The Top Ten Reasons Why the Bible is Repulsive

36 comments:

Alan said...

John, I read the opening pages of your “Why I Became an Atheist” book on the Amazon.com preview. I can’t say that I’ll purchase it because books on how to fail are a dime a dozen. What struck me was how you came to Christ, or should I say, how you THOUGHT you came to Christ. After reading Francis Scheaffer, Hal Lindsey, and Josh McDowell, you considered yourself a “believer” since their arguments were convincing. Then you read some philosophical books that argued in the opposite direction and you considered yourself an unbeliever (or eventually an atheist) because you interpreted their arguments as being more persuasive. What is more incredible is when Hal Lindsey’s predictions failed, you equated this failure to Christ’s failure even though Christ stipulated that no one knew the time of his return:

Mat. 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Not having read the entire book makes me unqualified to form absolute judgment, but perhaps this can be concluded: If I have misinterpreted your experience, then as a writer, you have wholly failed in the chronology of your opening statements to convey your supposed “conversion” process. I’m so thankful that my experience was totally void of reading other men’s opinions until I had first wholly read the Bible. I started practically as a “blank slate”. My experience with Christ has been totally rewarding and satisfying both philosophically and spiritually. He has kept my marriage together and has made the “impossible” “possible” on countless occasions.

"God cannot be a figment of my imagination because He is not at all what I imagined Him to be."
-C.S. Lewis

I realize that I'm off topic here but perhaps some poor soul will find this reading more refreshing than the boring "The Top Ten Reasons Why the Bible is Repulsive" thread.

feeno said...

John
Well, I made it through about 3 minutes before I turned it off. If the next 7 minutes are as goofy as the first 3 it's no wonder you poor saps are so confused. The 10 commandments weren't given to people who work at Burger King or Wal-Mart.They written for and to the Israelites only. It was to remind them that they used to be slaves and God freed them from Egyptian bondage.(Ex. 31:16 and Duet. 5:15).

Then when Christ was crucified so did the idea of having to go to church on a certain day, whether it be Sat, Sun, Wed night or whatever day. (Col. 2:14).

And this guy says we don't read the Bible.

Shalom, feeno

dad of luke said...

Hello Alan,

I have a few brief responses to your points.

1.) "After reading Francis Scheaffer, Hal Lindsey, and Josh McDowell, you considered yourself a “believer” since their arguments were convincing."

Though a minor adjustment, Loftus seemed to believe prior to reading those men. After reading them he then thought that Christianity was something that could be intellectually defended as true. His current lack of belief should not be equated merely with a refutation of Schaeffer and the gang.

2.) "Then you read some philosophical books that argued in the opposite direction and you considered yourself an unbeliever (or eventually an atheist) because you interpreted their arguments as being more persuasive."

As John himself said, "There are three things that changed my thinking: a major crisis, plus new information that caused me to see things differently, minus a sense of a loving, caring, Christian community."

3.) "What struck me was how you came to Christ, or should I say, how you THOUGHT you came to Christ."

This is too confident a claim to make based on the little information you possess regarding John and his book. Browse this blog, browse his book a bit further and you will find that John has a better grasp of what it is to have faith than you credit him with.

4.) "I’m so thankful that my experience was totally void of reading other men’s opinions until I had first wholly read the Bible. I started practically as a “blank slate”."

I do not say this to be rude but one should beware the notion of lacking the influence of another's thinking. Though one may read through The Bible without having _read_ another man's opinion on it, our participation in culture makes it likely that we will unknowingly adopt several assumptions about reading, interpration, and religion (amongst other things). What one may assume to be a 'pure' reading of The Bible might not be so untainted after a little questioning about where we truly get our ideas from. The same doubts you thrust upon John should also be thrust upon yourself.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Alan,

When you boldly make statements like this, "Not having read the entire book makes me unqualified to form absolute judgment, but perhaps this can be concluded," you confirm your ignorance.

An informed person does not draw conclusions until they examine all evidence available to them. You, however, emotionally decide a conclusion before examining the evidence.

It is indicative of the Christian mind. Christians have personal experiences that convince them God is real and then look to make all subject to their personal experience. They never question the fact that eye-witness accounts and personal revelation are weak data.

The only thing you've convinced me of here Alan is that you are an arrogant fool who demands all believe what he believes because he feels what he believes to be the truth.

