Where's God?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
53
Texas
✟102,413.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
As I stated earlier every person and situation is unique. He uses different methods for different people and different situations.
Why does he need to use pain and suffering then if he has a choice?

Yes, He uses many ways, like convincing evidence to name one.
Each person is either convinced or not by the evidence. What may be convincing to you may not be to me.

He has used bus drivers who put the brakes on just in time and mothers with intuition about a baby sitter or family member or teacher or priest among others.
How do you know this? Can it be demonstrated?

A Christian living in a Muslim or Communist nation would be much more likely to suffer than a Christian living in the US.
That has nothing to do with christian principles. Everyone in the US can practice their religion without persecution becasue of our constitution. It was christian principles in the US that were trying to limit gay's rights.

True, but I was primarily referring to suffering caused by society. But generally Christians by following Gods laws many sources of suffering can be reduced or even eliminated. See my earlier post to doubtingmerle where I explain in more detail.
Like what? What suffering can christian principles reduce than humanism cannot?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,502
2,254
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟395,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I said He never wants it for His people
And that is a problem. You say God does not want the man in the OP to suffer. If the man is suffering, and God does not want him to suffer, one would expect God to stop it.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,502
2,254
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟395,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Good is not nice. Kind is not nice. I do believe that God is compassionate, but I don't think he's in the business of making things easy for us.
How about making things possible? Many with COVID would be pleased to have God make life possible.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,502
2,254
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟395,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Are you unfamiliar with how difficult the question of personal identity already is? 98% of the atoms in our bodies are replaced annually, so the particles in your brain are already in constant flux as it is. The actual physical material of our bodies does not in fact make us who we are, and the paradox of the continuity of self is basically insoluble. Are we the same people we were from one moment to the next, or do we merely have the memories of someone who no longer exists? What about an amnesiac? Are they who they were before?
Understood. My mind comes from a brain that consists of an ever different combination of atoms. And why should my brain today care about my brain next decade, which will be made of different particles? I don't know why, but I still love myself. It does not matter how much my self 10 years from now differs from myself today. I still love myself today and care for that self of the future.

The impossible paradoxes associated with the sense of self are a big part of why I'm a theist in the first place. If God can give genuine being to a unique self-aware person once, individuated from everyone else, I don't see why he wouldn't be able to recreate the same person a second time.

Is it God who makes the brain of ours a self-aware person? I think not. It seems that the brain itself produces a consciousness of self. There really is no self. It is simply an illusion that the brain creates. That does not matter to me. I still love myself.

You say God could make a second "me" that lives forever. And a third and a fourth and a fifth me? Why stop with two? But if you tell me that God will produce a million copies of me that live eternally, why should I worry about those copies? They are just copies, not actually me.

And if I don't worry about the millions of copies of me that God might make, then why should I worry about me #2?
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
36
New York
✟200,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
How about making things possible? Many with COVID would be pleased to have God make life possible.

If Christianity is true, then God has made eternal life possible, both for those with Covid-19 and for everyone else, since we will all die one day.

Is it God who makes the brain of ours a self-aware person? I think not. It seems that the brain itself produces a consciousness of self. There really is no self. It is simply an illusion that the brain creates. That does not matter to me. I still love myself.

You say God could make a second "me" that lives forever. And a third and a fourth and a fifth me? Why stop with two? But if you tell me that God will produce a million copies of me that live eternally, why should I worry about those copies? They are just copies, not actually me.

And if I don't worry about the millions of copies of me that God might make, then why should I worry about me #2?

These three paragraphs do not really match up very well with the first paragraph you wrote. The "self of the future" that you claim to care about, despite it being "produced" by a brain made up of different particles, is itself a second "you," since continuity between the present and the self ten years into the future is difficult if not impossible to establish. One could argue that if the self is an illusion (something I do not believe), a new version of you is created every split second. They are not necessarily more or less "you" than a new body that lived eternally would be.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
You might want to brush up a bit on your assertions. You skipped over some parts. Involuntary was also extended to some men, women, and children. See below:

2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.


If the wife and children wish to go with the freed 'slave', the law states they are to remain with the slave master.

Furthermore:

5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.


Which is to mean, the law allows for the slave master to trick their slave. The slave master provides the slave with a companion. When they have kids, the slave master claims permanent stake to his kids. No 'right minded' slave would abandon their own kids, would they? And if they do not have kids, you really think the male slave would abandon his wife?


