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

I remember as a very young child laying in bed on Christmas eve trying very hard to hear the sound of the bells on Santa’s sleigh – and no surprise, after a while and trying hard enough, I convinced my self I did hear something – I’m sure everybody understands all I did was at some subconscious level I mentally recreated a sleigh bell sound and then consciously acted (believed) as if it was real.

I think the human mind is very good at creating simulacrum/simulations and then interacting with these creations as if they are real – so a believer creates an internal simulation of what a “god” is and this simulation can then provides them with sensations and effects such as hearing the voice of this “god” ect - which to the believer seems real

The above hypothesis can explain a few things:

Why a believer can never bring any facts/logic to a discussion – all a believer can bring are feelings, usually fear (how would they go about proving their mental construct is real?)

Why the believer’s particular god loves/hates the same things as the believer – after all the “god” is just the believers own internal construct

Why the believer insists that all the non-believer has to do is put as much time and energy into constructing a belief as the believer did to acquire the same belief

(and in the case of this thread)
Why believers bring tiny fragments (just one sentence usually) from the Bronze Age gobbledygook found in their book to prove some point but seem to be able to block out what rest of the book says (I think the jumble of text in the in the bible acts like a kind of Rorschach Inkblots thingy on the believers mind)

Make a claim. No problem. Back it up with a link.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil

 

I don't know if you read my post where I said "madd" but that does not begin to describe the OP.
Here is a quote from one of his threads.

. . .the spirit of the world destroys the world utterly for a brief time.

So I don't know what he is, exactly but you have to watch out for people claiming to be a Christian because there is no board exam or certification necessary to make that claim.

edit on 4-7-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

When the conversation comes down to character attack, we have arrived at the argument that is thrown toward God. Just like the original post states, you have no valid argument that God is not good. God is good. Through Him, we all have salvation at our request. Love is the key. If you cannot love a loving God, you will be lost forever. It can't get any clearer than this.

The issue is not whether God is good. This is established. It is not whether or not there is value in salvation or a a Spirit Filled life. This can be verified simply by examining the difference between a life lived for others and a life lived for self. No contest. The issue is this:

Loving God requires giving up a lifestyle. What you do not understand is that God replaces each habit or unloving attitude you give up with something much better. It only takes your willingness to release your life to Him in humility and trust. This is the issue, nothing else.

Like I have said before, nothing is lost with God. It can only be lost apart from Him.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

I am familiar with the present author from another thread (also authored by him/her).

It's the same formula there: Take some basic and simple real information from real science to give the whole thing a sheen of respectability. Add a pinch of inductive reasoning, fill out knowledge-gaps with assumptions, wrap it all in excessive rhetoric, bad semantics or even scholastics

and

viola....you have a cottage-industry 'systematic methodology' (a travesty of real science/logic), which from then can be 'referred' to as a truth-seeking position.

I have personally, but in vain, tried to cut through this and suggested a 'reality check' to the author. Ofocurse without result.

So whatever your specific criticism of the author is, I have my own parallel one.

reply to post by bogomil

And it's just as simple to NOT accept something for the sake of argument.

Sure, but it's kinda pointless for those people to address other people in the thread who ARE entering into the hypotheticals of the OP.

Your mind is programmed by the input it receives. Give it the world's wisdom, and it will produce results accordingly. Give it Spiritual wisdom, and it will produce results that reflect the requirements of God. Compare the two:

World System

There is no God from this worldview. Therefore, the self within me is able to do as I please according to my own personal morality. There is no standard other than that of objectivism. My soul, under the worldview, belongs to me as a possession. Since I look at my own soul as a possession I own, I trample other souls under my foot of pride to get my way at their expense. Life only reflects what I can do for me. Others are on their own. The stronger I am as a persons in this world, the more I get. When it is all over, the wake of my choices affects anyone I have ever come in contact with. My choices, under the worldview, affect the lives of those who knew me, long after I am gone. My influence of selfish pride lasts forever and will be passed on forever. This is the fruit of the world system.

