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

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I'll be sure not to ground my children when they are in rebellion in the future in an effort to get their attention. I don't want someone accusing me of using tactics that foster 'Stockholm Syndrome' in my children. Thanks for the insight.

well if you want to follow the word of god exactly, dependant upon the degree of rebellion, you may have to kill your child. the bible says so, and god is all knowing and good, so if he says you should, then why wouldnt you? after all, he killed his only son...

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Why would "God" write a book that should not be interpreted literally?

There are over 200 figures of speech and literary devices used by the Holy Spirit in the scriptures.

Example: mountains are sometimes used to describe nations.

Originally posted by wx4caster

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I'll be sure not to ground my children when they are in rebellion in the future in an effort to get their attention. I don't want someone accusing me of using tactics that foster 'Stockholm Syndrome' in my children. Thanks for the insight.

well if you want to follow the word of god exactly, dependant upon the degree of rebellion, you may have to kill your child. the bible says so, and god is all knowing and good, so if he says you should, then why wouldnt you? after all, he killed his only son...

The old covenant applies to those practicing Judaism. Christ gave two commandments for the new covenant, love God and love people, and said that the entire law and prophets were fulfilled with these two commandments. Paul says in Romans that the law was not given for righteousness, it was given so that sin would "abound", that is we would sin MORE. Parents rejected this law in OT times in the same manner that they failed to fulfill any of the other 600+ laws God gave. God gave the law to make men realize they could not merit their own righteousness by being perfect which would (hopefully) drive them to the cross for Christ's imputed righteousness (Grace) free for the asking.

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
If you are looking to defend your disbelief in God, save it for another thread. The question here is God's goodness, not his existence.

Surely if "a.n.anybody" is arguably good or bad then that "a.n.anybody" has to exist. Otherwise the analysis is pointless! A non existant thing is neither good nor bad.

So anybody engaging in the debate must, by definition, agree to the existance of god. Since atheists do not believe god exists no true atheist can debate the point of goodness. Your thread is dead to all but those who like to write for the sake of writing. Or antagonise for the sake if it.......there are plenty !!!!!!

Fictive characters being representatives of certain principles CAN actually be debated. As I later intend to do myself, as I see our esteemed thread-author wisely cutting down on the pseudo-rational approaches (as a dead end) and concentrating more on plain circle-argumentatory preaching.

So I would like to try my hand at 'preaching' myself

Yes. This gets into what I noticed in Genesis. You probably read it so I'll quote it and you can skip on.

In the beginning (TIME), God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (ENERGY).

This is all of creation by the physics that it took to create it. All in the first three verses. I also make the connection to the Word in John 1. A word is a wave. Logos is Christ, who created the universe with God. If you match these two up, you sill miss one thing. The Holy Spirit is the third part of the trinity. This is information. I see atoms and the mass of the universe as this trinity of one Creator God. The father is light and it's duality the Son. The particle and wave combine by streaming information form the Holy Spirit to project our universe into being.

Some would say that this is a simplistic version of physics. I say that physics is a simplistic version of the first three verses of the Bible. What does physics and science miss in all their theories? Information. The deny that information can exist by design. This is the key to understanding evolution.

The quantum observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability. This means that we create the projection of our reality. This is similar to the idea in the matrix movie. Our soul is with God, but we are connected to our body. We have fallen into the material world. This is baptism into the water form John 3. In reality, we are not this body. We are the soul that uses the body as a vehicle. How does God know our every move?

Water has been shown to have memory. Since the hydrogen cycle in the son is the same component of water on the earth, that unimaginable energy contained in water is the memory that records our lives. Water is a recording device. If you don't believe me, read the latest studies into water. So what is the "real" reality? If we are a projected reality, what is the true existence?

God only says we cannot conceive. We can conceive allot as I see on the big screen. The movie Thor was a good example of this. God says that we do not have the mind capable of dreaming what Heaven is like. Knowing what I know about physics, I cannot doubt the possibility.

Originally posted by wx4caster

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Read these and let me know what you think when you examine these principles:

now your getting close to where i am at. yet we have vast differences between us.

my latest delve into books (although recently it has been more online reading, paper is going away eventually) has been into physics. i have loved math and science since i was small, but here recently i have been trying to reconcile what i hold to be true for my view of how we came to be and what i have learned in science.

when you get into QED and when dealing with physcs at extremed (extremely small fast hot cold and so on) things get blurred.

here is something to think about. ou feel like you have mass, that is that you wear clothes and if you hit a brick wall with much velocity you inact a large and unfortunately painful for you force on the wall. BUT, in the grand scheme of things, all matter is comprised of alot of empty space. a hydrogen atom can be described as a golf ball orbiting a base ball with miles in between. thats alot of empty space! not to mention, electrons dont orbit the nucleus the way that planets orbit the sun, its more of a probability that the electron is at some point at some time, or as it has been noted, two places at once!