No, there is no trickery. An Hebrew educated in the law and almost all Hebrew men were, would know about this law. Some men would abandon their wife and kids, many men today do. And no, the stake would not be permanent, in the year of Jubilee ALL slaves were freed. But yes, under the Old covenant women did not have all the rights they have under the New, Christ raised women up higher. This law was to help the master not lose too much of his workforce at one time. Also, it would help keep families together.

cv: As we continue:

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

It is up to the male to decide the fate of the female. He has little restrictions. In this case, we also see demonstration of men > women -- (just like below).

This is like an apprenticeship for being a wife with no sex of course. Marriage was much more important in ancient times than today because there was no police force or welfare system it was needed for security for women. Yes, men had much more authority under the Old covenant especially a father over his daughter as I say above. Christ changed things under the New.

cv: You have again rationalized your assertion. Did you happen to read the entire passage?

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man, she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.


Hence, I guess it's safe to say that God 'hates' women pastors, preachers, ministers, etc. I guess it's also safe to tell your daughter that she can choose any profession she wishes, as long as it's NOT a pastor, preacher, minister, etc... And when she asks you why, you can be confident in telling her... "Well Sally, women were the ones deceived, not the men." I'm sure that conversation would go over handly :)


No, He doesn't hate them, but they are not part of His ideal church government, though they can be deaconesses. Actually, in the story of Adam and Eve the man comes across even worse than the woman, Paul is saying woman was deceived by Satan who is a super genius, but Adam was deceived by his wife.


I will deal with the video in my next post.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
62
California
✟129,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
As a preface, let's not forget why I am responding to you here... Via, your assertion in post #82:

"If you live in a society based on Christian principles you are less likely to suffer."

Please reference the basic definition of 'suffer': "to submit to or be forced to endure"

I disagree, and will continue to demonstrate... I will start with the topic of slavery and the topic of men > women. Okay, now back to it...

No, there is no trickery. An Hebrew educated in the law and almost all Hebrew men were, would know about this law.

Most men were not educated, let alone in Hebrew law. Most were also illiterate. Furthermore, the ones which were educated likely were not the ones being on the 'slavery' end of the deal ;)

Some men would abandon their wife and kids, many men today do.

Basic common sense would indicate that such a law would trap the slave, and 'convince' more to stay, verses to leave - (by way of deciding to abandon their family).


And no, the stake would not be permanent, in the year of Jubilee ALL slaves were freed. But yes, under the Old covenant women did not have all the rights they have under the New, Christ raised women up higher. This law was to help the master not lose too much of his workforce at one time. Also, it would help keep families together.

Did you not read the verse I provided???

"Then he will be his servant for life."

Furthermore, you had made another assertion that slavery was merely either voluntary, or for prisoners. Well, I also provided Verse to demonstrate that this is also NOT the case.

4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.


Are you going to address this?


This is like an apprenticeship for being a wife with no sex of course. Marriage was much more important in ancient times than today because there was no police force or welfare system it was needed for security for women. Yes, men had much more authority under the Old covenant especially a father over his daughter as I say above. Christ changed things under the New.

The provided Verse was another example to demonstrate that such actions were not voluntary. The women had no say in the matter. And furthermore, that the woman was not to be freed, like some men might be. Please revisit the Verses:

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.


No, He doesn't hate them, but they are not part of His ideal church government, though they can be deaconesses. Actually, in the story of Adam and Eve the man comes across even worse than the woman, Paul is saying woman was deceived by Satan who is a super genius, but Adam was deceived by his wife.

Why then is it NOT 'ideal' for a woman to be a head pastor, minister, or priest?

*************************

In conclusion, here is the take-away....

No. If societies were to continue to follow Christian values, such societies would suffer greater.

Case/point - slavery. Under Biblical law, it is allowed forever, with additional allowances for beating.
Case/point - women are considered less than men.

Under civil law, slavery has been completely abolished.
Under civil law, women are not oppressed.

Thus, if we were to continue in Biblical law, the 'suffrage' would likely be higher, by definition.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single

The point of the video is to demonstrate that the U.S., and virtually every civil society, has moved away from some/many of Jesus' 'teachings'. Including [you] most likely. If you don't believe me, maybe we can go over some of them, one at a time, for clarity?

Do you think...

Divorce should be illegal?


Christ allowed divorce if one spouse committed adultery. Thru Paul He also allowed divorce for abandonment. Yes, as a Christian principle based society divorce should only be allowed for those reasons. Of course, abuse is a form of abandonment so divorce would be allowed for that.

cv: If someone slaps you, do you give them the other cheek to slap?
Christ as a first century rabbi often used hyperbole to make a point, this verse is not meant to be understood literally, but rather it is to be understood as to not have an attitude of retaliation. The action could be done literally if you choose but the point is the attitude.

cv: If someone wants to sue you, do you lay down and give them everything?