Spiritual System

There is a God who is watching our actions. Therefore, the self that is within me is guided by truth and justice. This requires that I act according to a standard of morality. There is no standard other than altruism. My soul is not my own. It has be given to me as a gift that I must value. Because of this understanding, I must treat others with the same respect God showed to me. Life is not just about me, it is about others and what is best for the many. The more I suffer the work of honest labors, the better life becomes for me and others. When it is all said and done, the wake of my choices lives on in the lives of those I loved. My choices, under God's guidance, will change the lives of those who knew me. This love lasts forever and will be passed on by them to the next generation. This is the fruit of God's plan for our lives. The kingdom of God demands that we live in love for others.

Originally posted by racasan
I remember as a very young child laying in bed on Christmas eve trying very hard to hear the sound of the bells on Santa’s sleigh – and no surprise, after a while and trying hard enough, I convinced my self I did hear something – I’m sure everybody understands all I did was at some subconscious level I mentally recreated a sleigh bell sound and then consciously acted (believed) as if it was real.

I think the human mind is very good at creating simulacrum/simulations and then interacting with these creations as if they are real – so a believer creates an internal simulation of what a “god” is and this simulation can then provides them with sensations and effects such as hearing the voice of this “god” ect - which to the believer seems real

The above hypothesis can explain a few things:

Why a believer can never bring any facts/logic to a discussion – all a believer can bring are feelings, usually fear (how would they go about proving their mental construct is real?)

Why the believer’s particular god loves/hates the same things as the believer – after all the “god” is just the believers own internal construct

Why the believer insists that all the non-believer has to do is put as much time and energy into constructing a belief as the believer did to acquire the same belief

(and in the case of this thread)
Why believers bring tiny fragments (just one sentence usually) from the Bronze Age gobbledygook found in their book to prove some point but seem to be able to block out what rest of the book says (I think the jumble of text in the in the bible acts like a kind of Rorschach Inkblots thingy on the believers mind)

reply to post by SuperiorEd

If you cannot love a loving God, you will be lost forever.

Seriously, you need to check yourself in. You are not God and you can not send us to Hell. You do not have that power, no matter how much you would like to. Please get help.

So that the topic is not derailed, let me give you another idea that is related to God's goodness. This relates to my last post about each worldview.

Suffering is the point of life. This seems opposite to what the world tells you. Many people would run from this idea until it is examined closely. According to Buddhism, suffering should be eliminated. The life of Christ suggests something different.

I make the claim that suffering leads to reward in life. The world would say that taking reward at every opportunity is your goal. I say that taking reward leads directly to suffering. Here are two examples:

Smoke and you get cancer. This is an example of taking reward leading to suffering. These types of suffering never end and rob you of the ability to help those who depend on you for support.

Suffer the work of a college degree and you get the reward of an advancement in the labor force. This is an example of suffering for reward. These types of rewards never end. This is the type of reward that benefits those who depend on you.

Give me one example that defies my claim. As you try, understand that the results of a life lived for God reflects the life of Christ. Christ suffered every step for us. Suffering is the point of a well lived life. This is a life of love for others. The byproduct of this life lives on in the lives of others as an inheritance of your goodness and sacrifice for them. This is what God did for you.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

And it's just as simple to NOT accept something for the sake of argument.

Sure, but it's kinda pointless for those people to address other people in the thread who are entering into the hypotheticals of the OP.

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.

This is what we do. As a mirror, which is what we are, we can reflect ideas and concepts in different directions. My subject is the Bible. I am the object that is reflecting this truth (subject) to you. Below, you state that my subject is me. This is mistaking the subject for the object delivering the subject. You are reflecting my truth back to me. Instead, it would be better to reflect it back to yourself as a true or false reflection of yourself.