Sounds intriguing. As for my approach, I stick to what I can verify by life and by the Bible. If either shows the other to be wrong, I will be the first to shout it form the rooftops. So far, the images match in the reflecting that I have done over the years. I can only speak from my own experience and perspective.

There was a train engineer that had a friend. As the engineer passed the friends house each day, he blew his horn. One day, the friend asked him why his horn changed pitch as it went by. The engineer argued that it did not change pitch. Who was right? How does this compare to our debate?

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
If you are looking to defend your disbelief in God, save it for another thread. The question here is God's goodness, not his existence.

Surely if "a.n.anybody" is arguably good or bad then that "a.n.anybody" has to exist. Otherwise the analysis is pointless! A non existant thing is neither good nor bad.

So anybody engaging in the debate must, by definition, agree to the existance of god. Since atheists do not believe god exists no true atheist can debate the point of goodness. Your thread is dead to all but those who like to write for the sake of writing. Or antagonise for the sake if it.......there are plenty !!!!!!

Fictive characters being representatives of certain principles CAN actually be debated. As I later intend to do myself, as I see our esteemed thread.author wisely cutting down on the pseudo-rational approaches and concentrating more on plain circle-argumentatory preaching.

So I would like to try my hand at 'preahing' myself.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by wx4caster

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I'll be sure not to ground my children when they are in rebellion in the future in an effort to get their attention. I don't want someone accusing me of using tactics that foster 'Stockholm Syndrome' in my children. Thanks for the insight.

well if you want to follow the word of god exactly, dependant upon the degree of rebellion, you may have to kill your child. the bible says so, and god is all knowing and good, so if he says you should, then why wouldnt you? after all, he killed his only son...

The old covenant applies to those practicing Judaism. Christ gave two commandments for the new covenant, love God and love people, and said that the entire law and prophets were fulfilled with these two commandments. Paul says in Romans that the law was not given for righteousness, it was given so that sin would "abound", that is we would sin MORE. Parents rejected this law in OT times in the same manner that they failed to fulfill any of the other 600+ laws God gave. God gave the law to make men realize they could not merit their own righteousness by being perfect which would (hopefully) drive them to the cross for Christ's imputed righteousness (Grace) free for the asking.

The old/new contract situation is as self-contained, self-proclaimed and self-proving as the rest of extremist christian argumentation. It's just another facet of a long, elaborate circle-argument.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Decisions Decisions

Do I point out that the texts I selected clearly show bible god to be nothing more than some tribal god whose myth has thanks to some unhappy accident of history managed to hang on and still have a creepy unhealthy effect on some minds in the present day

Do I point out that the texts I selected clearly show the character of bible god to be nothing more a sadistic psychopathic clown and not a highly evolved universe creating entity?

Do I point out that the text you are trying to claim are good are in the same book that my selection of text came from and that if the book is out of date as you seem to suggest, maybe you should wait till bible god send down a service pack or maybe bible 2.0 before making any statements about bible gods character

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

The old covenant applies to those practicing Judaism. Christ gave two commandments for the new covenant, love God and love people, and said that the entire law and prophets were fulfilled with these two commandments. Paul says in Romans that the law was not given for righteousness, it was given so that sin would "abound", that is we would sin MORE. Parents rejected this law in OT times in the same manner that they failed to fulfill any of the other 600+ laws God gave. God gave the law to make men realize they could not merit their own righteousness by being perfect which would (hopefully) drive them to the cross for Christ's imputed righteousness (Grace) free for the asking.

where in the bible does god or jesus himself say that the old covenant is no longer valid?

the apostle paul said this, and there are many scriptures which clearly state that human interpretation of gods words

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

when jesus talks about it he is very clear

"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

so according to you everything is accomplished? but you are human, and i still exist... so now, again, why dont we follow it?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


My pleasure, we Atheists aren't averse to shedding a little light here and there. Oh! and feel free to consult me any time. Problem shared is a problem halved.

You are awesome! That was a great answer. Well said.

I had this cranky old principal my first three years of teaching. He put me through the ringer as I stumbled around in the classroom. For three years, he was right there telling me what I was doing wrong. I resented him for it for years.

I also have a father-in-law that never missed an opportunity to tell it like it was. He was a Baptist preacher when I was dating his daughter (now my wife). He never seemed to care if he hurt my feelings in those early days.

How do you think I see these two men today?