Again this is understood as an attitude of non revenge or retaliation. You cannot give them everything especially if you have a family because the bible says if you dont take care of your family you are worse than an unbeliever.

cv: If someone slanders your character, do you set back and rejoice?
Yes, if it is a result of your faith of Christ, persecution for acting like Christ is an honor.

cv: Do you still adhere to all 613 Commandments?

Christians are only required to follow the moral law, not the ceremonial law. The ceremonial law no longer applies under the New Covenant.

cv: Have you given away your possessions to demonstrate your faith, and as a follower?
That only applied to that specific person he had a problem with clinging to his possessions they had become an idol. But we can learn the proper attitude toward possessions from the story, they should never be your number one concern. But of course, it would not apply to someone with a family for the reasons stated above.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
62
California
✟129,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Again, please remember we are working from your statement, via post #82:

"If you live in a society based on Christian principles you are less likely to suffer."

Please also recall the basic definition of 'suffer": 'to submit to or be forced to endure'

Christ allowed divorce if one spouse committed adultery. Thru Paul He also allowed divorce for abandonment. Yes, as a Christian principle based society divorce should only be allowed for those reasons. Of course, abuse is a form of abandonment so divorce would be allowed for that.

Sure, the Bible does allow for <some> exceptions. But please now allow me to elaborate a bit...

Humans killing other humans is also not allowed. (i.e.) Killing is against the law or illegal - (Biblical or civil). However, exceptions are to be made, if proven or demonstrated.

Should divorce fall under the same category? Should divorce be considered illegal, and only granted IF in the event of adultery or 'abandonment'?


Christ as a first century rabbi often used hyperbole to make a point, this verse is not meant to be understood literally, but rather it is to be understood as to not have an attitude of retaliation. The action could be done literally if you choose but the point is the attitude.

How is the reader able to determine which of these Verses are merely 'hyperbole'? Let's explore the entire verse, (in context), shall we?


Eye for Eye

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Looks like it goes a little further, than merely not to 'retaliate', or an 'attitude'. I ask you again, with elaboration...

If someone slaps [you], do [you] give them the other cheek to slap? Or do you, as said in the video, instead attempt to redefine or ignore the Verses for which you know you are not going to follow, or do not like?

If you are to use your own common sense, in knowing which verses are to be translated in 'hyperbole'/other, then why do we need the Bible for our morals to begin with..?

Again this is understood as an attitude of non revenge or retaliation. You cannot give them everything especially if you have a family because the bible says if you dont take care of your family you are worse than an unbeliever.

Please see above.

Furthermore, accordingly to Christianity, there is NOTHING 'worse' than an unbeliever. The act of unbelief merits eternal damnation, according to Jesus, in places. Virtually everything else can be forgiven. Which would then warrant or result in the possibility of heaven.


Yes, if it is a result of your faith of Christ, persecution for acting like Christ is an honor.

I would dare to say you are not 'like Christ' :) And when we explore all these topics, as given, it will become more apparent in this reality.

I now assert the opposite. I doubt you set back and rejoice, when someone slanders your character.

Christians are only required to follow the moral law, not the ceremonial law. The ceremonial law no longer applies under the New Covenant.

Jesus disagrees with you here...

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Why do you feel Jesus wants you to follow only the moral laws, and exclude/ignore the ceremonial ones?

That only applied to that specific person he had a problem with clinging to his possessions they had become an idol. But we can learn the proper attitude toward possessions from the story, they should never be your number one concern. But of course, it would not apply to someone with a family for the reasons stated above.

Again, you are wrong. It does not apply to one person. It applies to professed would-be followers, like you ;) Furthermore, maybe the fact that you care not to get rid of your possessions demonstrates to Jesus that you idolize your stuff. In good faith, maybe He wants for you to give them away? And if you do not, maybe your talk is cheap?

"25 Many people followed Jesus. Then He turned around and said to them, 26 “If any man comes to Me and does not have much more love for Me than for his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be My follower. 27 If he does not carry his cross and follow Me, he cannot be My follower.



28 “If one of you wanted to build a large building, you would sit down first and think of how much money it would take to build it. You would see if you had enough money to finish it, 29 or when the base of the building is finished, you might see that you do not have enough money to finish it. Then all who would see it would make fun of you. 30 They would say, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’

31 “What if a king is going to war with another king? Will he not sit down first and decide if he is able to go with 10,000 men against the other king who is coming with 20,000 men? 32 Or, he will send a soldier to the other king while he is still a long way off. He will ask what can be done to have peace. 33 In the same way, whoever does not give up all that he has, cannot be My follower."

