those quote mines. If they actually thought that observations in nature demanded a designer, they wouldn't be atheists, think about how illogical it would be to have that kind of thinking, and not be a theist. Even if somehow they do have that really suspicious perspective that makes absolutely no sense, I don't have that perspective. I see no design in nature, and if it is designed, it is designed poorly. For example, what is up with black holes? Black holes aren't necessary for life to exist. They aren't necessary for anything to exist, and they actually destroy physical matter by converting it into energy, which shortens the "lifespan" of the universe as it needs to be for life to exist in it. Why does human junk DNA resemble functioning DNA in other species at all, when that junk could be any random noncoding sequence? Why can't cells reproduce DNA in a way that allows the lagging strand to remain the same size as the leading strand, a problem that eventually leaves cells unable to divide and the DNA to become useless, or even harmful? Why do we have bodies so poorly built for being bipedal, that back problems as we age are the norm? These easily fixable flaws are all over the place. Either this stuff is the result of natural processes, which make errors all the time, or god is not as omniscient as many Christians claim it is.Even atheists like Reese and Susskind know that "observations in nature" demand a "Designer" and you have to be willing to "imagine" an almost infinite number of entire universes when "doubling down on atheism" in a desperate attempt to "avoid the obvious". And THIS is from their own atheist POV it is not a Christian POV.
No. If you generalize various denominations into their origin religion, there are only 3 religions that worship Yahweh. Hinduism is a good example of a modern, polytheistic religion that doesn't incorporate Jesus into it. Most of the religions in human history were polytheistic, and while many have martyrs in their stories, they are all distinctly not Jesus.Which is another hugely flawed conclusion.
Every religion - including Islam - accomodates Christ as a divine or inspired being. In Islam - the virgin birth and the 2nd coming of Christ are BOTH affirmed.
Technically, one of the many possibilities is that a deity does exist, but only allows skeptics into a good afterlife. It is just as probable as the religion you believe in. So, no, you have no less risk, if you assume deities exist, and place being wrong as not mattering if atheism is correct.Thus the only "RISK" for the Christian - is that atheism is true - which means he/she will be welcomed to "oblivion" the same exact way "PsychoSarah" is welcomed or that he will be welcomed to "Reincarnation" and the world of many pagan gods the same way all the others are.
I already have, as a seeker. Do you not understand that 7 years means I have done quite a bit of investigation into this topic? People making arguments like Pascal's Wager as if it is valid make themselves look like fools for not understanding why it is invalid. For one thing, even if we were to assume that the only sides were atheism and Christianity, telling people it is more logical to believe just in case, won't serve as meeting their requirements of evidence necessary to believe. I want to believe, and have felt that way for many years. But belief is not fully a conscious choice. As the situation currently is, I couldn't force myself to be a theist to save my soul any more than you could force yourself to believe the sky is yellow with a green striped pattern to save your soul. There are limits on what people can believe, and I have spent a lot of time trying to find the evidence I need to make a believer out of me. No luck thus far, but I can tell you this much: your personal bible interpretation isn't going to do anything for me. If I couldn't get myself to be a general theist in 7 years, using all the resources at my disposal, what makes you think that rehashing a story I already know is going to make a biblical literalist Christian out of me?Logic alone demands giving the Christian Gospel and good hard look!
(I stand corrected - there is ONE risk for the Christian option - and that is Satanism. If Satan worship is the real thing we are all supposed to be doing -- then Christ is the enemy and his followers are the enemy. Even so - I suggest you not go there.)
I don't view the morality of god as relevant to whether or not said being exists. I also don't think that the bible accurately represents any deity likely to exist, at this point. Not if you take it literally. My lack of belief has nothing to do with how friendly I think the literal interpretation of the biblical god is. I have to wonder why you think that would be relevant.I have presented those long posts detailing a loving God, perfect creation, fall of mankind, the flood... as a way to "explore" the alternative to atheism's "god is mean" speculation about origins. IT is at least "an alternative".
I don't view the morality of god as relevant to whether or not said being exists. .
I have been a seeker for over 7 years now. I am not an atheist because I want to be one. I would much rather be wrong, and still end up in hell because I didn't believe, than face complete oblivion of nonexistence.