The principal is the reason I am a great teacher today. Most of what he put me through was for my own future good. He saw potential in me and was not afraid to tell it like it was. My youthful pride is the one thing that stood in the way of the help he was trying to give.

As for my father-in-law. There was never a day that I ever doubted his love for me. He only wanted what was best for his daughter. To him, I better shape up or ship out. Was he wrong?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by wx4caster

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I'll be sure not to ground my children when they are in rebellion in the future in an effort to get their attention. I don't want someone accusing me of using tactics that foster 'Stockholm Syndrome' in my children. Thanks for the insight.

well if you want to follow the word of god exactly, dependant upon the degree of rebellion, you may have to kill your child. the bible says so, and god is all knowing and good, so if he says you should, then why wouldnt you? after all, he killed his only son...

The old covenant applies to those practicing Judaism. Christ gave two commandments for the new covenant, love God and love people, and said that the entire law and prophets were fulfilled with these two commandments. Paul says in Romans that the law was not given for righteousness, it was given so that sin would "abound", that is we would sin MORE. Parents rejected this law in OT times in the same manner that they failed to fulfill any of the other 600+ laws God gave. God gave the law to make men realize they could not merit their own righteousness by being perfect which would (hopefully) drive them to the cross for Christ's imputed righteousness (Grace) free for the asking.

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Decisions Decisions

Do I point out that the texts I selected clearly show bible god to be nothing more than some tribal god whose myth has thanks to some unhappy accident of history managed to hang on and still have a creepy unhealthy effect on some minds in the present day

Do I point out that the texts I selected clearly show the character of bible god to be nothing more a sadistic psychopathic clown and not a highly evolved universe creating entity?

Do I point out that the text you are trying to claim are good are in the same book that my selection of text came from and that if the book is out of date as you seem to suggest, maybe you should wait till bible god send down a service pack or maybe bible 2.0 before making any statements about bible gods character

i think he just wanted a debate on gods goodness, but he took for granted that the only rational answers would have to allow that god exists.

either way, as i am about to point out and you will see unfold if my sub debatee takes the bait, the bible has a funny way about having an answer for everything because you can get any answer you want out of it by simply choosing to look at some part of it at one time, never the whole of it at once. if the bible were to be examined as a whole at once and applied, as one would in a scientific arena where facts are mandatory and contradictions are fatal, the bible would fall apart in a flash. any kid with a computer and a brain can contradict the bible, leaving the only available defensive respose to be "because the bible says so, thats why" which because of this, you cannot force someone to accept an error or contradiction.

it is way too flexible and too much of it is open to interpretation. yuck!

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Why would "God" write a book that should not be interpreted literally?

There are over 200 figures of speech and literary devices used by the Holy Spirit in the scriptures.

Example: mountains are sometimes used to describe nations.

and on a side note, why would they use the word for mountain to describe a nation when there is a perfectly good word in thier tongue to say "nation"

poor analagy.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Sounds intriguing. As for my approach, I stick to what I can verify by life and by the Bible. If either shows the other to be wrong, I will be the first to shout it form the rooftops. So far, the images match in the reflecting that I have done over the years. I can only speak from my own experience and perspective.

There was a train engineer that had a friend. As the engineer passed the friends house each day, he blew his horn. One day, the friend asked him why his horn changed pitch as it went by. The engineer argued that it did not change pitch. Who was right? How does this compare to our debate?

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
If you are looking to defend your disbelief in God, save it for another thread. The question here is God's goodness, not his existence.

Surely if "a.n.anybody" is arguably good or bad then that "a.n.anybody" has to exist. Otherwise the analysis is pointless! A non existant thing is neither good nor bad.

So anybody engaging in the debate must, by definition, agree to the existance of god. Since atheists do not believe god exists no true atheist can debate the point of goodness. Your thread is dead to all but those who like to write for the sake of writing. Or antagonise for the sake if it.......there are plenty !!!!!!

Fictive characters being representatives of certain principles CAN actually be debated. As I later intend to do myself, as I see our esteemed thread.author wisely cutting down on the pseudo-rational approaches and concentrating more on plain circle-argumentatory preaching.

So I would like to try my hand at 'preahing' myself.

If you amongst your many varied ways of trying to 'prove' your pre-determined answer eventually should arrive to mankind's present 'endstation' epistemology, you will find, that it has a long and substantial history, which I can recommend you to get acquainted with, before you start autodidact efforts, which have been blind alleys for a long time.

This is not an appeal to 'authority' on my part, I just suggest being able to see and understand the optional positions, so we don't have to waste time on something similar to 'what is REAL science' (a regression from answers to 'perspectives' in a reasoning chain).