I ask you again now...

Have you given away your possessions to demonstrate your faith, and as a follower?


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Please do me a favor, and at least try? Your answer appears uncritical and sloppy :( Please read your own provided answer from my perspective...

Example: Say you were to ask me.... 'Why does your god like to torture and murder young girls?" And I respond....


(Your provided answer) "We don't always know, but we see in examples that He always ultimately brings good out of evil and suffering for believers and their children. We will find out someday."

Would you accept the above answer as sufficient? I doubt it. You would instead see how this answer can be placed to virtually any assertion about any asserted deity.

So please, try again...


(i.e.) What would be the 'good' in allowing Christian children to starve to death, be raped/tortured/murdered, or to die of cancer or some other painful disease/virus - (like Covid 19)?
If there was evidence that the god you believed in did those things then yes I would accept it. But there is no evidence that any other god can bring good out of evil, but there is evidence the Christian God can. First of all death itself is required for all humans since we are all sinners or have sinful natures, including children. Why particular children die more painful deaths than others we dont usually know. Such bad events are always a possibility in a free will, primarily natural law universe like ours which God purposely created with those characteristics in order to eventually destroy evil forever. And not having an answer is actually evidence that the Christian God is not made up by humans. Man made gods have an answer for everything. Christians dont have an answer for everything because our God is the actual God whose actions are often inscrutable because He is in some ways but not all the Supreme Other. But He tells us that most of our questions will be answered in the next life. But in the afterlife if children die before the age of accountability they are welcomed into heaven after their death because they have generally not intentionally sinned as all humans who have reached the age of accountability have.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
As I stated earlier every person and situation is unique. He uses different methods for different people and different situations.

cw: Why does he need to use pain and suffering then if he has a choice?

Spiritual problems are similar to medical problems. The treatment is specific to the disease, e.g. penicillin does not help cancer.

ed: Yes, He uses many ways, like convincing evidence to name one.

cw: Each person is either convinced or not by the evidence. What may be convincing to you may not be to me.
True it is similar to the situation above, everyone is different.

ed: He has used bus drivers who put the brakes on just in time and mothers with intuition about a baby sitter or family member or teacher or priest among others.

cw: How do you know this? Can it be demonstrated?
We know it from His communication to us and His followers have made claims about what has happened in those situations. Depends on what you call a demonstration, if you are referring to a scientific demonstration then no. Just like you cant demonstrate scientifically that you love your wife.

ed: A Christian living in a Muslim or Communist nation would be much more likely to suffer than a Christian living in the US.

cw: That has nothing to do with christian principles. Everyone in the US can practice their religion without persecution becasue of our constitution. It was christian principles in the US that were trying to limit gay's rights.
The right to practice your religion without persecution is a Christian principle. What gay rights? There is no right to engage in immoral behavior.

ed: True, but I was primarily referring to suffering caused by society. But generally Christians by following Gods laws many sources of suffering can be reduced or even eliminated. See my earlier post to doubtingmerle where I explain in more detail.

cw: Like what? What suffering can christian principles reduce than humanism cannot?
Humanism allows you to engage in promiscuous and risky sex, thereby increasing your chances of contracting STDs and destroying your marriage, Christianity does not. Humanism says nothing about eating healthy and taking care of your body, thereby increasing your chances to have other health problems, Christianity does. Christian principles can reduce the suffering and death of unborn humans, humanism cannot. Humanism didn't end slavery, Christianity did. I could name many other examples.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
And that is a problem. You say God does not want the man in the OP to suffer. If the man is suffering, and God does not want him to suffer, one would expect God to stop it.
Not if by allowing him to suffer produces a greater good. It is similar to a man with a backpack containing a hair trigger nuclear bomb raping a woman in downtown NY. The police would have to let the man rape the woman in order to save thousands or millions of lives if the bomb went off during the struggle to stop the rape.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
cv: As a preface, let's not forget why I am responding to you here... Via, your assertion in post #82:

"If you live in a society based on Christian principles you are less likely to suffer."

Please reference the basic definition of 'suffer': "to submit to or be forced to endure"

I disagree, and will continue to demonstrate... I will start with the topic of slavery and the topic of men > women. Okay, now back to it...

