Where's God?

Ed1wolf · Jul 23, 2020

cvanwey said:
↑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: I already acknowledged the exceptions for 'killing.'

ok

↑

ed: Yes, generally. 75 years ago most of America's marriage laws matched biblical law pretty well.

cv: A loveless marriage (and/or) later found incompatibility 15 years later should render an illegal separation? What about an arranged marriage? Is the wife not allowed to leave, as long as the man provides core services?

While separation should be discouraged and they should be encouraged to get counseling. Separation would not be illegal.

ed: 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: Wouldn't Jesus know that future generations would read the same Bible. Shouldn't God's word be universal and unchanging? Furthermore, does God have the ability to provide clarity. It's safe to say many Christians do not re-read their Bible again and again. Seems as though God would want to be crystal clear, as to not turn away would-be prospects from the faith.

The essentials of salvation are crystal clear. But some other doctrines He has revealed progressively over time with research, why? We dont know exactly. Though part of the reason is probably that He wants us to study and learn and use the large brains He has given us.

↑

ed: 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.
I'll ask again...

cv: 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..?

Of course, some simple moral issues you may be able use your own moral conscience, since God put it in you. But you have to remember that because of our sinful nature, our moral conscience has been damaged and therefore can not be fully trusted. So you need to make sure your moral decisions match with God's moral teachings and laws.

↑

ed: 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: You are a little off here. Yes, repent is required. But all sin is BAD to God. Hence, the reason salvation comes by belief/faith/repent, not works - (according to main stream beliefs anyways).... The absolute worse sin begins with unbelief. Virtually everything else can be forgiven.

This basically renders 'morals' superfluous, as belief is an amoral construct. Which is yet another piece in the 'web of confusion' puzzle.

Works and actions are evidence to you and others that you have true faith. In addition, your deeds determine what level of heaven and hell you will be in. Belief is not an amoral construct, because deep down all humans know that the Christian God is the true God, but they choose to deny and repress that knowledge, ie lie to themselves and others about their true knowledge and beliefs.

ed: 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: I find it 'interesting' that some Christians seem to think that the more they act as a martyr for their faith, the more they think are demonstrating their faith.

Not being intimidated into silence and fear by slander does demonstrate your faith.

ed: 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: No. He is not.

Don't get me wrong, I was actually on your side here, when I was a Christian. I thought the same thing. However, please demonstrate where He is specifying that, not only was He not speaking about ceremonial laws exclusively, but that He also did not mean what He said, when He stated "until everything is accomplished.'

Everything is not accomplished, and Heaven is forever. See below...

We know from the context that He is referring to the ceremonial law. What was to be accomplished was the atonement and He accomplished it.

cv: From Matthew 5

"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

From the use of the term righteousness and the context of the verses both before and after this passage, we know He is referring to the moral law.

ed: 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: That's a contradiction YOU have to reconcile, not me. Please re-read the Verses in context. How do YOU know the Verses mentioned do not apply to YOU? Maybe the fact that you do not give away all, means your faith is weak. He also says in places, you must love God above all else.

You are right that theoretically it could apply to you, maybe if you are single. But that is the purpose of the Holy Spirit. He will reveal to you what you need to do.

cv: There, I just solved your contradiction. The Verses I mentioned are more important than the ones which state to take care of your family

No, there is no contradiction to be solved.

ed: 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.

cv: Please see directly above. And also again:

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..?

See above about how our common sense and moral conscience has been damaged and corrupted.

cvanwey · Jul 24, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
Belief is not an amoral construct, because deep down all humans know that the Christian God is the true God, but they choose to deny and repress that knowledge, ie lie to themselves and others about their true knowledge and beliefs.

I have pretty much written you off now. You are calling me, and every skeptic, agnostic, atheist, other, a liar.

Nothing of reason would ever waiver you in your 'faith', no matter what. I would just be wasting my time to continue further.

Have a great rest of your life ...

Ed1wolf · Jul 24, 2020

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

cw: So you are saying that there are things god wants to use to grow us that must involve pain and suffering?

Yes.

ed: 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.

cw: I am not asking for absolute proof, I am asking for sufficient evidence. Claims are not evidence. There is sufficient evidence to show that I love my wife, at least she thinks so.

The people that make these claims believe there is evidence for their claim just like your wife's claim that you love her.

cw: The right to practice your religion without persecution is a Christian principle. What gay rights? There is no right to engage in immoral behavior.

cw: You have the right in the US to practice your religion. You don't have the right to use it to limit others rights. And yes, in the US we have the right to act immorally as long as it does not affect others rights.

No, most businesses will not hire an unrepentant alcoholic and that is not against the law, so yes you can refuse to hire someone based on their immoral behavior. There is no right to have a job.

cw: Why do you think you should limit a persons right to marriage because of your morality?