When you look into a mirror, what do you see? Do you see the mirror? No, you see yourself. Even if someone is holding the mirror for you, you still see yourself. The Bible is the image of God, Christ and man. When we look into the mirror, we can pretend we do not see all three. We can say that we only see the work of man in the image. The truth is, we can only see ourselves in the reflection. Reading the reflection requires that we see past the blemishes on the mirror. The Bible is not the word of God. Christ is the true word of God (John 1). The Bible is the reflection (Colossians 1:15).

1 Corinthians 13 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Hebrews 11:3 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Light is not visible. We see the surface and the waves, like looking out across the ocean. The light of God must be viewed from the depths.

"The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man [Christ] is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man [Christ]" (1 Corinthians:15:47-49).

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

If you cannot love a loving God, you will be lost forever.

Seriously, you need to check yourself in. You are not God and you can not send us to Hell. You do not have that power, no matter how much you would like to. Please get help.

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

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

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Hopefully the OP will read this and hear it through, you ask for a short answer to a long question, that is not likely going to produce decent responses. Before i start, i am not here to be grammatically correct, i may mispell or choose not to capitolize things like i or god and such. be warned.

i have done much research and thinking into god, the bible, what it says what it means. not just the holy bible as in KJV or NIV or such, but also other books. pearl of great price and the book of mormon and so on. i feel that it is important to do so when trying to percieve the bible in an analytical mannor, not on the basis of faith.

if you react on faith alone, then there is no argument. when it comes to faith, we are all independantly correct no matter what we believe in simply because it is our faith. in mathews 16:19 we find

"and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:"

the jewish equivalent or translation of the word bind was also found to be used in legal context to mean forbid. the next portion of this verse goes on to say

"and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

and we also find the equivelant translation here of loose to mean allow.

okay, so what does this mean? well it means that what we allow on earth will be allowed in heaven and visa versa. it is our faith, what we hold to be morally correct and incorrect on earth will be used as the model for heaven. further more, the basis of good vs evil really falls apart here when you individualize the reference of faith, and accept that each of us have our own beliefs.

so, how else can we think about this? well we can take the scriptures as evidence, and assume for a moment (if you arent already assuming this anyway) that the bible is full of nothing but historical fact and it is accurate description of gods acts towards mankind. THEN, we can list those acts each for morally acceptable or morrally inept and see which weighs more. hey! thats almost objective!

in an offhanded attempt to keep with the OP's request, lets leave the listings to you the reader and i would like to list a few obvious additions to our proposed lists...

god obviously, according to the bible, did the ultimate favor to us all, by bringing us into existance. point one for god being a nice guy. on that thought, make it 5 points, 1000, as many as you want, because other than destroying the universe there is no comparable act found in the bible that we could use to meet this one pound for pound in the middle... or is there? when god created... everything, one part of this everything was (according to the bible) (enter bad guy music) LUCIFER. who would through the entirety of the text plague mankind with deception and temptation, testing our faith at every step... so god created everything, and it was good... mostly. the fact that all powerful god would allow such a creature to exist (he made him) is definately points against. but it gets worse. when i try to bake (rarely) and i burn a cake, i get rid of it. (thats why i dont bake...) i care about those who would eat my cake and i dont want them to get sick. god is definately aware of satan/lucifer/ w/e u wanna call him/it (or her? jus sayin...) and continues, apparantly to today, to allow him to exist.

ok ok, we could tit for tat this all day long. god destroyed sodom and gomorrah, god helped joshua sack jericho, god flooded the world, BUUUT they were gods enemys and they were sinful... so was it a good act or at least justifyable?

in the end, when one looks at the true nature of god, when you combine the events from the old and new testament, i personally have found the god described there to be neither good nor evil. (oh no? what?!) its true.

god is wrathful towards the wicked. god has destroyed the whole lot of mankind to start fresh. he has started wars and ended civilizations over his anger and jealousy, yet he has also made the ultimate sacrifice to save us all. and i think (or hope) that if you really study the acts of good vs evil, there is no real good or evil act when it comes to the bible, just actions based on a condition. god is good or evil dependant on whose side you are on.

now, if you want a real thinker, how about this.