Ed1wolf said:
No, there is no trickery. An Hebrew educated in the law and almost all Hebrew men were, would know about this law.

cv: Most men were not educated, let alone in Hebrew law. Most were also illiterate. Furthermore, the ones which were educated likely were not the ones being on the 'slavery' end of the deal ;)

No, ALL Hebrew men were commanded by God to learn the law, write it down, and memorize it (Deuteronomy 11:18-21). During the periods when they were obeying God, the ancient Hebrews were probably the most literate nation on earth at the time. And the ones that could not read were read to every Sabbath by the priests.


Ed1wolf said:
Some men would abandon their wife and kids, many men today do.

cv: Basic common sense would indicate that such a law would trap the slave, and 'convince' more to stay, verses to leave - (by way of deciding to abandon their family).
No, there was no deception or trapping, see above.


Ed1wolf said:
And no, the stake would not be permanent, in the year of Jubilee ALL slaves were freed. But yes, under the Old covenant women did not have all the rights they have under the New, Christ raised women up higher. This law was to help the master not lose too much of his workforce at one time. Also, it would help keep families together.

cv: Did you not read the verse I provided???

"Then he will be his servant for life."
That was only stated because the year of Jubilee only occurred every 50 years which would be life for many.

cv: Furthermore, you had made another assertion that slavery was merely either voluntary, or for prisoners. Well, I also provided Verse to demonstrate that this is also NOT the case.

4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.


Are you going to address this?
I did address it, first this only applied to women in slavery not all women. And second under the New covenant they would be allowed to go free because the husband and wife are one flesh, a unity, and cannot be separated under the New Covenant.

Ed1wolf said:
This is like an apprenticeship for being a wife with no sex of course. Marriage was much more important in ancient times than today because there was no police force or welfare system it was needed for security for women. Yes, men had much more authority under the Old covenant especially a father over his daughter as I say above. Christ changed things under the New.

cv: The provided Verse was another example to demonstrate that such actions were not voluntary. The women had no say in the matter. And furthermore, that the woman was not to be freed, like some men might be. Please revisit the Verses:

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
I did not deny these things under the Old Covenant, but this applied only for underage women in their fathers household. I do not deny that Fathers have almost total control of their minor daughters. Not when they became adults, as Genesis 1:27 teaches an adult woman was spiritually equal to men, both are created in the image of the Creator and King of the universe.

Ed1wolf said:
No, He doesn't hate them, but they are not part of His ideal church government, though they can be deaconesses. Actually, in the story of Adam and Eve the man comes across even worse than the woman, Paul is saying woman was deceived by Satan who is a super genius, but Adam was deceived by his wife.

cv: Why
then is it NOT 'ideal' for a woman to be a head pastor, minister, or priest?
We dont know exactly though science has proven that men and women are mentally different, part of the reason could be those differences.

cv: In conclusion, here is the take-away....

No. If societies were to continue to follow Christian values, such societies would suffer greater.

Case/point - slavery. Under Biblical law, it is allowed forever, with additional allowances for beating.

No, in most cases it is voluntary and not forever. As I demonstrated above. And beating was only allowed for acts deemed serious enough to justified by the judges.

cv: Case/point - women are considered less than men.
No, that was only under the OT law not NT law. And even under the Old covenant only in the case of women that were married to voluntary slaves. All the other laws about slavery being voluntary and temporary applied to all other women except young daughters with the permission of her father.

cv: Under civil law, slavery has been completely abolished.

Yes, by Christians utilizing the principles I stated above.

cv: Under civil law, women are not oppressed.
Yes, based on the Christian principle that all humans are equally created in the image of God.

cv: Thus, if we were to continue in Biblical law, the 'suffrage' would likely be higher, by definition

No, because as I explained to doubtingmerle, there would be less STDs, people would be heathier, children would be healthier because families would stay together longer because of lower divorce rates, and etc. In addition, as a side note there would be a rational basis for human rights unlike secular humanism.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
62
California
✟129,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
If there was evidence that the god you believed in did those things then yes I would accept it.

If your God does exist, He is watching all, already knows all, and cares not to stop or intervene in all. Agreed?

But there is no evidence that any other god can bring good out of evil, but there is evidence the Christian God can. First of all death itself is required for all humans since we are all sinners or have sinful natures, including children. Why particular children die more painful deaths than others we dont usually know.

If YHWH exists, I would agree with your assertion(s), as given. However... See below...

Such bad events are always a possibility in a free will, primarily natural law universe like ours which God purposely created with those characteristics in order to eventually destroy evil forever.

HOW does 'free will' apply here???? This makes no sense sir. A child does not have 'free will' to receive a disease/virus. A child does not have 'free will' to be the victim of rape/torture/murder. The child does not have 'free will' to decide to starve. The 'free will' would only apply to the other end - the virus/disease, the child's attacker, or the child's environment, in such scenarios. The 'victim' lacks the 'free will' in such cases.