There is no right to marry even for heterosexuals. It is privilege that is earned through convincing your boyfriend or girlfriend to marry you. If it was a right, the government would have to provide you with a spouse even if you are loser nerd or someone that no one is attracted to.

cw: What about gay marriage infringes on your rights?

Gay marriage is an inherent contradiction, like a married bachelor. Of course, they are free to pretend that it exists and make a commitment to each other, but the government should not recognize it because no such thing exists, and scientific studies have shown that engaging in homosexual behavior is not good for you. So it should be discouraged by the government like it discourages smoking and heavy drinking.

ed: Humanism allows you to engage in promiscuous and risky sex, thereby increasing your chances of contracting STDs and destroying your marriage, Christianity does not.

cw: It actually doesn't, but it seems you have not studied humanism.

What is its rationale for not engaging in promiscuous sex? At one time many humanists in the late 60s and 70's believed it was sexual repression to not do so.

ed: Humanism says nothing about eating healthy and taking care of your body, thereby increasing your chances to have other health problems, Christianity does.

cw: Humanists talk about proper healthy diet and actually use the science to promote good health, they promote basic health care for all, Christianity does not.

Ok I will give you that one, most humanists probably would agree to that. But Christianity does also, we are commanded to treat our bodies as God's temple.

ed: Christian principles can reduce the suffering and death of unborn humans, humanism cannot.

cw: Untrue. There are many pro-life humanists like myself.

But there is no actual objective principle in humanism that states that you should protect the unborn.

ed: Humanism didn't end slavery, Christianity did. I could name many other examples.

cw: Christianity promoted slavery humanism did not.
not.

But only Christians that violated the objective Christian principles against slavery, humanism has no such principles. They subjectively feel that slavery is bad but they have no objective principles against it. The Christians that followed the actual teachings of Christianity ended it.

Clizby WampusCat · Jul 24, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
Yes.

Your god does not sound to powerful then.

The people that make these claims believe there is evidence for their claim just like your wife's claim that you love her.

Sure, so do people that believe in Allah or big foot. I have evidence that my wife loves me, I have insufficient evidence that your god exits.

No, most businesses will not hire an unrepentant alcoholic and that is not against the law, so yes you can refuse to hire someone based on their immoral behavior. There is no right to have a job.

An alcoholic cannot fulfill his duties in most jobs. I cannot think of a job a gay person could not do becasue they are gay. There are laws in most states against discriminating against gays. I know of none that protect alcoholics. You cannot refuse to hire a gay person becasue they are gay in most areas. Equating alcoholic behavior to being gay is immoral.

There is no right to marry even for heterosexuals. It is privilege that is earned through convincing your boyfriend or girlfriend to marry you. If it was a right, the government would have to provide you with a spouse even if you are loser nerd or someone that no one is attracted to.

This is a ridiculous take. That would mean that the government would need to supply everyone with a gun. That is just stupid. The supreme court said that no state can discriminate against gay people to get married if they allow heterosexual marriage.

Gay marriage is an inherent contradiction, like a married bachelor. Of course, they are free to pretend that it exists and make a commitment to each other, but the government should not recognize it because no such thing exists, and scientific studies have shown that engaging in homosexual behavior is not good for you. So it should be discouraged by the government like it discourages smoking and heavy drinking.

The government gets to decide what marriage is. Not you. What studies show gay marriage as bad. The divorce rate for gay couples is half of that for christian marriages.

What is its rationale for not engaging in promiscuous sex? At one time many humanists in the late 60s and 70's believed it was sexual repression to not do so.

So what? I was not a humanist in the 60's or 70's, ask them.

But there is no actual objective principle in humanism that states that you should protect the unborn.

Humanists are not all the same. Just like there is not one christian doctrine but as many as there are different Christians. I believe as a humanist the principle of well being for all should lead us to protect the unborn. Other humanists do not. Just like pro choice Christians.

But only Christians that violated the objective Christian principles against slavery, humanism has no such principles. They subjectively feel that slavery is bad but they have no objective principles against it. The Christians that followed the actual teachings of Christianity ended it.

Humanism does have principles against owning other people. Read a book by humanists and not religious propaganda. The bible has no such prohibition, it actually states explicitly that at one time to go out and take slaves from the other nations and pass them down as inheritances, calls them property. The NT says to obey your slave masters as a slave. Christians that advocated for abolition of slavery did it becasue they knew it was wrong, not that the bible told them that it was wrong. Because it does not.

Ed1wolf · Jul 24, 2020

BigV said:
Murder was also legal under God's law.

Exodus 32:27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’”
Seems pretty random to me.

No, this was not murder, they had worshipped a false god, which was a capital crime under the old hebrew theocracy.

bv: Numbers 31: 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

So, killing kids, women and men is not a problem for God. Seems like you are splitting hairs with "illegal" murders.

