501. Comment #72345 by Bonzai on September 20, 2007 at 7:23 pm

revcort wrote:

I'm certain there may be other explanations given, but just recently a lady in our church spoke about a tumor that had simply disappeared. It was there before, but when they did further testing, it was gone. Many had been praying for her.

But then how would you explain why she developed the tumor under God's watch in the first place?

It seems kind of odd that an omnipotent God would let things get out of hand and then intervenes to patch things up, so to speak. If no one prays for her would God just let her die like he watches so many others die in horrible conditions not of their own making? What kind of a God is that who would let people suffer just because he wants to hear them begging for personal favours?

Other Comments by Bonzai

502. Comment #72350 by steveroot on September 20, 2007 at 7:36 pm

495. Comment #72325 by revcort on September 20, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Well, you know, I guess it's possible, God once spoke through an ass (donkey). :D

28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?"

What the??!!?? God is a *VENTRILOQUIST* too? I'd better re-think this atheist shit.
Steve
Uh... don't suppose you have a recording of that? Tape, wire... wax cylinder?

Other Comments by steveroot

503. Comment #72352 by Goldy on September 20, 2007 at 7:40 pm

28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?"

Interesting. I used to watch something about a talking horse in my much younger days...Hopefully this works - can't get youtube on my babbage machine..
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5eOj0z3q-NY

Other Comments by Goldy

504. Comment #72356 by Hobbit on September 20, 2007 at 7:55 pm

phasmagigas,

on that note, can you accept (im doing a sam harris now!) that had you been born in Iran you would actually have been a fundamentalist muslim, just what would that mean for your soul being saved??

I have asked him a very similar question. He side stepped it and replied that by the grace of god he was born in the bible belt of the good ol' USA!

If he has to honestly think about the question , the answer might scare him too much. Best to avoid these type of things.

Other Comments by Hobbit

505. Comment #72372 by Teratornis on September 20, 2007 at 9:46 pm

In reply to comment #72248 by revcort:

You think that if you have enough faith you can move a mountain or walk on water?

Yes, but my faith is so small that I am not certain that would be possible for me- certainly not yet.

You may want to brush up on Matthew 17:20:

20And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

In Matthew 13:31-32, Jesus says the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. Combining that with Matthew 17:20 makes it pretty clear: if you don't have faith the size of the smallest thing people in Jesus' day could imagine (a mustard seed), then what you have is not "small faith" as you euphemistically put it. What you have is unbelief as Jesus put it.

Jesus did not say you need faith the size of a camel to move mountains, only faith the size of the smallest thing the bronze-age mind could imagine. There isn't any faith smaller than that; anything less is unbelief - Jesus' words, not mine.

So, we see your faith is completely useless for getting Jesus to do what he promised to do while you are still alive.

What, then, makes you think you are going to get into heaven with your unbelief?

You don't believe Jesus' promise - that's why you can't make that mountain pick itself up and move.

Now of course you are not the only Christian whose faith is somehow even smaller than the tiniest of all seeds. It seems all of the world's 2 billion Christians are unbelievers just like you, and also the hundreds of millions of Christians down through the centuries, because no Christian has ever had enough faith to cause a mountain to pick itself up and move to another place. If such an event had happened within recorded history, the geological evidence would be unambiguous and we would all have learned about it in school.

Now granted, since moving mountains that way truly is impossible, and most people have spent their whole lives accepting their limits, you probably don't worry too much about the fact that you are an unbeliever according to Jesus.

But stop and think. Jesus says if you have the tiniest imaginable amount of faith, you can tell a mountain to pick itself up and move.

Jesus also says if you have faith, you will get into heaven.

Do you see the problem here? Clearly, you don't have the tiniest imaginable amount of faith. What you have, instead, is unbelief. Which is to say, you don't really believe Jesus will do what he promises.

If you don't have the tiniest amount of faith, as demonstrated by your failure to move mountains, what makes you think your pathetically deficient faith is going to get you into heaven?

The only difference is that you can test Jesus' promise that you can move mountains right now. And when you test that promise, it fails every time.

You cannot test Jesus' promises about what happens after you die, while you are still alive. Plus you can't ask any dead person to tell you how it worked out for them.

So, please tell us why you are so confident your faith will be big enough to get you into heaven, when we can all see your faith is smaller even than the smallest imaginable amount of faith, and is completely useless for getting Jesus to keep the promises he made about what he will do for you before you die.

Other Comments by Teratornis

506. Comment #72374 by BAEOZ on September 20, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Teratornis, that's entirely too logical for revcort to understand. :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

507. Comment #72377 by Teratornis on September 20, 2007 at 10:22 pm

In comment #72374 by BAEOZ:

Teratornis, that's entirely too logical for revcort to understand. :)

Oh ye of little faith!

Besides, I did not make a logical argument, I made a Biblical argument, and I have faith that Biblical arguments are well within revcort's understanding. On this I have faith at least the size of a mustard seed; therefore, nothing shall be impossible to me. Even getting a sound idea past revcort's cognitive filters, which is probably like trying to fit a camel through the eye of a needle.

Other Comments by Teratornis

508. Comment #72383 by stevencarrwork on September 20, 2007 at 11:14 pm

All those reviewers who say that Dawkins might have read the Bible, but what he should do is read sophisticated theokogians....

Aren't they just claiming that the Bible is crap?

Why is God so bad at getting his message across that people can read the Bible and still be criticsed for reading the Word of God instead of the Word of Swinburne or the Word of Plantinga?

Surely all those reviews of Dawkins are admissions that God is a second-rate theologian, not worthy to be compared with McGrath, who, let's face it, is much more sophisticated than God.

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

509. Comment #72386 by Veronique on September 21, 2007 at 12:17 am

I refuse point blank to reply to revcort and I beseech him not to reply to me.

First of all, they are being disobedient to the very words of Christ, who told us to go and make disciples of all nations - Revcort

This is the shit that frightens me, coupled together with the literal Muslims' exact counterpart. These two religions are hell-bent on religious wars – ah, Downunder, if this is why you are wrestling with religion then I couldn't agree more. It is a disaster zone. And these fruit loops are going to involve the rest of us in their zany, zealous and utterly stupid campaign to bring the world to its comparative knees. And they have the capacity for making WMDs. My intense anger at this arrogant, 'we know best because Jesus/Mohammed told us to proselytise/convert the world to the word of [insert whatever egomaniacal deity here] god' is unbounded.

And then we have the Zionists who demand an ancient privilege because they believe the OT. FFS, what is going on? They all seem deliberately bent of self-immolation and indiscriminate murder in their strategies to get to their imaginary place(s) and screw this tiny little planet's capacity to cope with their and our bulging populations.