Furthermore, if God is eventually going to destroy evil forever, as you assert, what lesson in theodicy would a 3-year-old child learn, prior to his/her death?


And not having an answer is actually evidence that the Christian God is not made up by humans.

I beg to differ. You appear to be making them up, as I read them. I have yet to figure out if you actually believe what you are saying here, or are just invoking typical apologetics ticks? And by apologetics, I mean, you are going to defend your client/god, no-matter-what; like a fancy defense lawyer :)

Man made gods have an answer for everything.

Then I guess that settles it. Christian apologists have answers for every 'problem'; including the 'problem of evil.' I guess that means Christianity is also 'man made'?

Christians dont have an answer for everything because our God is the actual God whose actions are often inscrutable because He is in some ways but not all the Supreme Other.

Just because you do not feel like you may not have an answer to a particular question, does not mean the Christian next to you also does not ;) Please do an internet search for 'the problem of evil'.

But He tells us that most of our questions will be answered in the next life.

How convenient ;) That doesn't sound 'man made' or anything at all....

But in the afterlife if children die before the age of accountability they are welcomed into heaven after their death because they have generally not intentionally sinned as all humans who have reached the age of accountability have.

Great, then the most altruistic thing to do, would be to abort all pregnancies. This way, your would-be child is guaranteed the likes of heaven. This would be 'true love'.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
62
California
✟129,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
You claim that the Christian life-style will yield less suffering. Okay, now we proceed even further...

No, ALL Hebrew men were commanded by God to learn the law, write it down, and memorize it (Deuteronomy 11:18-21). During the periods when they were obeying God, the ancient Hebrews were probably the most literate nation on earth at the time. And the ones that could not read were read to every Sabbath by the priests.

Then your provided verse is demonstrably false. Most were illiterate. Many could not write anything down. As I stated prior, the slaves were the uneducated ones. Hence, many were likely led to 'suffer', via to slavery - by way of trickery, followed by beating, etc... All condoned from the Bible.


No, there was no deception or trapping, see above.

Yes there was, see above. Also see Leviticus 25.

That was only stated because the year of Jubilee only occurred every 50 years which would be life for many.

You are now tripping all over yourself. In the prior response, you stated "no, the stake would not be permanent, in the year of Jubilee ALL slaves were freed." If we knew most did not live that long, then it might as well be life. It would be like sentencing a modern day 70-year-old to 30 years in prison. Hence, the jubilee thingy need not be mentioned, right?

Furthermore, there exists other verse, which states to keep slaves for life. It also distinguishes between Israelites and non-Israelites:

‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

I did address it, first this only applied to women in slavery not all women. And second under the New covenant they would be allowed to go free because the husband and wife are one flesh, a unity, and cannot be separated under the New Covenant.


No you did not. You stated that slavery was reserved for prisoners and/or indentured servants. I have shown this is not the case. You refuse to acknowledge this 'fact.' You are be-bopp'n and skit-skat'n all around it :)

- Provided wives are slaves forever.
- The slave's children are to remain with the slave master forever.
- We also see that Leviticus 25 demonstrates that if the 'slaves comes from around you', you can keep them for life.


I did not deny these things under the Old Covenant, but this applied only for underage women in their fathers household. I do not deny that Fathers have almost total control of their minor daughters. Not when they became adults, as Genesis 1:27 teaches an adult woman was spiritually equal to men, both are created in the image of the Creator and King of the universe.

Did Jesus abolish slavery in the NT? The answer is no. Now merely compare this to the 13th amendment. This alone demonstrates that continuing to live under Christian values would cause one to likely 'suffer' more. We have instead moved away from such allowances.

Furthermore, Jesus did not really say much of anything to recant the prior assertions of the OT, specifically regarding slavery. And please remember, the law was different between a free person, verses a slave.

And no, men and women are never equal. Not even 'now' in the NT. Please reference 1 Timothy 2:11-15 again. There appears no valid reason for a women not to be allowed as a head pastor, priest, minister, etc... See below...


We dont know exactly though science has proven that men and women are mentally different, part of the reason could be those differences.

The Bible gives it's reason:

"Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

Seems bazaar that an all powerful God would resort to such reason, doesn't it? And I doubt it has anything to do with our later findings in science. And furthermore, if you admit science can get us somewhere, then you must then also acknowledge that both men and women can lead equally as well. ;)

No, in most cases it is voluntary and not forever. As I demonstrated above. And beating was only allowed for acts deemed serious enough to justified by the judges.