What is the extent of gods knowledge and capability if there is one? and how would you support your assertion

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["When the conversation comes down to character attack,......"]

What character-attack? I'm directing my criticism towards your postulates.

Quote continued: ["......we have arrived at the argument that is thrown toward God."]

How. Are you the elect spokesperson of 'god', so criticism of you reflects back on him. But besides that; I HAVE some arguments 'thrown towards 'god' ' (or the principles represented by this, in his role of creator, fictive entity).

Quote: ["Just like the original post states, you have no valid argument that God is not good."]

Dearie me, do we need to get 'positions' as a concept sorted out first? I would have believed (on basis of your claims elsewhere of much experience in this kind of debate), that you would know the difference between 'agnostic' and 'gnostic' positions. An 'agnostic position' means, that you're not able to present conclusive evidence (in whatever direction). No-one can 'disprove' the flying spaghetti monster. No-one can 'prove' him.

Quote: ["God is good"]

This is a 'gnostic position'. You need evidence.

Quote: ["Through Him, we all have salvation at our request."]

Salvation doctrine is a 'gnostic position'. You need evidence. Which christians usually claim to find in.....

'Original sin' doctrine, which is a 'gnostic position', for which evidence is needed. Assumptions on top of assumptions.

Quote: ["Love is the key"]

A postulate with so many facets, that I'll not even start to comment on it.

Quote: ["If you cannot love a loving God, you will be lost forever. It can't get any clearer than this."]

A postulate.

Quote: ["The issue is not whether God is good. This is established."]

If you have 'established' this for yourself, fine. That's called a subjective faith, and no-one will force you to renounce that. It's not a valid statement in general though, neither as to method or to the 'answer' itself.

Quote: ["Loving God requires giving up a lifestyle."]

I'm not especially interested in loving your alleged 'god', and his alleged requests are of absolutely no importance for me. So I'll stay with what I have and let that grow in a rational way.

Quote: ["What you do not understand is that God replaces each habit or unloving attitude you give up with something much better."]

It's not difficult to 'understand' the implied idea, or that this is a postulate some people make. If you with 'understand' mean accepting it as truth, that's something else. That would need evidence.

Quote: [" It only takes your willingness to release your life to Him in humility and trust."]

And why on earth should I have such a willingness to become a 'slave' of an entity who by non-believers often are considered as evil, psychopathic, incompetent and a control-freak. I don't buy a second-hand car on the assurance of a glib salesman, that it's 'perfect'. I would want evidence.

Quote: ["This is the issue, nothing else."]

That you are here to preach and convert doesn't come as a surprise; that's been obvious from the start. Your mistake lies in trying to give it a veneer of 'objectivity' through the use of pseudo-science/logic.

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...

Jesus claimed not to be God but you are using Jesus' position to defend God's position. I could have culled many more but I alighted on this pleasant example from Genesis taken from the Skeptics Annotated Bible.

"And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7

After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

And it's just as simple to NOT accept something for the sake of argument.

Sure, but it's kinda pointless for those people to address other people in the thread who ARE entering into the hypotheticals of the OP.

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

So what's the purpose of starting a thread on ATS at all. To turn the forum into a pulpit or the soap-box of a streetcorner orator? This half-hidden theist agenda of trying to establish censor-like restrictions reflects back on you. You want privileges.

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)

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.

There you have it in a nutshell. People would give a fig about your alleged 'god', if the threats of allegedly being MADE miserable weren't there.

And now when the existence of this alleged 'god' increasingly is questioned, the elaborate christian circle-arguments on the 'hows' and 'whys' of suffering are correspondingly ignored.

Not least because the buddhist (and similar) answers on suffering, have more appeal to contemporary existential seekers, who would like to have an element of the rational in their search.

reply to post by Imhotepsol


i think the real word is heathen. isnt it ?