Shit, am I pissed off! Yes, I am. Why can't they see that all their piddling religions emanated in a small area of the planet's liveable surface thousands of years ago. None of the middle easterners had any bloody clue that other members of homo sapiens had traversed the planet and settled in other areas and developed myriads of other religious bullshit. But no, each one of these three Abrahamic religions thinks it has the answer to life, the universe and everything. What incredible arrogance!! In the 21st century – what amazing blinkerdom (blinkocracy?). Some of them are certifiably insane!! My great aunt saw Jesus at the end of her bed – anyone want to call that rational? I thought she was a visual schizophrenic. Humph!! She also thought that Jesus talked to her – she was an auditory schizophrenic as well. She was certifiably insane. I have her 'mad' letters to my father imploring him to 'accept' Jesus as his saviour. God bless his little heart, he refused point blank to allow any of his children to be so indoctrinated in either religion or politics until an age when we were able to ask questions of our own volition. Great Dad!! One of the few.

I am not going to swear. I am going to have a drink. I am going to calm down. I am not going to be abusive. I will settle:-).

I can't believe that the rest of you think you are going to make any difference by arguing with religites on these comment threads. I take my hat off to you for trying. I can't do it. I have yet to see anything that looks remotely like reason and educative capacity in any of these religites.

I do understand that by arguing with these people, you are honing your skills at religious debate. Good luck. These people are unable to reason (although they think they do) past their religious filters that distort and misrepresent any methodology that conflicts with their illogically, unscientifically and ungrounded but heavily inculcated belief systems. RD has refused to 'debate' them. Totally understandable. I listened again and acutely to Alistair McGrath. He is utterly unable to look at any argument outside his filter of belief. Neither is any religite who comes onto these comment threads. And here, we have another one, who starts off trying to sound reasonable (and engaging you) but ultimately sliding into the bizarre conception of his religious beliefs. No reason. No capacity to understand reason or evidence.

Deep breath, breathe again. You guys teach me so much, I am very pleased that this site operates. All the religites who visit this site are interested in one thing only. Proselytising. They think it is their 'god-given duty', they are witnessing for their god(s). And their raison d'etre is to convert us all. That is their god-given reason for living. It frightens me. It's based on fear of retribution if they don't succeed, fear that they aren't convincing enough to sway unbelievers into their atrium, ultimately fear of their god's displeasure because they haven't been efficacious enough.

On the other side, they can feel justified in the 'trying' to convert us. They will still get 'lollies from god' for trying. They are in a no-lose situation as far as they are concerned. "Well we tried, God, but they wouldn't listen. Mea culpa – flagellate, flagellate. But I tried God, I really did. Please don't punish me.'

I know we are flawed. But this flawed? No, I can't comprehend this. It is beyond my understanding.

Aaaarrrggghhh.
V

Other Comments by Veronique

510. Comment #72390 by CHeard on September 21, 2007 at 12:42 am

Flagellant (is that a bacterial flagellant?) wrote:

Try asking a Christian 'moderate': "With whom do you have more in common: Falwell (RIS), Haggard, and Robertson or Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris?"

I'd classify myself as a "moderate" Christian (in the sense that phrase seems to be used in TGD, and I'd definitely answer "Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris." Well, at least Dawkins and Harris. To my shame, I haven't read Dennett (yet—it's a matter of finding the time). Falwell, Robertson, et al. (not to mention Hovind and Ham and company) almost make me ashamed to be a Christian—were it not that I believed them, not me, to be the aberrations. (Sadly, I think a majority of USA Christians would disagree with me on these topics.)

revcort wrote:

Creation demands the existence of a Creator.

At one level, that statement is simply a semantic tautology. What remains to be shown is that the cosmos around us is a creation at all. That's what the "design inference" is suppose to, but so far it's failed pretty miserably. (FYI, I am a Christian; I guess you could call me a "theistic evolutionist" if you need a label. But I am also committed to critical thinking and open, valid, and honest argumentation–circular reasoning doesn't qualify.)

Bonzai wrote:

Quoting the bible is not proof of anything since there is no evidence that the Bible is indeed from "God" and there are plenty of indications that it is made up by men, and not very informed or moral men for that matter.

But Bonzai also wrote:

Quite the opposite. If the bible is any indication of his wisdom and knowledge then God is vastly inferior to us in terms of everything, from understanding of nature to morality.

Well, just to pick at nits, quoting the Bible can in fact prove some things, for example, claims in the form "Fifth-century BCE Judeans believed P" (assuming that one could find biblical quotations that [a] represented the biblical author's point of view and [b] were basically equivalent to P). But to my real point: substantial agreement with Bonzai's first quotation (as given above) does not make one a non-Christian. Sometimes the writings of Dawkins, and more so Sam Harris, seem to offer this inescapable dichotomy: if you're a fundamentalist, a biblical literalist who takes the Bible as the "inerrant word of God," then you're a complete freakin' idiot, but if you don't take the Bible as the "inerrant word of God," then you're not quite a "real Christian." The fact of the matter that there are plenty of people (including biblical scholars like me) who fully agree with Bonzai about the humanity of the biblical writers, but are still Christian believers—because the whole Christian tradition is more robust than quoting from an anthology of ancient books.

epeeist wrote:

I am not sure how to respond to revcort, after all it says in the Bible "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." (Proverbs, 26-4).

But there again it also says "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Proverbs 26-5).

There seems to be a contradiction in this inerrant, God given Bible of his. I guess God isn't that good at proof reading.

You suppose that "contradiction" somehow "slipped by" the purely human authors/editors who was intelligent enough, or at least literate enough, to put together the book of Proverbs? Surely they saw it as easily as you do, but they left it in, because contradictions in this type of literature (didactic/teaching/"wisdom" literature) are pedagogical techniques. Think of it as the ancient Jewish equivalent of a case study.

Bonzai wrote, in response to revcort, I presume:

So the proof that the Bible is the word of God is because it says so.

This is even beyond irrational. It is downright stupid.

It's also downright incorrect. None of the authors/editors of any biblical book claim that their book, in toto and as it stands, is the word of God. A few books claim to record statements that are labeled "the word of God," e.g., some of the sermons of the prophets, but even these rarely claim that they are direct dictation from God as distinct from a message "inspired" by God but scripted by the preachers/prophets themselves. But the majority is clearly human speech about God (whether there's really a God to talk about or not) rather than divine speech. In some cases the writers even explicitly say they don't have any divine revelation to report (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:12, 25). The fundamentalist's "inerrant, infallible, inspired word of God" is not something the biblical writers claim for their own literary production—nor could they ever have done so, since none of them knew of the Bible as a completed anthology, but only bits and pieces of it. There is no passage of the Bible that speaks of the Bible as a whole, nor, historically speaking, could there be.

Fedler wrote:

Does anyone else take this as "God is right, no matter what, his actions will be justified"?