You are again just flat wrong.


20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Please show me where it states the specific parameters and circumstances for which you are, and are not allowed, to beat your slaves? Again, remember, the free and the slaves did not reside under the exact same laws. Slaves were PROPERTY. Heck, even the Israelite slaves had differing rules applied towards them, verses the rest of the slaves.

Yes, by Christians utilizing the principles I stated above.

The Bible makes absolutely no effort to abolish slavery. Countries did that on their own. Hence, under Christian values, more might still 'suffer'.


Yes, based on the Christian principle that all humans are equally created in the image of God.

If that were the case, special rules would not be created for specific genders. See above...

No, because as I explained to doubtingmerle, there would be less STDs, people would be heathier, children would be healthier because families would stay together longer because of lower divorce rates, and etc. In addition, as a side note there would be a rational basis for human rights unlike secular humanism.

None of this is true. Even Christianity recognizes that humans are sinners. Spouses would still cheat, leading to STD's. Christians still have premarital sex, leading to STD's. Staying in a 'bad' marriage is not healthy. Staying in a loveless marriage is not healthy. It also sets a poor example for your kids.

And please do not get me stated upon the 'moral argument'. Common sense suggests 'morals' are actually grounded by homeostasis (Maslow's hierarchy), consequentialism, cooperation, game theory, empathy, evolution (tribalism), reciprocal altruism, humans being extremely altricial, and elders teaching the younger ones how to co-exist in society, which all keeps the anarchy at bay.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,502
2,254
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟395,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Not if by allowing him to suffer produces a greater good. It is similar to a man with a backpack containing a hair trigger nuclear bomb raping a woman in downtown NY. The police would have to let the man rape the woman in order to save thousands or millions of lives if the bomb went off during the struggle to stop the rape.
Wait, now your God wants people to suffer because it does a greater good? You keep going back and forth on this. God does not want suffering. But he wants it because it does a greater good. But he does not want it. But he wants it. But he does not want it. But he...

Arguing with you is like trying to nail jello to a wall. Would you pick a position , please, and stick with it?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,502
2,254
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟395,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
If Christianity is true, then God has made eternal life possible, both for those with Covid-19 and for everyone else, since we will all die one day.

I suppose I could try to be clever and say, if Christianity is true, you, as a woman, would not be allowed to teach me as a man. But you would, no doubt, say that was other people's view of Christianity. Your view allows
you to teach.

But anyway, I disagree with the logic that since Christianity teaches X, therefore X is true. After all, Christianity teaches that the whole earth was flooded, that women must be silent in the church, etc.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BigV

Junior Member
Dec 27, 2007
1,093
267
46
USA, IL
✟34,304.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Instead of playing Where's Waldo, let's play Where's God. In the picture below, where's God?

Christianity has evolved to hold contradictory ideas. There are Christians who believe in Young Earth Creationism and also those who accept the theory of Evolution, without any caveats. Some Christians believe God is at work today, including performing miraculous works, while others believe the era of miracles is over and Christians should not expect God to answer in a supernatural way.

The spectrum is amazing. But what unites all of these Christians is a desire to convert Atheists and non-Christians to their faith. They are typically not phased by questions such as "where is God". They don't really care since their worldview fits within naturalism.

If an unexplained healing take place? Well, there is a clear proof of God then.
if a patient dies, despite all of the prayers for a healing, well, humans can't explain the mind of God.
 
Upvote 0

BigV

Junior Member
Dec 27, 2007
1,093
267
46
USA, IL
✟34,304.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But as the Bible teaches, God generally operates according to natural law not supernaturally intervening.

I disagree with your take on the Bible. The Bible teaches that if you have faith, nothing will be impossible to you.

Matthew 17:20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

Matthew 21:21 Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”

These are just some examples. I think what you meant to say, is that the Bible is "interpreted" as teaching that God generally operates according to natural law.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Again, please remember we are working from your statement, via post #82:

"If you live in a society based on Christian principles you are less likely to suffer."

Please also recall the basic definition of 'suffer": 'to submit to or be forced to endure'



Sure, the Bible does allow for <some> exceptions. But please now allow me to elaborate a bit...

Humans killing other humans is also not allowed. (i.e.) Killing is against the law or illegal - (Biblical or civil). However, exceptions are to be made, if proven or demonstrated.

Actually not all killing is illegal, only murder is illegal. Killing in a justified war and in self defense is not illegal. Also, capital punishment for murder is legal under God's law.

cv: Should divorce fall under the same category? Should divorce be considered illegal, and only granted IF in the event of adultery or 'abandonment'?
Yes, generally. 75 years ago most of America's marriage laws matched biblical law pretty well.


cv: How is the reader able to determine which of these Verses are merely 'hyperbole'? Let's explore the entire verse, (in context), shall we?