While Hoghead interprets the bible to be portraying hell incorrectly, or that hell is a mistake, I ended up interpreting that the loving qualities attributed to the Christian god are more to please it in a text that is supposed to encourage worship than an accurate depiction of how loving this being is. I base that on its actions of endorsing genocide of multiple cities, flooding the Earth because people expressed their free will in a way it didn't like, and inability to forgive people without getting worship from them. To me, a truly loving being would not punish people for the petty reason of not believing that deity exists.
Thus, to me, in order for the god of the bible to count as benign by any standard of it, the majority of the Old Testament and much of the New Testament would have to be completely wrong, and belief couldn't legitimately be the deciding factor of the quality of the afterlife people experience. In its own words, "I am an angry god, and a jealous god".
Yup, it all checks out to me. I would rather have a god that is a tyrant, and have an afterlife, than no afterlife at all. Also, I never said that I didn't believe because I thought god was mean, I said that when I interpret the bible literally, I perceive god as mean... which is an understatement. The major reason why I don't believe is a lack of indoctrination, and figuring out that the Tooth Fairy and all other such nonsense wasn't real on my own (despite my mother's insistence that it was. She found kids believing in that stuff cute, and was crushed every time I figured out the lies) at a very, very young age. It set me up to not trust people on their word; evidence is necessary to demonstrate that what they have to say is worth listening to.then you never took your own post seriously saying that you would rather believe in God but could not because of your view about Him being mean.
So then you would "rather" believe in God - but...
Yeah, I don't understand why you think I would find another atheist more convincing than a theist.
I disagree with those quote mines. If they actually thought that observations in nature demanded a designer, they wouldn't be atheists,
think about how illogical it would be to have that kind of thinking, and not be a theist. Even if somehow they do have that really suspicious perspective that makes absolutely no sense, I don't have that perspective. I see no design in nature
Why does human junk DNA resemble functioning DNA in other species at all,
No. If you generalize various denominations into their origin religion, there are only 3 religions that worship Yahweh. Hinduism is a good example of a modern, polytheistic religion that doesn't incorporate Jesus into it.
Most of the religions in human history were polytheistic, and while many have martyrs in their stories, they are all distinctly not Jesus.
Technically, one of the many possibilities is that a deity does exist, but only allows skeptics into a good afterlife.
I already have, as a seeker. Do you not understand that 7 years means I have done quite a bit of investigation into this topic?
People making arguments like Pascal's Wager as if it is valid make themselves look like fools
For one thing, even if we were to assume that the only sides were atheism and Christianity, telling people it is more logical to believe just in case, won't serve as meeting their requirements of evidence necessary to believe.
I want to believe, and have felt that way for many years. But belief is not fully a conscious choice. As the situation currently is, I couldn't force myself to be a theist to save my soul any more than you could force yourself to believe the sky is yellow with a green striped pattern to save your soul.
but I can tell you this much: your personal bible interpretation isn't going to do anything for me. If I couldn't get myself to be a general theist in 7 years, using all the resources at my disposal, what makes you think that rehashing a story I already know is going to make a biblical literalist Christian out of me?
Yup, it all checks out to me. I would rather have a god that is a tyrant, and have an afterlife, than no afterlife at all.
Well then you owe it to yourself to allow yourself to read what I posted.
Starting with one person's testimony who was not Christian at all Monday at 10:27 PM #1376
(He was anti-Christian - but not atheist or agnostic... Muslim)
And I have given these - on this same thread.
ORIGINS
1. The Creation , Adam and Eve in Eden- 23 minutes ago #1404
2. Satan and his angel after their fall 20 minutes ago #1405
3. Demons plot the fall of man 19 minutes ago #1407
4. Temptation and fall 15 minutes ago #1408
5. Eve becomes Tempter 14 minutes ago #1409
6. Adam is shown Gospel future 7 minutes ago #1410
Bob, a couple of helpful hints. Don't copy and past from other sources and act as if they are your own works. No one is going to read your posts when you do so. You can quote some salient points from them, but keep it brief. Linking to the source will allow others to read if you pique their interest.
And personal stories are never convincing since all religions have them. They only feed your own confirmation bias. Since this is a science oriented part of the forum it would be best if you can stick to scientific articles for support.
Bob, a couple of helpful hints. Don't copy and past from other sources and act as if they are your own works. No one is going to read your posts when you do so. You can quote some salient points from them, but keep it brief. Linking to the source will allow others to read if you pique their interest.
And personal stories are never convincing since all religions have them. They only feed your own confirmation bias. Since this is a science oriented part of the forum it would be best if you can stick to scientific articles for support.