Yes, that seems to be what revcort is saying. Not that Abraham (Genesis 19) or Moses (Exodus 32) would have agreed with revcort on that score.

Wow, there are soooo many comments on this thread. I gotta stop reading and get some sleep.

Other Comments by CHeard

511. Comment #72399 by steve99 on September 21, 2007 at 1:37 am

As a matter of fact, I would take that a step further and say that I have yet to run into anyone on this site who has a genuine understanding of who God is. Of course, I guess that shouldn't surprise me, I'm dealing with atheists.

This is not a good argument at all. Many of us (including me) have been believers in the past. We know very well what our idea of God was, and what we were taught about God by teachers and preachers.

Other Comments by steve99

512. Comment #72402 by Hobbit on September 21, 2007 at 1:52 am

Revcort, it seems I may get my wish (perhaps its god speaking through this website again).

I asume you will not let CHeard go unchallenged?

Here is your opportunity to show us all why your brand of Christianity is right and CHeard's is wrong.

Please enlighten us all!

Other Comments by Hobbit

513. Comment #72408 by Philip1978 on September 21, 2007 at 2:22 am

Rev, sorry about the Rez, didn't mean to cause offence about your name!

Here's an interesting one from the bible

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 5:28-30)"

I dont see how you could interpret this any other way, do you really think that is sensible? Cutting off your limbs because you feel you have offended God by "sinning" is in my opinion highly stupid and very painful!

If you are supposed to follow the bible at its every word, because it is the word of your God, written by people inspired by your God then its time to stop looking at other women or if you have had lusty thoughts when looking at women, tis time to poke the old eyes out!

Here is my big problem with the Bible and Religion, Billy Sands came up with a great way to describe Faith its called Mental Slavery. I am firmly convinced that religion is wrong because of the mental torture inflicted upon people because of the stupid and ridiculous rules imposed upon the believer.

I have seen it happen too many times, people going through highly emotional and stressful times only to worsen it by thinking they have in some way let God down and that he is punishing them. I find it despicable that people have to be put through all this over an invisible, highly improbable IT that is supposed to have some magic hold over the world that defies the natural laws already in place.This supposed IT then will send you to a fiery place of torture should you offend IT in one of the myriad of ways set down in some ad libbed ancient book of lies and plagiarism.

I am sorry you have devoted your life to this non-existant IT Rev, I really am. I'm sorry you think its your mission to get everyone else involved in this rubbish as well, I mean what is all this about?

"First of all, they are being disobedient to the very words of Christ, who told us to go and make disciples of all nations"

If you think that for one second 6 billion plus people are all suddenly going to turn around and say, yiipppiiie, I'll go with that God, you are in for a very big surprise.

I do hope you realise, I am only attacking your religion and not you, I simply dont understand why you want to do this to yourself.

Kind Regards

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

514. Comment #72409 by Goldy on September 21, 2007 at 2:29 am

People, people, please! Such vitriol! I know this man is, well, beyond the pale, but by 'eck he's ready to listen! He's reading what we give him (you are, aren't you, rev?) and he's conceding defeat in a few cases. He admits he has athiest already trying to change his views. He is steadfast, but thikn what is going through his mind. He says he was a bit of a lad earlier in life and through "god' he is changed. I ask you to try and cut him a bit of slack and let him get his thoughts in order. We might not convince him there is no god out there but at least we can try and activate the thinking cells in that ball of meat we call a brain (rev, that's aimed at all of us - we all are just meaty things that think :-)).
V - I know it is difficult to accept what we hear as total bollocks - but to some it is the literal truth. Imagine how hard it is to have all these arguments and references point blank saying what one holds to be true refuted. It really is hard! Having that "heart" concern recently really made me think of my living - I'm not yet 40, I shouldn't be having this shit - but think I did. Finding out it was a totally benign thing didn't make it any easier. I'm trying my best to try and change my life from slob to thinking dad, from seeing my body as given to working on the blob of fat that I am. It is profound, I can tell you! Now imagine that in the mind.
I will admit the rev pisses me off sometimes but then I have to think what he is thinking, his mindset. He has all the information he needs but he needs to have his eyes opened. He came here, that's a start. He needs help, no condemnation. He needs a lot of help and we can give it to him. How he uses that help is up to him, but hopefully, like me with my body, he'll listen.
Never thought I'd feel for a faith head. Just wish Paul E would listen to me too!

Other Comments by Goldy

515. Comment #72414 by Corylus on September 21, 2007 at 2:42 am

CHeard

Interesting post, nice to hear a moderate Christian's take on this. I would advise you to read Dennett - I wouldn't be surprised if you like his book the most :-)

Goldy

Just wish Paul E would listen to me too!

Tell me about it!!

Other Comments by Corylus

516. Comment #72416 by BMMcArdle on September 21, 2007 at 2:48 am

Regarding the talking mule:

Shepherd starts thinking, "Holy shit! I hope the sheep don't start talking too! I'll just tell everyone I meet that them sheep's a bunch of damned liars."

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

517. Comment #72418 by Veronique on September 21, 2007 at 2:51 am

512. Comment #72399 by steve99

I don't think I have commented on one of your posts and you seem mighty fine to me.

I have no idea what it is like to come from a god-believing background. I was, to my immense and later understanding joy, sequestered from this wankeroo. I am immensely grateful for my uncluttered upbringing.

BillySands has made a valiant (and successful) attempt to address my heartfelt queries regarding belief in a god-driven reality from which you guys have extricated yourselves. I say well done to all of you. I certainly do not have an emotional understanding of what you went through to arrive at your present state of reality. Maybe I am bereft in this. Maybe I am incapable of understanding what mental machinations you lot had to go through to come to an understanding (however incomplete) of our natural and amazing world. I still say I applaud you all.

I feel immense sorrow for the religites who decide to write on these comment threads. They try so hard to explain the incomprehensible. They always come unstuck, because they never make the transition to evidenced reality. Their blinkered eyes only see unrealism. It is an untenable position and the words used by them to bolster their 'reality' are merely words.

My advice is to forget them. I know you cannot do this:-). You hope to try to deliver some normal scientific sense. It falls on deaf ears. My best to you, but you are crying in the wind. Dear Goldy, I think you are wonderful, but you will never get through. Steve99, you too. Billy, you have helped me to try to understand the religious mind-set. I am grateful to you for this . Ah, I don't know that I can accommodate it!! And the rest of you, I am sorry that I do not name you all. You understand what I am saying and how much I value you. The religious argument is going nowhere.

I like what your comments teach me, I like the links you supply; I have learnt and will continue to learn from you. My joy!! Your satisfaction!! Mutual growth. I love it.

'But do not dull thy palm with entertainment of each new hatched, unfledged comrade.' It's debilitating. And, ultimately unsatisfying. As we have seen:-).