A ordinary first time reader may not be able to determine that, but we know from studying history that that is how ancient jewish rabbis taught at the time. You should always take the historical context into consideration when interpreting the bible.

cv: Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Looks like it goes a little further, than merely not to 'retaliate', or an 'attitude'. I ask you again, with elaboration...

If someone slaps [you], do [you] give them the other cheek to slap? Or do you, as said in the video, instead attempt to redefine or ignore the Verses for which you know you are not going to follow, or do not like?

If you are to use your own common sense, in knowing which verses are to be translated in 'hyperbole'/other, then why do we need the Bible for our morals to begin with..?
In some cases it may be appropriate to literally turn the other cheek, but generally Christ is talking about attitude in these verses, an attitude of non retaliation and an attitude of generosity. These verses must be understood in the historical context that I mentioned above and also in the context of the whole bible. Christ also said we are to be as crafty as a serpent and as gentle as a dove. IOW we are to be generous but not to the point where we are taken advantage of. If we followed the verses literally all the time we would be taken advantage of. And especially if we had a family, we would hurt our family and the bible plainly teaches that if you dont take care of your family you are worse than an unbeliever.

*******BTW, whenever you quote the bible please provide the name of the Book and the Chapter. I dont have the whole bible memorized and so I need to go back and read the entire context of the verses you quote in order to properly interpret them.******Just quoting the verses I have no idea where they are in context.

cv: Please see above.

Furthermore, accordingly to Christianity, there is NOTHING 'worse' than an unbeliever. The act of unbelief merits eternal damnation, according to Jesus, in places. Virtually everything else can be forgiven. Which would then warrant or result in the possibility of heaven.
Yes, this is another case of rabbinic hyperbole to emphasize how important it is to take care of your family. Not taking care of your family can result in eternal damnation too if you dont repent of it.



cv; I would dare to say you are not 'like Christ' :) And when we explore all these topics, as given, it will become more apparent in this reality.

I now assert the opposite. I doubt you set back and rejoice, when someone slanders your character.
Of course, Christians are to strive to be like Christ, though since we are still sinners we often fail. Actually I have had my character slandered, and did thank God that I was worthy to suffer for my faith.
In fact, I have had my character slandered on this website! ;-)
cv: Jesus disagrees with you here...
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Why do you feel Jesus wants you to follow only the moral laws, and exclude/ignore the ceremonial ones?
He is referring to the ceremonial laws in this quote. Christ fulfilled the ceremonial laws and they ended with His death and resurrection. But the moral laws are still in effect this is seen in the writings of Paul and John.


cv: Again, you are wrong. It does not apply to one person. It applies to professed would-be followers, like you ;) Furthermore, maybe the fact that you care not to get rid of your possessions demonstrates to Jesus that you idolize your stuff. In good faith, maybe He wants for you to give them away? And if you do not, maybe your talk is cheap?

No, it is obvious that it does not literally apply to every believer, because it would violate His other teachings that I mentioned above about taking care of your family. If you gave away all your possessions your family would die homeless and starving. The ATTITUDE toward your possessions DOEs apply to all believers.

cv: "25 Many people followed Jesus. Then He turned around and said to them, 26 “If any man comes to Me and does not have much more love for Me than for his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be My follower. 27 If he does not carry his cross and follow Me, he cannot be My follower.
28 “If one of you wanted to build a large building, you would sit down first and think of how much money it would take to build it. You would see if you had enough money to finish it, 29 or when the base of the building is finished, you might see that you do not have enough money to finish it. Then all who would see it would make fun of you. 30 They would say, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’

31 “What if a king is going to war with another king? Will he not sit down first and decide if he is able to go with 10,000 men against the other king who is coming with 20,000 men? 32 Or, he will send a soldier to the other king while he is still a long way off. He will ask what can be done to have peace. 33 In the same way, whoever does not give up all that he has, cannot be My follower."

I ask you again now...

Have you given away your possessions to demonstrate your faith, and as a follower?

No, verse 33 is rabbinic hyperbole, taking these literally would violate His other teachings such as not to hate and taking care of your family. The key teaching in most of this is attitude. Christ is your top priority but that does not mean you neglect your family. In fact, if you did not take care of your family it would be evidence that you do not have Christ as your top priority because you are disobeying Him!
But you should not let your family dominate everything you do and not put them on a pedestal. This is results in spoiling your kids, which is not good for them.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.