So then you are saying that my giving the book and chapter at the very start and also providing the link in this post
5. Eve becomes Tempter #1409
Was the right way to go??
in any case - I was not posting that material for Christians that turned themselves into atheists - so much as for life-long atheists who may not really understand the "alternative" to the atheist myths about the Gospel, the Bible, the God of the Bible - when evaluating the "alternative".
It's one thing to be opposed to a certain world view - a certain POV - it is another thing "not to know what it is".
And so for atheists who have "elected" of their own free will to come to a Christian message board for discussion - there is at least some value in looking at the POV of the person you are debating or discussing with - so as to have a more informed discussion where the differences are defined so as to be discussed.
I am only trying to make you a better debater. Nonsense copied and pasted from another source will be ignored.
If you only link other sources it will be ignored.
What you need to do is to find a salient point from your sources, quote that, and then link it so that others can check out your source to see if it is valid or not.
And as 46AND2 pointed out you actually broke the forum rules by doing that long copy and paste.
I assume that you want others to read your posts. If you just copy and post almost no one will read them, both friend and foe will simply ignore them.
If all religious text is "nonsense" and all of it is to be "ignored by atheists" - what is the point of an atheist on a Christian discussion forum? The title of this thread is about the gap in logic between blind faith evolutionism's doctrine on origins and what the Bible says about origins of the form "for in SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them" Ex 20:11 - in legal code.
Granted - but those links were to posts on this same thread.
As demonstrated in that prior post for point 5. which is also the same link for all the text-posts.
The reason for the quotes was that the atheist in question responds as if they don't know the POV on orgins (Genesis 1-3 and Genesis 6-8) that is the perspective of most Christians that accept the Bible "as it reads" -- when it comes to how it is that the God of the Bible is a kind loving God. I simply posted "more details" in support of the "kind loving God" POV of most Christians.
For those not interested in the Christian view at all - this is of little value, as you point out. I do not dispute that at all. But coming to a Christian message board with the attitude of "I don't want to read or hear anything about Christian beliefs on origins or God at all" is of "limited utility". And coming to a thread with this particular title - with that attitude requires logic that is "even more illusive".
Anyone is free to "guess" or "make stuff up" about God being mean - but it is still 'more useful' to have inspired writing given by God - provide a perspective rather than "one atheist guessing" as the only data to be evaluated or "one Christian POV" as the only data point.
But for those coming here to discuss, debate, or provide reasons for accepting/rejecting the Christian POV - how "nice" to have a reference point -- rather than having post after post be of the form "no that is not what we believe at all". Which seems like the endless cycle some have been using.
There has been some consistent well focused posts recently by atheists arguing that they should not be exposed to the Christian POV. And hence no texts / quotes providing "details" on Genesis 1-3, or Genesis 6-8. Certainly we might expect that of atheists in general. But atheists coming to a thread with this particular title - on a Christian Forum - would have to be a bit more open minded. Less "circle-the-wagons". Otherwise - what is the point??
(Other than - "we defend evolutionism because that in fact is the doctrine on origins found in atheism" -- which I will grant you.)
But even in that case - you could not expect to come to a thread with this title - and insist "And please - don't post anything promoting the Christian view of a loving God in Genesis 1-3 or Genesis 6-8)
Your goal should be to convince others. Otherwise you are simply wasting your time here. And referring to the Bible to support the Bible is called circular reasoning.
It makes you look bad. In this part of the forum you need actual science to support your claims.
What makes you think that atheists don't know that? Most atheists in the U.S. at least are former Christians that saw the light.
Don't take false offense. I pointed out why no one from either side would read your nonsense. It was an attempt to help you. You should be thanking me.
Sorry but "inspired writing" is just guess work at best. You just contradicted yourself.
No one is talking about rejecting the Christian point of view. Where did you get that crazy idea from?
Sorry but "inspired writing" is just guess work at best.
The theory of evolution is not contrary to Christianity,
The theory of evolution is not contrary to Christianity,
it is only contrary to a literal interpretation of Genesis. There are probably more Christians that accept the fact that life evolved than reject it. You are conflating having your own personal version of God shown to be wrong with refuting God himself. Please don't make that error. You are actually insulting your fellow Christians when you do so.
there are Bible details so glaringly obvious that even our atheist friends notice them --
for example - the "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3
==================================
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’
=======================
That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?