My love to you all – I can't express my delight at what I have learnt (and will continue to learn) from all of you.
V- big smile

Other Comments by Veronique

518. Comment #72420 by Goldy on September 21, 2007 at 2:57 am

V, if I smack enough nuts with a big hammer, one of them will break. Anyway, they're people too. Call me soft, I can't help feeling bad when there's bad vibes a-going down. Shit, i even feel sorry for Biz, along with embarrassment. I should toughen up...
Wikipedia is brilliant of sheep shaggers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep_shagger

Other Comments by Goldy

519. Comment #72422 by dr in the house on September 21, 2007 at 3:07 am

Like Veronique, a fellow Antipodean, I refuse to debate revcort because it is totally pointless. Surely 500+ posts later most of you realise that by now. Or perhaps you have nothing else to do? I guess it is entertaining in some way although I find many of his posts actually offensive. I don't need saving, thank you very much, and the presumptive arrogance inherent in his statements that he thinks he is doing us all a favour by "debating" us is astounding.

As an Oncologist, I felt I had to reply in some small way to the bollocks he spouts with regard to miracles and tumor regression. Revcort, THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. There are many tumors which seem to be immunologically-dependent and can spontaneously regress - the literature is filled with examples. Personal testimony of the kind you quote is meaningless and carries no weight of any kind. And prayer has nothing to do with it. The prayer studies quoted earlier are statistically and scientifically valid and I suggest you source the references before you slag them off. And furthermore, what proportion of disease sufferers who visit Lourdes are "cured"? I think you'll find that there are at most a couple of hundred such "cures " documented to varying degrees of robustness. A couple of hundred out of MILLIONS of pilgrims visiting... a fucking placebo would be more efficacious...! And you still haven't properly addressed the point regarding amputees which is the most devastating argument against the power of prayer.

When you get cancer (and there's a 50% chance you will) then perhaps you would like to act as a personal control of prayer vs chemotherapy?

So carry on praying, reverend. The rest of us will continue to use science and progress to help our fellow human beings.

Other Comments by dr in the house

520. Comment #72424 by steve99 on September 21, 2007 at 3:15 am

I don't think I have commented on one of your posts and you seem mighty fine to me.

Thank you.

I have no idea what it is like to come from a god-believing background.

Well, it was not that strict... it was a rather relaxed Catholic up-bringing. But, it certainly gets to you. The guilt you get loaded with is lifelong, even if you stop believing. It can best be imagined from the lyrics of the Pet Shop Boys song: 'It's a Sin':

"Everything I've ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I've ever been
Everywhere I'm going to
It's a sin"

It was so oppressive... it was so easy to slip up and not get to Heaven. But also, it was such an amazing comfort. It is hard to explain the feeling of sureness and security to someone who has been a lifelong atheist, but it is rather like having a permanent hug from God... a never ending security blanket. I can remember as a teenager thinking how awful John Lennon's 'Imagine' was, because it denied Heaven.

I started to get uncomfortable with my faith early in my teens. The idea of an eternal afterlive seemed both very oppressive and infinitely boring, and scared me. Things finally started to crumble as I became more educated. When I came across ideas like 'can God create a rock so big He can't lift it' I realised that much of religion was just meaningless wordplay (and even worse, people don't realise it was meaningless).

Being in my late 40s, I have been an atheist for most of my life. But, like an addict, I can still feel the lure... that warmth and security is very tempting, even if it is nonsense.

Having 'been there' I can understand why people fight so desperately to keep their faith, and why that faith can, in some people, overcome even the most rational of arguments - even for some scientists. Faith in God is a form of infantilism. It is like not wanting to get go of your mother or your security blanket, or your teddy bear. However, to fully mature as people we have to accept life as it is and deal with it responsibly.

Other Comments by steve99

521. Comment #72425 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 3:16 am

revcort (and Goldy)

I was pretty sharp with you back early on in this thread, revcort, but having just noticed how long it's grown, and having caught up with your recent posts, I'd like to apologise and say: keep going. I was too quick tempered early on, and I think Goldy's got it right. I completely disagree with you about God, but I completely agree with your coming here, talking, listening, and not trying to pretend you beliefs are anything other than what they are.

A nice thing about atheism is that it is heavily argument-dependent. By which I mean, there's plenty available for you to read and to clarify through discussions (like the one here) that can fill out the picture for you. You don't need to show up every week to a session where other non-believers will deliver lectures to you, or tell you that your life depends on atheism, or get you to sing emotionally-charged songs and partake in symbolic rituals with them. It's just stacks of reason that you can read through and think about in your own time, as you wish, and make your own decisions about without having to be pressurised one way or another. So I'm very heartened by your reading TGD and having this discussion here, because it shows your readiness to engage with the questions. So: well done, sir!

One little addition: you mentioned in 490 about the way Christianity has changed your life and had a positive effect on your feelings and behaviour, as Goldy mentioned above. I'd like to chip in and say that that is indeed, in my experience, one of the great powers of good churches, and that I too was much impressed and inspired by this when I was a Christian. The message of Christianity (at least, the kind that I was part of) was inspiring and uplifting, and powerful in encouraging me to be thoughtful, generous and humble. I have to admit, it's more of a challenge to achieve these sorts of virtues now that I don't believe in god, and have to rely on myself to keep my worse instincts (like being rather unpleasant on discussion threads, for example!) in check.

What I mean by all this is this: many religions, including your own, may well involve powerful, life-changing tools, but this actually says nothing about their claims on truth. Just like it's apparently true that a person delivering a presentation can calm their nerves by imagining the audience to be naked, but that this strategy doesn't actually make the audience naked (a new plotline for Heroes there, perhaps). I think I learned quite a lot by being a Christian, and since my later decision, through further reading and thinking, that I'd been wrong and that there wasn't a god after all, I've learned more through the recognition that whatever benefits I had got out of faith were actually benefits that I had given myself, or that other perfectly ordinary human beings had given me. This realisation introduces you to a realisation that human beings are a lot more surprising and wonderful than perhaps you'd thought, and that everything that strikes you as awesome and beautiful about religion is in truth a part of the greater awe and beauty of people.

So, I'm not arguing that being a Christian hasn't been good for you. It may have been very, very good for you, and exactly the right step for you at the time you took it. But it may also be that the next step is beyond that, and that by seeing outside the church (so to speak) but carrying with you what you learnt from being there, you'll once again find that the truth is more than you bargained for.

Anyway, once again, whatever you decide, do stick at it. And congratulations again for sticking your head above the parapet.

Other Comments by _J_

522. Comment #72426 by Robert Maynard on September 21, 2007 at 3:18 am

You're right, revcort, I did not like Paul's answer.
It seems to me that Romans 1:20 (and 10:8-11) explicitly contradicts Romans 9:13-22, and lays bare the incongruity between choice and design.