The ancient hebrews were Gods hand of capital judgement on the surrounding nations, Midian's time had come. Every human deserves to die at birth because of our sin, so actually He was merciful to let them live as long as they did. So it was not murder.

Ed1wolf · Jul 24, 2020

doubtingmerle said:
Now you run to the other side of the ring?

OK, your God does not want the man in the OP to suffer. Even if suffering brings a greater good, God does not want that man to suffer. He could have wanted the man to suffer and experience that greater good, but you have said God does not want that man to suffer. He does not want the "greater good" that would come through suffering. He wants the suffering to stop.

If God does not want the man to suffer, why does he not stop it?

(I am guessing you will run back to the first side of the ring, yes?)

No, spiritual problems are like medical problems, certain treatment is needed even very unpleasant treatment for certain spiritual lessons. The doctor does not want you to go thru all the suffering of chemo but he knows you have to to kill the cancer. So it is with God teaching us, sometimes He has to let us go thru suffering to accomplish your growth. God knows what is good for us better than we know ourselves.

InterestedAtheist · Jul 25, 2020

I hope you and @Clizby WampusCat won't mind if I add some thoughts.

Ed1wolf said:
There is no right to marry even for heterosexuals. It is privilege that is earned through convincing your boyfriend or girlfriend to marry you. If it was a right, the government would have to provide you with a spouse even if you are loser nerd or someone that no one is attracted to.

Okay. For the sake of argument, let's accept that, and follow where your logic leads. Two people have no "right" to marry. But once two people have "earned the privilege" of marrying by deciding together that they would like to, why should it matter whether they are a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman?

Ed1wolf said:
Gay marriage is an inherent contradiction, like a married bachelor.

Why?

Ed1wolf said:
But only Christians that violated the objective Christian principles against slavery, humanism has no such principles. They subjectively feel that slavery is bad but they have no objective principles against it. The Christians that followed the actual teachings of Christianity ended it.

First, humanists value human liberty and freedom, which means that they are opposed to slavery.
Second, the Christian religion is entirely pro-slavery. If Christians in modern times decide they against slavery, then good for them, but they are in opposition to God and Jesus, as the Bible clearly shows.

cvanwey · Jul 25, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
I hope you and @Clizby WampusCat won't mind if I add some thoughts.

Okay. For the sake of argument, let's accept that, and follow where your logic leads. Two people have no "right" to marry. But once two people have "earned the privilege" of marrying by deciding together that they would like to, why should it matter whether they are a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman?

Why?

First, humanists value human liberty and freedom, which means that they are opposed to slavery.
Second, the Christian religion is entirely pro-slavery. If Christians in modern times decide they against slavery, then good for them, but they are in opposition to God and Jesus, as the Bible clearly shows.

@InterestedAtheist @Clizby WampusCat Please do not waste your time with this person. Please look at post #142. He is not operating in earnest. He views us as 'sinners', whom are here to merely "live in sin, by denying what we know is real, deep down."

Any responses given or provided, no matter how much evidence/other is given, will fall upon deaf ears.

doubtingmerle · Jul 25, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
No, spiritual problems are like medical problems, certain treatment is needed even very unpleasant treatment for certain spiritual lessons. The doctor does not want you to go thru all the suffering of chemo but he knows you have to to kill the cancer. So it is with God teaching us, sometimes He has to let us go thru suffering to accomplish your growth. God knows what is good for us better than we know ourselves.

Doctors have limits. Sometimes they cannot treat cancer without causing pain. Doctor and patient agree that the pain is a necessary evil to reach the cure.

But your God could supposedly cure without the pain. But he does not.

BigV · Jul 25, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
No, this was not murder, they had worshipped a false god, which was a capital crime under the old hebrew theocracy.

But Aaron, who made the calf, was NOT killed. Also, the killing was totally random! Each their brother and neighbor. They were told to kill.

Imagine being one of the Levites with a sword. How would they chose whom to kill when the instruction is "kill each his friend, brother, neighbor"? And this is the Lord's command!

InterestedAtheist · Jul 25, 2020

cvanwey said:
@InterestedAtheist @Clizby WampusCat Please do not waste your time with this person. Please look at post #142. He is not operating in earnest. He views us as 'sinners', whom are here to merely "live in sin, by denying what we know is real, deep down."

Any responses given or provided, no matter how much evidence/other is given, will fall upon deaf ears.

You're probably right. Hello again, by the way! Sorry I've been away for a while.

cvanwey · Jul 25, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
You're probably right. Hello again, by the way! Sorry I've been away for a while.

Hello to you too. I hope all is well.

InterestedAtheist · Jul 25, 2020

cvanwey said:
Hello to you too. I hope all is well.