I have, as formerly mentioned, a sound hard-science education (and I have been a math-teacher in high-school). This does not as such give my arguments any extra validity, but it DOES make it possible for me to have a precise knowledge of positions. I'm familiar with the basic definitions and uses of the specific science/logic methodology.

Read this post: LINK How can you compare your comments to what I was thinking of my principal and father-in-law? Can you claim to be above God's character after "insert your age" years of living on this earth? Put yourself in perspective and see that you will eventually come to find out why these things were necessary. If you bother to read the Bible for all it's worth, you can see the larger picture. God will not act toward us any different than my father-in-law acted toward me to protect his beloved daughter.

God is the best father you can ever have.

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Decisions Decisions

Do I point out that the texts I selected clearly show bible god to be nothing more than some tribal god whose myth has thanks to some unhappy accident of history managed to hang on and still have a creepy unhealthy effect on some minds in the present day

Do I point out that the texts I selected clearly show the character of bible god to be nothing more a sadistic psychopathic clown and not a highly evolved universe creating entity?

Do I point out that the text you are trying to claim are good are in the same book that my selection of text came from and that if the book is out of date as you seem to suggest, maybe you should wait till bible god send down a service pack or maybe bible 2.0 before making any statements about bible gods character

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Read this post: LINK How can you compare your comments to what I was thinking of my principal and father-in-law? Can you claim to be above God's character after "insert your age" years of living on this earth? Put yourself in perspective and see that you will eventually come to find out why these things were necessary. If you bother to read the Bible for all it's worth, you can see the larger picture. God will not act toward us any different than my father-in-law acted toward me to protect his beloved daughter.

God is the best father you can ever have.

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Decisions Decisions

Do I point out that the texts I selected clearly show bible god to be nothing more than some tribal god whose myth has thanks to some unhappy accident of history managed to hang on and still have a creepy unhealthy effect on some minds in the present day

Do I point out that the texts I selected clearly show the character of bible god to be nothing more a sadistic psychopathic clown and not a highly evolved universe creating entity?

Do I point out that the text you are trying to claim are good are in the same book that my selection of text came from and that if the book is out of date as you seem to suggest, maybe you should wait till bible god send down a service pack or maybe bible 2.0 before making any statements about bible gods character

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

You have, as it practically always happens in this context, gone off into the deep end and increasingly started to rely on allegories and inductive categories.

The last means, that you seem to believe, that because some things are similar, you can stretch the consequences and conclusions from such similarities how far and wide as you find suitable for your purpose.

In REAL logic this (mis)use of inductive categories is strongly rejected, something which ofcourse doesn't prevent missionary theists from doing it anyway.

But as always, feel free to use your own 'methodology', as long as you don't claim it to be part of different systems' methodologies. To do so is open intellectual dishonesty, and the (royal) 'we' you like so much can't have that. Or can it?

Did you read this?

There was a train engineer that had a friend. As the engineer passed the friends house each day, he blew his horn. One day, the friend asked him why his horn changed pitch as it went by. The engineer argued that it did not change pitch. Who was right? How does this compare to our debate?

The Doppler Effect is what the two missed in their argument with each other. This demonstrates perspective and frame of reference. The excluded middle information is what we both need to fill in the blanks. When we see face to face with God, we will see by fact and not faith. For now, you must make the best choice possible with the information you have.

I come from the other side of the argument, so I can compare both equally. I have only recently come to a complete faith in God. I knew God in my heart all my life. I also needed to know Him in my head. We can know truth when our intellect and heart match. If there is any cognitive dissonance with truth, we are missing the excluded middle.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Sounds intriguing. As for my approach, I stick to what I can verify by life and by the Bible. If either shows the other to be wrong, I will be the first to shout it form the rooftops. So far, the images match in the reflecting that I have done over the years. I can only speak from my own experience and perspective.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
If you are looking to defend your disbelief in God, save it for another thread. The question here is God's goodness, not his existence.

Surely if "a.n.anybody" is arguably good or bad then that "a.n.anybody" has to exist. Otherwise the analysis is pointless! A non existant thing is neither good nor bad.

So anybody engaging in the debate must, by definition, agree to the existance of god. Since atheists do not believe god exists no true atheist can debate the point of goodness. Your thread is dead to all but those who like to write for the sake of writing. Or antagonise for the sake if it.......there are plenty !!!!!!

Fictive characters being representatives of certain principles CAN actually be debated. As I later intend to do myself, as I see our esteemed thread.author wisely cutting down on the pseudo-rational approaches and concentrating more on plain circle-argumentatory preaching.

So I would like to try my hand at 'preahing' myself.

If you amongst your many varied ways of trying to 'prove' your pre-determined answer eventually should arrive to mankind's present 'endstation' epistemology, you will find, that it has a long and substantial history, which I can recommend you to get acquainted with, before you start autodidact efforts, which have been blind alleys for a long time.

This is not an appeal to 'authority' on my part, I just suggest being able to see and understand the optional positions, so we don't have to waste time on something similar to 'what is REAL science' (a regression from answers to 'perspectives' in a reasoning chain).

I have, as formerly mentioned, a sound hard-science education (and I have been a math-teacher in high-school). This does not as such give my arguments any extra validity, but it DOES make it possible for me to have a precise knowledge of positions. I'm familiar with the basic definitions and uses of the specific science/logic methodology.

edit on 4-7-2011 by bogomil because: addition

Originally posted by wx4caster

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Why would "God" write a book that should not be interpreted literally?

There are over 200 figures of speech and literary devices used by the Holy Spirit in the scriptures.

Example: mountains are sometimes used to describe nations.

and on a side note, why would they use the word for mountain to describe a nation when there is a perfectly good word in thier tongue to say "nation"

poor analagy.

Why does any author use literary devices?

As much as you try to see the light from only what you see, you can never see the ocean of light beyond the senses. Wifi is all around me and through me right now. I assume it is there because I have read how it works. I trust the people who have written the information down about wifi. I don't see it, but it is there. I can also see it as it manifests as a signal on my screen. I could argue that it is not there for whatever reason, but this will not change the connection I have to my computer. It demonstrates itself. God can be seen in just the same manner. He chooses to be Himself, apart from anything that we can see in this world. Nature is the reflection of His image. We are 'in' the image of God. I trust the shepherds and nomads that God revealed this to thousands of years ago. How else could they have known? There is no fault in the Bible. It is science in different words, revealing facts and not theories.

Hebrews 11:3

3By 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. Science will eventually catch up and realize.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Read this post: LINK How can you compare your comments to what I was thinking of my principal and father-in-law? Can you claim to be above God's character after "insert your age" years of living on this earth? Put yourself in perspective and see that you will eventually come to find out why these things were necessary. If you bother to read the Bible for all it's worth, you can see the larger picture. God will not act toward us any different than my father-in-law acted toward me to protect his beloved daughter.

God is the best father you can ever have.

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Decisions Decisions

Do I point out that the texts I selected clearly show bible god to be nothing more than some tribal god whose myth has thanks to some unhappy accident of history managed to hang on and still have a creepy unhealthy effect on some minds in the present day

Do I point out that the texts I selected clearly show the character of bible god to be nothing more a sadistic psychopathic clown and not a highly evolved universe creating entity?

Do I point out that the text you are trying to claim are good are in the same book that my selection of text came from and that if the book is out of date as you seem to suggest, maybe you should wait till bible god send down a service pack or maybe bible 2.0 before making any statements about bible gods character

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

You have, as it practically always happens in this context, gone off into the deep end and increasingly started to rely on allegories and inductive categories.

The last means, that you seem to believe, that because some things are similar, you can stretch the consequences and conclusions from such similarities how far and wide as you find suitable for your purpose.

In REAL logic this (mis)use of inductive categories is strongly rejected, something which ofcourse doesn't prevent missionary theists from doing it anyway.

But as always, feel free to use your own 'methodology', as long as you don't claim it to be part of different systems' methodologies. To do so is open intellectual dishonesty, and the (royal) 'we' you like so much can't have that. Or can it?

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["Did you read this?

There was a train engineer that had a friend. As the engineer passed the friends house each day, he blew his horn. One day, the friend asked him why his horn changed pitch as it went by. The engineer argued that it did not change pitch. Who was right? How does this compare to our debate?


The Doppler Effect is what the two missed in their argument with each other. This demonstrates perspective and frame of reference. The excluded middle information is what we both need to fill in the blanks. When we see face to face with God, we will see by fact and not faith. For now, you must make the best choice possible with the information you have.

I come from the other side of the argument, so I can compare both equally. I have only recently come to a complete faith in God. I knew God in my heart all my life. I also needed to know Him in my head. We can know truth when our intellect and heart match. If there is any cognitive dissonance with truth, we are missing the excluded middle."]

Ofcourse I read it, and that's why I took up epistemology, and why your arguments basically are unsound, because you have promoted your own central assumptions to be absolutes far ahead of any rational reasoning chain.

You try to (mis)use reason, when that with some hijacking and twisting fits with your pre-determined answer. When it doesn't, you fall back on plain subjective circle-argumentation of your postulates.

You want it both ways, ......on your conditions?