Let's run through some propositions, which I hope will outline the problem. Assuming you are entirely in agreement with the Bible, I'll answer these propositions for you with Bible quotes.

• Did God create the universe?
  The Bible says: Yes. (Genesis 1:1)


• Did God, in doing so, possess full and complete knowledge of every outcome of his Creation process, for all time?
  The Bible says: Yes. (Revelation 1:8, Isaiah 46:10)


• Did God, in creating the angel Lucifer, therefore not only know of his intention to rebel, but necessarily engineered him to do so?
  The Bible says: Yes. (Revelations 4:11, Romans 9:22)


• Was God therefore not only capable of predicting the sinful "Fall" of man, but also knowingly designed and created every agent (including man himself) that made it so?
  The Bible says: Yes. (Isaiah 46:10, Job 42:2)


• Was it within God's power to create a universe in which nothing would ever go wrong?
  The Bible says: Yes. (Psalm 115:3, Jeremiah 32:27)


• So is the Universe, as it exists, complete with the full spectrum of sin and suffering, precisely as God designed and willed it to be?
  The Bible says: Yes. (1 Peter 1:20, Isaiah 46:10)


• Is God, therefore, responsible for the individual choices, beliefs, and actions of every human being who has ever, or will ever exist, for the entire duration of the Universe?
  The Bible says: Yes. (Romans 9:15-16)


• Is God then meting out approval or punishment, to be subjectively experienced by humans for eternity, on the basis of decisions he has made for them?
  The Bible says: Yes. (Matthew 25:46, Romans 9:21)

Contrast this with the following propositions

• Is God benevolent?
  The Bible says: Yes. (John 4:16)


• Is salvation equally available to all?
  The Bible says: Yes. (John 3:16, Romans 1:16)

I've yet to come across a Christian who can satisfyingly reconcile these conflicting lines of reasoning. Paul's unsatisfying attempt to address it in Romans 9 (boiling down to "Who are you to question God?") is suggestive that this nagging contradiction was intuitive to skeptics even as early as the first century of Christian ministry.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

523. Comment #72435 by pewkatchoo on September 21, 2007 at 4:38 am

Philip comment 514
Excellent riposte Philip. As I said somewhere else, guilt is not morality.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

524. Comment #72440 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 5:36 am

Ooh, just to add:

CHeard

I've just read your post 511, and it's gone immediately into my 'Some good posts' file (the existence of which is another indication of far too much time spent here).

I think you might be the first Christian of your type that I've encountered here, or anywhere. By 'your type', I mean that you're fully engaged in the sort of reasoning that led me out of religion (and not just hiding from good arguments behind transparently rubbish ones) but you're managing to stay Christian, too. I'm interested...

Anyway, great post, cheers for sharing it.

Other Comments by _J_

525. Comment #72445 by revcort on September 21, 2007 at 6:00 am

I don't want to reply directly to veronique, but I feel I must say something, otherwise, I might be responsible for heads exploding and a drunken rage...

When Jesus said, "Go and make disciples..." that is not the same thing as saying, "Go and force them to become disciples..." There is a vast difference. The point in saying "make disciples" is that we should not do as many international crusades do, which is run in, ask them to make some decision, and then leave them with nobody to follow up- but to make a disciple of them is to help them along in their spiritual journey.

I can understand why a person would read my quote from earlier and misunderstand. It is IMPOSSIBLE to convert someone to Christianity by any human force that could be exerted.

Other Comments by revcort

526. Comment #72448 by dr in the house on September 21, 2007 at 6:13 am

Comment #72390 by CHeard

"None of the authors/editors of any biblical book claim that their book, in toto and as it stands, is the word of God."

Bollocks again. For a 'bible scholar' you are sooo wrong. Go to any catholic mass and listen to the priest incant "THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD" after each and every gospel reading.

And the sheep (sorry, flock) bleat back: "THANKS BE TO GOD".

Forgive me, but is this meant to be allogorical too?

Other Comments by dr in the house

527. Comment #72450 by VanYoungman on September 21, 2007 at 6:21 am

I just don't get it. A consummate whackjob (see his website) comes on this thread and in 4 short days has a bunch of you taking seriously a lot of crap about his Zeus or god or whatever. He then "proves" his argument by quoting a lot of nonsense from his Book of Pixies.

His best argument to date is "because I said so".

Then some of you think it's great practice for your confrontations against the religites. That's like saying its great for the Green Bay Packers practicing with Wellesley.

V. as usual is right. Let it go.

Other Comments by VanYoungman

528. Comment #72453 by revcort on September 21, 2007 at 6:37 am

You're right, revcort, I did not like your answer.
It seems to me that Romans 1 (particularly verse 20) explicitly contradicts Romans 9 (particularly verses 13 to 22), and lays bare the incongruity between choice and design.

Let's run through some propositions, which I hope will outline the problem. Assuming you are entirely in agreement with the Bible, I'll answer these propositions for you with Bible quotes.


* Did God create the universe?
The Bible says: Yes. (Genesis 1:1)

* Did God, in doing so, possess full and complete knowledge of every outcome of his Creation process, for all time?
The Bible says: Yes. (Revelation 1:8, Isaiah 46:10)

* Did God, in creating the angel Lucifer, therefore not only know of his intention to rebel, but necessarily engineered him to do so?
The Bible says: Yes. (Revelations 4:11, Romans 9:22)

* Was God therefore not only capable of predicting the sinful "Fall" of man, but also knowingly designed and created every agent (including man himself) that made it so?
The Bible says: Yes. (Isaiah 46:10, Job 42:2)

* Was it within God's power to create a universe in which nothing would ever go wrong?
The Bible says: Yes. (Psalm 115:3, Jeremiah 32:27)

* So is the Universe, as it exists, complete with the full spectrum of sin and suffering, precisely as God designed and willed it to be?
The Bible says: Yes. (1 Peter 1:20, Isaiah 46:10)

* Is God, therefore, responsible for the individual choices, beliefs, and actions of every human being who has ever, or will ever exist, for the entire duration of the Universe?
The Bible says: Yes. (Romans 9:15-16)

* Is God then meting out approval or punishment, to be subjectively experienced by humans for eternity, on the basis of decisions he has made for them?
The Bible says: Yes. (Matthew 25:46, Romans 9:21)

Contrast this with the following propositions

* Is God benevolent?
The Bible says: Yes. (John 4:16)

* Is salvation equally available to all?
The Bible says: Yes. (John 3:16, Romans 1:16)

I've yet to come across a Christian who can satisfyingly reconcile these conflicting lines of reasoning. Paul's unsatisfying attempt to address it in Romans 9 (boiling down to "Who are you to question God?") is suggestive that this nagging contradiction was intuitive to skeptics even as early as the first century of Christian ministry.