Fine thanks! I got banned for a while, I'm afraid, and then I was busy with other things. Not sure how long I'll be visiting here for, but good to see you!

2PhiloVoid · Jul 25, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
Fine thanks! I got banned for a while, I'm afraid, and then I was busy with other things. Not sure how long I'll be visiting here for, but good to see you!

Why'd you get banned? And here I thought you disappeared because you were overly busy in China dealing with all of the viral problems going around.

InterestedAtheist · Jul 25, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
Why'd you get banned? And here I thought you disappeared because you were overly busy in China dealing with all of the viral problems going around.

I'm afraid I got banned because, in the course of a debate, I became critical of God, as shown in the Bible. I shall have to tread more carefully.
By the way, I hope that you and yours are safe and well in this difficult time.

cvanwey · Jul 25, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
Fine thanks! I got banned for a while, I'm afraid, and then I was busy with other things. Not sure how long I'll be visiting here for, but good to see you!

Glad to have you back. Yea, some around here need to develop some thicker skin. We are all adults.

Ed1wolf · Jul 25, 2020

cvanwey said:
ed:True, sometimes He intervenes sometimes He does not, but there is always a good reason for everything He does. It is not arbitrary.

cv: If He does not give His reason(s), then you do not know whether or not His reasons are arbitrary. You are merely making an assumption, or applying a hope.

He does give some of His reasons for some things. We know many of the reasons for things He has done in the past. We also learn that what He does are not arbitrary by our experience with Him.
↑

ed: Of course, I am referring to the free will of the evil doer. And the disease operates according to natural law.

cv: Then freewill need not be mentioned, as it is completely irrelevant here.

It is not irrelevant, you referred to the torturing of children only evil people do that with their free will.

ed: We dont know, probably nothing. But they will learn when they enter into Paradise.

cv: I asked what is the necessity of a small child being tortured to death serve. And also, what lesson in theodicy might they learn?

I said we dont know.

cv: Your statement above is then false. Why? Because of your response above, compared to the one directly below. (i.e.) Please reference the statements in bold.

No, I explained how we know He is not arbitrary.

ed: "but there is always a good reason for everything He does. It is not arbitrary."

See above.

ed: No, everything I have said is either in the Bible or derived from biblical teaching. None of it is made up. Of course I believe it. I am not defending God, He doesnt need it, but He has commanded us to defend His truth and that is what I am doing.

cv: Another contradiction. You stated God does not give answers to everything. You are defending things for which He gives no pronouncement about. ---> The 'problem of evil....' You assert that He cannot be arbitrary, and then trip all over yourself. You also state we do not have all the answers.

We can deduce how to solve the problem of evil from His word. We dont have all the answers but I never said we didnt have the answer to the problem of evil.

↑

ed: No, because the child will get greater rewards for spiritual growth if they live a longer life and will help accomplish the ultimate goal of destroying evil forever sooner.

cv: You just tripped over yourself again. I asked, why not abort all pregnancies to assure your offspring end up in heaven? Compare your answer above, with the one you stated prior - given below.

"We dont know, probably nothing. But they will learn when they enter into Paradise."

A child can pass-go, directly to heaven, and get their learning in as they go, even according to you.

Thus, true altruism would be to abort all offspring to guarantee heavenly destination.

No, because it will lengthen the time for us to destroy evil forever plus we would be committing an evil act by committing murder. And the ends do not justify the means.

Ed1wolf · Jul 25, 2020

BigV said:
That's nothing then. Faith in me can move spiritual mountains also. Spiritual superpowers are actually nothing fancy. Moving a spiritual mountain is so easy, a caveman can do it.

Can you cast out demons? Can you convert some one from spiritually dead to spiritually alive? Can you help someone overcome serious addictive sins like obsessive gambling or homosexuality? BTW, Christ would not want us to literally move a mountain because it would destroy many ecosystems and habitats for the creatures that live on the mountain.

Ed1wolf · Jul 25, 2020

cvanwey said:
I have pretty much written you off now. You are calling me, and every skeptic, agnostic, atheist, other, a liar.

Nothing of reason would ever waiver you in your 'faith', no matter what. I would just be wasting my time to continue further.

Have a great rest of your life ...

No, not exactly because over time by repressing the truth, you and they eventually sincerely believe that they never believed in God. So at this stage in your life your non belief is probably sincere. You are right I will never waver in my faith I have already been an agnostic, I will not be an atheist or an agnostic again, there is too much evidence for God. I hate to see you stop I have enjoyed our discussions, but I understand.

InterestedAtheist · Jul 26, 2020

cvanwey said:
Glad to have you back. Yea, some around here need to develop some thicker skin. We are all adults.

Thanks very much! See you around, then.

Where's God?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Junior Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Critically Copernican

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency