God is GOOD and I will defend Him. A Challenge for Atheists

reply to post by wx4caster


You wrote:

["well, that may not be necessarily so. there are some minor but irrefuteable differences in the books of the deciples which would be more likely the same story as witnessed by several different people. whether or not the words were gods is up to personal belief but logically if an all powerful being had all these people writing the story down, it should come out the same, because unless god changed his dictating practices, when he charged someone to write holy scripture it was to be word for word... anyway..."]

A very sound argument, which even can be carried into the general area of comparative religion. If 3.500 different 'gods' are on the market, some ulterior method of evaluating their different claims of .....(whatever) is needed.

Most missionary religionists use the same type of self-confirming arguments as presented on this thread, and in the end it's: "Is, isn't is....".

The religionist controversy isn't just between science/logic and religion. It's also BETWEEN religions.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You wrote:

["But not to give the appearance of cherry-picking, Jesus also says the law and the prophets are summed up in two commands: 1. Love God, 2. Love people. That's why He said "My yoke is easy and my burden is light".]

And Buddha said: " 'Love' realization (knowledge) and 'love' all sentient beings". ('Love' because Buddha didn't operate from an emotional position, but from a more rational one, where the sometimes fervent christian idea of love isn't directly transferable on christian terms).

So maybe everybody should be preached at from a buddhist perspective instead.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


cant prove a negative...lets try this instead...show me evidence that god is good i have not seen any yet, since it isnt forthcoming it is safe to assume that there isnt any proof and therefore god if he/she/it existed he/she/it could be either good or evil. since the only proof (pseudoproof actually) is the bible then there is no proof. god wrote the bible (allegedly) so you cant use it as an example to prove his/her/its goodness.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Suffering is the point of life. This seems opposite to what the world tells you.

Correct. Most people's idea of a "good" god is one that minimizes pain and maximizes pleasure. But in my opinion, the reason God allows pain and suffering is because He knows that's the only time most people will reach out to Him.

so this loving good god is the source of all suffering? so he/she/it can get you to do what he/she/it wants? sounds evil and manipulative ...the opposite of good.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


light is too visible...look at the sun and tell me you dont see light...

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
The word of God is written on your heart. You already know truth. The person picking up the Bible would either recognize truth, or put it down. It all depends on the value you place on what is already there.

2 Corinthians 3:3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Let me ask you a different question

Assume you have never heard of bible god or even knew what the bible was and you went for a walk around your local book store and found a copy of the bible on the bargain stand with no way other way of identifying what it is

You pick the book up and flick through it – would you think

holly molly this is exactly what I have been missing in my life
or
golly gee this book is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

or would you think

meh – more mythology

edit on 4-7-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

the word of god isnt written on your heart it is drilled into your brain until you abandon any rational logic.

Originally posted by wx4caster
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

god is not required to follow any law. god does not have to deal with any situation with love, according to the bible ( i assume that you are christian, based on ur profile and argument) you should know that god deals with people who disagree with him in a very few ways. flood, fire, death, and an eternity in absolute nothingness. it is only those that choose to be on his side and love him that are recieved with his grace in the end. even if you only repent after death, you get to be in his grace. it is the repentance and acceptance that makes that happen. you have to love and honor god before you get his goodness. other than that, you had better be a good swimmer...

so is god a lawless anarchist?

reply to post by RickyVelveeta

of course this is possible, how is it different to someone asking; say, somebody's opinion of darth vader's character in the star wars movies, or harry potter etc?

Because people I'm talking about this with realize that Darth Vadar and Harry Potter are made up characters. People who talk about God are thinking that it is a real entity. Not a character.

I don't understand an atheist talking about the character of an imaginary being. UNLESS it's understood that he's imaginary, like your examples.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

We all recognize truth when we see it. It is already in you. Socrates said that we know all truth when we come to this world. The job is to rediscover what we already knew.

Those moments of insight that you have...you are only finding what was already there. This is the point of living a spiritual life. Apart from the spirit within you, you cannot have access to the deeper concepts of truth. You are essentially a man looking at the surface and waves of a vast ocean, afraid to dive in for what you might need to give up; afraid of what might be lost. The pearl is found in the depths.

Originally posted by racasan

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
The word of God is written on your heart. You already know truth. The person picking up the Bible would either recognize truth, or put it down. It all depends on the value you place on what is already there.

what on earth does this mean

(and in your own words please i will happily talk to you but i have no interest in talking to your book)

no Socrates was correct we know goodness when we are born and only the suborning of our knowledge by an outside force can cut out that knowing or effectively blind it...such as being forced or coerced into belief of something that cannot be proven.

wrong answering button

reply to post by SuperiorEd

This is what we do.

Could you tell me who the "we" are you are talking about? Are you more than one person. Are there two people living inside your head? Are you a member of a secret brotherhood of prophets?

You are reflecting my truth back to me.

"Your truth"? So you are the source of truth? It comes from you? You say something and it is true because you said it?

The truth is, we can only see ourselves in the reflection.

So the Bible is just a tool for self examination? So why did you say two sentences previous to this one that it reflects God, Christ, and man?

The Bible is the reflection (Colossians 1:15).

That verse is about Jesus. I think all this stuff you are saying about the Bible is only what you made up yourself and are trying to turn it into some weird analogy that makes no sense.

The light of God must be viewed from the depths.

This looks like something else you made up that I can find no possible use for. Depths? of what? Hell? How about something actually useful? Or is this your personal testimony? You could not understand truth untill your life became a living hell? Then you looked to God to get you out? Then you became a prophet based on how you had sunk to a place no one has ever been to and lived to tell of it? Sorry dude but you are not as special as you may think. That happens all the time and to practically everybody. Did Satan meet you in Hell and tell you he had a good deal for you if you would become his spokesman? That also happens and the recipients of such offers are not special, either. They are just made to feel like they are. Another trick Satan plays on people who are desperate for some sort of good feeling about themselves. Well, wishing everyone on earth to be dead does not make you special either. Lots of people think that. That would make them happy (or imagine it would) that at least no one else will be happy. You have a common malady and I hope you realize that. Turning a curse into a blessing, such as you imagine you are doing, is only a partial and temporary fix for a bigger problem. I hope you actually do come to find the real truth of God some day, and not be turning you own personal thoughts into something greater than they really are.

Originally posted by CaDreamer
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

cant prove a negative...lets try this instead...show me evidence that god is good i have not seen any yet, since it isnt forthcoming it is safe to assume that there isnt any proof and therefore god if he/she/it existed he/she/it could be either good or evil. since the only proof (pseudoproof actually) is the bible then there is no proof. god wrote the bible (allegedly) so you cant use it as an example to prove his/her/its goodness.

It's some good points to bring up, because while theists often are more than willing to engage in a debate of the impossibility of disproving 'god', such (positivistic-absolute) self-restrictions don't manifest, when it comes to their own point of 'proving' an alleged 'god', which they freely try to do through circle-argumentation.

Apparantly we are not all playing by the same rules. The theists often take the easy part ("it's true, because it's true"), and leave the difficult one ("PROVE the non-existemce of 'god") to opposition.

To meet the intellectually honest active theist is always a pleasure, but there are few of them, when it comes to the point. And they are very seldom of a missionary mindset.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

You must be willing to lose everything to gain it all. This does not mean a literal hatred. God's example explains this to you. You must love God first in order to love others.

really? love can not exist without god? lol better tell that to all the Buddhists that are in loving married and otherwise relationships throughout the world. guess that also means that all atheists do not know love and can not until they come to god on their knees and beg for his blessings...the argument of god is good is a slap in the face of the entire old testament. god is a jealous vengeful god..in the words of his own bible

explain to me how jealousy and vengeance are facets of a loving...anything. jesus said do not return evil for evil...god says an eye for an eye...

What if you have no hate for anybody, but have no love for yourself or others. This is the problem that I'm having with myself...

Originally posted by Hashyt308
What if you have no hate for anybody, but have no love for yourself or others. This is the problem that I'm having with myself...

That could be environmental. You need to see a naturopathic physician and a good holistic dietitian and get the toxins out of you body causing the blockages in your natural thought processes.

Originally posted by Hashyt308
What if you have no hate for anybody, but have no love for yourself or others. This is the problem that I'm having with myself...

Depends on how you define 'love'...as a strong emotional attachment, as 'compassion' or as the rationally-based sympathy for those sentient beings suffering.

In REAL life, the last answer, often as an extension of utilitarian 'rational' ethics, appears to be the most functional in an overall consideration.

Strong emotions, as in 'love' (bhakti) religions or in mundane relationships can be difficult to relate to; real 'compassion' is beyond most mindsets; but the utilitarian approach is inside the grasp of the majority of mankind (except for psychopaths etc).

reply to post by wx4caster


We can't also forget Psalms 119:152, 160 and God's law being eternal and unchanging.

Psalm 152 " Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever."

Psalm 160 "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You were implying that a god is responsible for these things

I'll need you to reflect on a few rhetorical questions. Do you make the cones and rods in your eyes activate to see? Do you cause the chemical and biological process in your gut work to digest food? Do you make your hair grow? Do you choose the speed at which it grows? Do you make the heavenly bodies transit the galaxy in synchronized movement? Do you do the calculations necessary to produce athletic movement on the basketball court? Do you cool and heat the body by your circularity system?

Inserting god in a lack of understanding is an arguement from incredulity.

This was the part of your argument that I was referring to and there is no sound reasoning behind it.

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.
As an example, creationists incessantly use some difficult-to-explain facet of biology as "proof" of a creator. The problem is that, though there is no non-design explanation for how precisely a certain organ could have evolved at the moment, one may be discovered in the future. Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does not justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does not justify speculation as proof.
Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away. For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O.
Another form, the argument from personal incredulity, takes the form "I can't believe P, therefore not-P." Merely because one cannot believe that, for example, homeopathy is no more than a placebo does not magically make such treatment effective. Clinical trials are deliberately designed in such a way that an individual personal experience is not important compared to data in aggregate. Human beings have extremely advanced pattern recognition skills, to the extent that they are objectively poor judges of probability.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by Hashyt308
What if you have no hate for anybody, but have no love for yourself or others. This is the problem that I'm having with myself...

That could be environmental. You need to see a naturopathic physician and a good holistic dietitian and get the toxins out of you body causing the blockages in your natural thought processes.

Being a reiki-healer, healthfood-freak and amateur practitioner of 'natural medicine' myself, I naturally have strong sympathies for your opinons on this. But I wouldn't carry it to the point of blind faith, especially not with an implied antagonism towards more modern-based scientific methods.

Moderation always comes out as the winner, except in really extreme situations.

Truth is truth when it passes through the filter of biblical wisdom. Confucius said, "Do not do to others what you would not do to yourself." He said this 500 years before Christ. The Hindu tradition says, "If you are heading out to hit someone with a stick, try it out on yourself first." Much of what Jesus stated was solid truth from earlier traditions. Much of this wisdom was well know in His day and has been lost by us.

Just as Transmigration is held by the Hebrew tradition as well. Again, it was a well-understood concept in that day and age. John 3 tells me what I need to know. If I am incorrect in my theology, then we have one life to live. Either way, it is necessary to live by the Spirit to gain union with the Spirit.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

To the list of hijacked and twisted material you 'borrow' from other truth-seeking systems and fit to your own purpose, you included 'koans' from zen-buddhism in a recent post (on page 6) and before that an 'inductive category' argument to equalize asian religions with your interpretation of the bible (not surprisingly DISREGARDING the basic differences between the compared systems, and with little or no knowledge of the real bases of such alternative systems).