If this were all about man, I'd be right there with you Robert. But, we assume that man is central here because, well, we're man-centered. I suppose it's natural for us to be this way.

It's all a part of God's plan- and His plan has to do with His glory. His giving mercy and grace to mankind is for His glory. His creating some who will choose to sin and never be redeemed is for His glory. That's all I can tell you.

We may not like Paul's answer (honestly, I don't particularly like that answer either- but I understand it), but that is the answer. It's the same answer God gave to Job when Job spent 38 chapters defending himself. His answer was, 2 "Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge? 3 "Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! 4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, In other words, God doesn't have to answer to us.

All I can say, regarding how God will decide how to deal man, is that He is perfectly just and His judgments will be perfect.

Other Comments by revcort

529. Comment #72454 by irate_atheist on September 21, 2007 at 6:40 am

Revcort - 'All I can say, regarding how God will decide how to deal man, is that He is perfectly just and His judgments will be perfect'.

On what basis?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

530. Comment #72455 by NormanDoering on September 21, 2007 at 6:43 am

revcort wrote:

It is IMPOSSIBLE to convert someone to Christianity by any human force that could be exerted.

So, you don't buy my explanation, that you're suckered in by hope and trapped by fear in world of emotionally loaded fantasy?

Would it also be impossible to convert someone to Islam by any human force that could be exerted? How about Buddhism? Hinduism? African tribal religions? Sikhism? Sufi? Jainism? Shinto? Zoroastrianism? Unitarian-Universalism? Scientology?

How do you explain all the other belief systems that are so similar to yours -- full of promise and threat. How did people get to believe them?

Other Comments by NormanDoering

531. Comment #72456 by Quetzalcoatl on September 21, 2007 at 6:52 am

Revcort-

His creating some who will choose to sin and never be redeemed is for His glory

Yet you would have us believe that he is kind and benevolent, but by your own admission he creates permanently damned people just for his own selfish glory. Why would anyone want to follow a deity like that?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

532. Comment #72457 by NormanDoering on September 21, 2007 at 6:54 am

revcort wrote:

It's all a part of God's plan- and His plan has to do with His glory.

And what do you know of God's plan? Just what you read in a flawed and contradictory old book?

And God is doing all this all for his own vanity (is there a difference between vanity and glory?)

Other Comments by NormanDoering

533. Comment #72459 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 7:01 am

dr in the house, 527

None of the authors/editors of any biblical book claim that their book, in toto and as it stands, is the word of God.

Bollocks again. For a 'bible scholar' you are sooo wrong. Go to any catholic mass and listen to the priest incant "THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD" after each and every gospel reading.

That doesn't contradict CHeard's point at all: Catholicisim is full of stuff that is nowhere to be found in the bible. As far as I'm aware (and I may get some of these wrong) the bible makes no mention of praying to intermediary saints, of limbo, of salvation through good works, of doing penance, of confessions, of fancy hats, stained glass windows, rosary beads, popes or popemobiles. The Catholic church clearly felt that the bible didn't contain enough fabulous invention to satisfy its imagination, and duly set about making up more stuff. (Through which - though surely this can't have been its intention - it was making a healthy profit until the pedantic protestants spoiled it all by actually reading the bible.)

I'm afraid the Catholics are among the least qualified to make bold claims about the word of God. They've been interposing additional fabrication between their congregations and their scripture for centuries.

Other Comments by _J_

534. Comment #72460 by Philip1978 on September 21, 2007 at 7:01 am

Sorry Rev, I hate to be pedantic but what do you mean by disciple? Is it the Luke 14:26

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."

I dont particularly like that description, could you elaborate on what you meant, not having a go, just want to clarify it

Cheers,

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

535. Comment #72463 by GoneGolfing on September 21, 2007 at 7:10 am

I sat stunned after reading Post # 484 by Rev.

BTW; Does your flock know that you are spending all this time here at this site ? Do they know that you are bashing them here at this site ? Wouldn't you be better off to go and spend this time in prayer and study to in some way help those poor hell bound souls you bash ?

I have serious doubts now that Rev is a pastor at all, and that he even has a flock. You can't be all that of a compassionate man when you would bash your own sheep and deem them going to hell like he has. I think its highly likely that he is simply here as a fence sitting doubter of his current beliefs and needs debate on helping himself to decide on which way to go.

It's obvious to me by the almost innumerable amount of times you've mentioned hell in your posts that you are driven in your faith by the fear of it.

I know what your going through as you struggle with both the fear of it and believing the disgusting possibility of it being real, saying "how could it be?"

But it does drive you on. You simply can't bear the thoughts of going to such a place. You'll take the risk of devoting your whole life to this belief if it means not being tormented for all eternity. How God could even dream of creating a place like this is irrelevent to you because you simply tremble at the thought of being fuel for an unquenchable fire.

I know how you feel. I've been there.

Hell..the believers prod.

GG :-)

Other Comments by GoneGolfing

536. Comment #72464 by Flagellant on September 21, 2007 at 7:14 am

Hi CHeard, I agree with _J_ (525), except that I don't keep posts, not even my own. (But if I did, I'd keep yours.) What's more, I haven't got a play to write. (Now where did I read that?)

It is exceedingly refreshing to hear your opinions, particularly those you offered at the beginning of your comment 511. And very gratifying that you would class yourself with Dawkins & Harris. (Dennett is very approachable and less aggressive than the others.)

I notice though, that you virtually concede the point, made as long ago as (78), that US Christians find more in common with the Robertson-Haggard-Falwell-Hovind-Ham axis than with the atheists, even if you are an exception.

A few years ago, I had a lovely Anglican vicar - a 'John Robinson' type - who used to drop in for a cuppa (50% Sainsbury's Red Label and 50% Earl Grey, Quetz please note) quite often. He knew I was an atheist. When we talked about 'The Opposition', we both meant the fundy nutcases, most Catholics and all Mohammedans, not the mildly anti-religious like Dawkins. Lol.

Dawkins has always been at one with people like Richard Harries, former Bishp of Oxford. RD's only issue is puzzlement at the nature of RH's faith.

My view, rather at odds with some of the cats who fight, spit, and scratch on ths site, is that atheists should support moderates in arguing against the nutcases. Mind you, that might not do you much good wrt to your own community. You must know there's a strong possibility that, in the end, you'd join us, provided that you weren't put off by the abuse.

As for the my 'nom de cracher', it's not bacterial but religiously masochist. Lol. Very best wishes, F.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
[Edited for sense: missing sentence.]

Other Comments by Flagellant

537. Comment #72466 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 7:23 am

Flagellant

Hi CHeard, I agree with _J_ (525), except that I don't keep posts, not even my own. What's more, I haven't got a play to write. (Now where did I read that?)

Damn. There's nowhere to hide, is there?

not bacterial but religiously masochist.

Bet it'd make a fair propeller though, looking at the picture.

Other Comments by _J_

538. Comment #72467 by Flagellant on September 21, 2007 at 7:28 am

Yes, _J_. Do you need my 'special services' to propel you back into line? If I were a Mohameddan, I'd definitely be a shi'ite. Lol.



Veritably, god is grott, merdeiful.

Other Comments by Flagellant

539. Comment #72470 by revcort on September 21, 2007 at 7:38 am

Rev, sorry about the Rez, didn't mean to cause offence about your name!

Here's an interesting one from the bible

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 5:28-30)"

I dont see how you could interpret this any other way, do you really think that is sensible? Cutting off your limbs because you feel you have offended God by "sinning" is in my opinion highly stupid and very painful!

If you are supposed to follow the bible at its every word, because it is the word of your God, written by people inspired by your God then its time to stop looking at other women or if you have had lusty thoughts when looking at women, tis time to poke the old eyes out!

Here is my big problem with the Bible and Religion, Billy Sands came up with a great way to describe Faith its called Mental Slavery. I am firmly convinced that religion is wrong because of the mental torture inflicted upon people because of the stupid and ridiculous rules imposed upon the believer.

I have seen it happen too many times, people going through highly emotional and stressful times only to worsen it by thinking they have in some way let God down and that he is punishing them. I find it despicable that people have to be put through all this over an invisible, highly improbable IT that is supposed to have some magic hold over the world that defies the natural laws already in place.This supposed IT then will send you to a fiery place of torture should you offend IT in one of the myriad of ways set down in some ad libbed ancient book of lies and plagiarism.

I am sorry you have devoted your life to this non-existant IT Rev, I really am. I'm sorry you think its your mission to get everyone else involved in this rubbish as well, I mean what is all this about?

"First of all, they are being disobedient to the very words of Christ, who told us to go and make disciples of all nations"

If you think that for one second 6 billion plus people are all suddenly going to turn around and say, yiipppiiie, I'll go with that God, you are in for a very big surprise.

I do hope you realise, I am only attacking your religion and not you, I simply dont understand why you want to do this to yourself.

Kind Regards

Philip

#1 The lust passage- it is indeed controversial. Most of Jesus' words were. Some would say it's entirely metaphorical, and that Jesus would never have actually meant a person should literally do these things. But I don't think that's a valid interpretation.

Obviously, the main point Jesus is trying to make is NOT "gouge out your eyes and cut off your hands." His main point is for us to understand the seriousness of sin, which is something most people don't get. Even most people who call themselves Christians take sin lightly and as no big deal. Jesus uses this extreme example to illustrate that for us, and He's right. If a person were to lust continually and end up in hell, it would be better for him if he were blind and end up in heaven. I have had trouble with this very sin, but God has been changing my heart toward this. So, I still have all my parts and appendages. ;-)

#2 Regarding mental slavery, in a sense it's true, but in another sense, it is tasting freedom for the first time. You see, I would say that all people are enslaved to sin from birth, and they do it so naturally that don't even see their prison- the Bible calls this like a spiritual death. God has to awaken us from this living death before we will ever see that. Until that point, we will see Christianity as a prison or as slavery.

In another sense, it is similar to slavery. I would readily confess to you that God is my Master. He is in charge of my life. But, since He has transformed my thinking by His grace, it is exactly what I want. So it no longer has the feel of slavery to me- it has the feel of freedom. (of course, I also readily admit that to you it's the same thing- but I'm just explaining my view)

#3 I also disagree with those who would interpret everything in life as "God is punishing me" for doing whatever they have done. Religious leaders who imply this are fools. First of all, we don't really know why everything happens. (a quick reading of the 1st few chapters of the book of Job would clear that up for misguided Christians) Secondly, there are mutlitudes of reasons why God allows various tragedies, and "God is punishing me" is probably WAY down the list of those reasons. As a matter of fact, a proper understanding is that all the things in the life of a Christian are intended for their ultimate good.

#4 No, I don't expect that 6 billion people are going to suddenly embrace Christianity. Sadly, I realize very well that the way to destruction is BROAD and the way to life is NARROW. However, it is not my responsibility to convert them- that is God's responsibility. My job is to simply tell people- not force them, but persuade them. If I do that, then I give glory to God and have been obedient. It's His prerogative if He saves someone or not.

#5 I fully understand that you are not attacking me Philip, and I can appreciate that. Neither am I attacking you personally. I think I've explained that I don't feel like something is being forced on me- but that I'm a Christian because God has changed my heart toward the things of this world and He has given me new desires toward holiness and obedience.

Other Comments by revcort

540. Comment #72471 by Robert Maynard on September 21, 2007 at 7:44 am

revcort, #72453,

By the biblical narrative and the actions of Adam and Eve, human beings have knowledge of good and evil of a standard consistent with God (Genesis 2:17, Genesis 3:5). This is precisely the Bible's justification for our self-determinate role in our own fates. We are told that the laws of God are "written on our hearts", and as such we must all be judged by the standards of God, since we are all capable of distinguishing sin from virtue.

Therefore you have no consistent scriptural basis for your claim that our standards of justice can misidentify the Just as the Unjust, particularly when the agent in question is God.

If what the Bible says is true, then God is behaving in a manner so self-serving, abusive and hypocritical, that our God-given (apparently) sense of morality can and must identify him as evil. Again, according to the Bible our understanding of 'evil' is explicitly in alignment with his own.

Now, since as you say, this isn't about justice for human beings, but rather about God orchestrating a scenario in which to feel "glorified", perhaps the principles at hand don't matter. Perhaps you are making a wise decision in identifying that the Universe is administered by the most horrifyingly overpowered tyrant conceivable, and while his actions and standards are visibly unfair, you feel it would be foolish to do anything but cowl to his demands for praise and superficially profess sympathy with his desire to appear benevolent. That when you pronounce every judgment and action of God to be "perfectly just", you do so as a means of forced and terrified flattery.

But if you've already agreed that God is not fair to humans, is single-mindedly concerned with his own "glory", and that it is his will, not his regret, that the apparent majority of mankind will be tortured forever.. I'm just not sure where to go from here.

Might I suggest that you should welcome, more than just about anyone else here, the reality that this celestial dictator does not exist?
I mean, most Christians justify their uncritical faith by stressing the appeal of a God. What's your excuse?

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

541. Comment #72473 by revcort on September 21, 2007 at 7:57 am

That doesn't contradict CHeard's point at all: Catholicisim is full of stuff that is nowhere to be found in the bible. As far as I'm aware (and I may get some of these wrong) the bible makes no mention of praying to intermediary saints, of limbo, of salvation through good works, of doing penance, of confessions, of fancy hats, stained glass windows, rosary beads, popes or popemobiles. The Catholic church clearly felt that the bible didn't contain enough fabulous invention to satisfy its imagination, and duly set about making up more stuff. (Through which - though surely this can't have been its intention - it was making a healthy profit until the pedantic protestants spoiled it all by actually reading the bible.)

I'm afraid the Catholics are among the least qualified to make bold claims about the word of God. They've been interposing additional fabrication between their congregations and their scripture for centuries.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! J has indeed nailed this. I talk to my Catholic friends about these things with regularity, but they can't see it because they view most ANY spoken word by any Pope as just as valid as Scripture. And further, if a more recent Pope says something that contradicts Scripture, that which is more recent takes precedent. (slippery slope indeed)

Now, to the original question... there IS Scriptural backing for the Bible CLAIMING to be the word of God- at least 2 come to mind immediately.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1:20-21 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Other Comments by revcort

542. Comment #72477 by revcort on September 21, 2007 at 8:22 am

Sorry Rev, I hate to be pedantic but what do you mean by disciple? Is it the Luke 14:26

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."

I dont particularly like that description, could you elaborate on what you meant, not having a go, just want to clarify it

Well to be as specific as possible and to allow Jesus to speak for Himself, He said it this way...

18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

The explanation of "make disciples," found in verse 19, is given in verse 20. To make someone into a disciple is to "teach them to obey all that Jesus commanded." It is also important to note that the "authority" to do this comes from God, not from man. In other words, I am not instructed to force them by usurping God's authority. I am instructed to teach them and instruct them and let God do the changing in them.

Other Comments by revcort

543. Comment #72479 by irate_atheist on September 21, 2007 at 8:30 am

Reading through this thread so far, I am somewhat reminded of the scene in Apocalypse Now when Capt. Willard meets Col. Kurtz -

Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and, uh, that your methods were unsound.

Colonel Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?

Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

544. Comment #72480 by revcort on September 21, 2007 at 8:33 am

revcort wrote:

It is IMPOSSIBLE to convert someone to Christianity by any human force that could be exerted.

So, you don't buy my explanation, that you're suckered in by hope and trapped by fear in world of emotionally loaded fantasy?

Would it also be impossible to convert someone to Islam by any human force that could be exerted? How about Buddhism? Hinduism? African tribal religions? Sikhism? Sufi? Jainism? Shinto? Zoroastrianism? Unitarian-Universalism? Scientology?

How do you explain all the other belief systems that are so similar to yours -- full of promise and threat. How did people get to believe them?

Well, I understand your viewpoint that we're suckered in and trapped, but my experience tells me something completely different. Originally I was "Christian" because my parents were. Yet, later in life, I had to come to grips with my own faith, to "own it" so to speak. Well, I thought I was doing well enough, but some more recent revelations have shown me that I was indeed still attempting to reach God by my own efforts. God helped me to repent of that and simply trust in His grace alone.

Regarding conversion to other religions... Well, from my viewpoint, these are false religions, so the question is moot. However, theoretically, the answer should be that genuine faith can't result from force. I mean, seriously, just because a muslim holds a gun to your head and says, "Say that Allah is god!" would saying that truly indicate that you believe in Allah? Absolutely not. Faith can't be forced. Of course, in my view, these other religions are worshiping demons, masquerading as gods.

Other Comments by revcort

545. Comment #72484 by revcort on September 21, 2007 at 8:45 am

By the biblical narrative and the actions of Adam and Eve, human beings have knowledge of good and evil of a standard consistent with God (Genesis 2:17, Genesis 3:5). This is precisely the Bible's justification for our self-determinate role in our own fates. We are told that the laws of God are "written on our hearts", and as such we must all be judged by the standards of God, since we are all capable of distinguishing sin from virtue.

I'm amazed at your knowledge of Scripture Robert. I'm curious as to what your background is. Of course, if you don't want to share that, I understand.

Well, I understand those passages from Genesis a bit differently. When sin entered the picture, all man lost was his ability to choose good. He can now choose evil. I would definitely not see man as self-determining at all. To an extent, he has free will. He has free will to choose what he wants to do. Unfortunately, all he wants to do is sin and rebel. It's like I explained a LONG time ago in this thread- man is like a fish who needs to be able to fly. He is free. He is free to swim, not fly. Therefore, he must be transformed into a bird in order to be able to fly. Man is sinful. He is free. He is free to sin. He is not free to choose God and righteousness. He needs to be transformed in order to desire these things. And that's what God must do in order to save him.

Other Comments by revcort

546. Comment #72485 by NormanDoering on September 21, 2007 at 8:57 am

revcort wrote:

...but my experience tells me something completely different.

What experience? You haven't described much personal experience -- you've mostly talked dogma. For example, this is dogma:

Regarding conversion to other religions... Well, from my viewpoint, these are false religions, so the question is moot. However, theoretically, the answer should be that genuine faith can't result from force. I mean, seriously, just because a muslim holds a gun to your head and says, "Say that Allah is god!" would saying that truly indicate that you believe in Allah? Absolutely not. Faith can't be forced. Of course, in my view, these other religions are worshiping demons, masquerading as gods.

Well, those Muslims believe enough to fly planes into buildings and become suicide bombers.

You've swallowed your religion whole from childhood on, just like the Muslim. How can you be sure you're not the one worshiping demons? Your God is pretty vain, murderous, insane and f#@ked-up from our perspective.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

547. Comment #72487 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 9:09 am

revcort

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Yay, me!

Still leaves the issue of why anything in the bible should be regarded as more than just further made-up stuff, though. Arguably, the Catholic church simply continued doing what the various authors of the bible started: making unsubstantiated claims of divine authority.

Those prophecies you mentioned in your quote from 2 Peter 1 might make good evidence, if any could be shown to be impressive and sound. I believe we have a thread that has gone over this ground at some length: http://richarddawkins.net/article,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg

Other Comments by _J_

548. Comment #72488 by Dr Benway on September 21, 2007 at 9:10 am

revcort:

...man is like a fish who needs to be able to fly. He is free. He is free to swim, not fly. Therefore, he must be transformed into a bird in order to be able to fly.

Swimming fish turning into flying birds. I'd like to see that. Wonder why I never have.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

549. Comment #72489 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 9:11 am

Dr B

In my experience, the fish that swim near the surface are simply a little more likely to get caught.

Other Comments by _J_

550. Comment #72491 by Dr Benway on September 21, 2007 at 9:21 am

J:

...the fish that swim near the surface are simply a little more likely to get caught.

Reminds me of that alien book To Serve Mankind which surpisingly turned out to be a cookbook.

The Fly-Fisher of Men is hungry for soles, and it's nearly tea time.

Other Comments by Dr Benway