You don't think very well and your arguments only serve to protect your superstition. I can't see how they can expand our understanding of autonomy, liberty or justice.

Your argument for marriage as punishment for rape as a dis-incentive to rape was moronic.

It also implied that marriage is a punishment and that a woman's autonomy can only be realized in a marriage covenent.

Please let me know where you live so I stay far away from that environment.

You are an idiot.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Feeno,

Why then do you include Exodus in your bible?

If the commandments are null and void shouldn't you dispose of them?

Thanks.

feeno said...

The Noble Sir Charles

The Old Testament points out to us that God has laws that man can't keep. It reveals to us that we need a Savior. It points the way to Jesus.
(Gal. 3:24) "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith."

Also we learn how we can please God, though I'm not bound by the law, I can still try to live a life pleasing to my Creator. Honoring your parents, not lying about people, not stealing, those are things that if I live up to will help me out, not God.

We don't like rules, we tell our kids: No running with a sucker in your mouth, don't put your finger in the light socket, don't swim right after you eat etc. etc..
Why? Because if they listen to us they will be safer.

Plus I like the stories in the OT, and learning how God dealt with his chosen people. You guys like to focus on how "petty" you think God is, but I see how we should feel towards God and other people. Which is really all I'm required to do as a Believer.(Mark 12:30-31) ...Love God with all your....and to love thy neighbor as ....

Peace out from man's best friend
Doug aka feeno

Scott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott said...

Feeno wrote: They written for and to the Israelites only. It was to remind them that they used to be slaves and God freed them from Egyptian bondage.

For the sake of argument, let's assume your interpretation is correct.

It seems that the Israelites simply exchanged one form of bondage for another.

Either you remember that I [God] saved you from death by hands of the Egyptians or I'll have you put to death by the hands of your own people?

Is this not repulsive?

What delusion must one be under to think this this line of thinking is anything but barbaric?

feeno said...

Scott
True, however God would have always spared a remnant so that Christ would've been born to save the rest of us.
Heaven wants to beam you up Scotty.

Late, feeno

Bluemongoose said...

Shall we go into the reasons why atheism can be seen as repulsive?

Chuck O'Connor said...

Feeno,

Good to hear from you. I hope all is well with you.

I believe what you said is what you believe but, it continues to be incredibly ridiculous.

Your point of view indicates to me that there was (is and always will be) an all-powerful creator god who created the universe then created man who then rebelled (which somehow this all-powerful being didn't anticipate). He then set up laws for this mankind to teach them his holiness which these people just didn't seem to get (again, something one would expect an all powerful being to anticipate). He then came up with a new plan where he would sacrifice himself to himself to make up for man's rebellion (which if one accepts the premise of omnipotence really was his creation to begin with). So this god guy creates the world and then creates a bunch of imperfect beings who will rebel against him which leads him to create rules these beings will misuse which then leads him to sacrifice himself to himself for the creation's imperfections as a means for the people to know how great he is. Sounds kind of a round-about, narcissistic and manipulative plan to me.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Yes Blue, go into detail how atheism is repulsive. I'd love to hear your self-centered idiocy on that one too.

feeno said...

Sir Charles
Eureka!!! You got it. (Except for the part about God not anticipating we'd screw up)

Enjoy the 4th in the windy city.
Peace out, feeno

Chuck O'Connor said...

Feeno,

I'm actually in Virginia then DC for the holiday at my wife's folks. Good times.

How if god is omniscient and omnipotent wouldn't he anticipate man's fall?

How then is his plan for humanity nothing more than using suffering for the sake of self-worship?

Your admission that my anaology reflects Christian belief (which is no surprise to me since I once considered myself Christian) is evidence that it is irrational and silly.

Now, I'm not saying you are irrational and silly. I do believe the idea that you hold as truth is.

Be well.

feeno said...

Sir Charles
Celebrating our Independence day in our capital, cool. Have fun.
peace, feeno

Chuck O'Connor said...

Feeno,

Can you answer the questions I posed?

Thanks.

Yes, it should be cool. I've never been and really look forward to it.

feeno said...

Sir Charles

The one thing I've learned, and try real hard to avoid on this site is the "free will" card. I will try to answer your question with out bringing it up.

God created us for his pleasure.(Col. 1:16). He wanted to fellowship with us. Because he gave us a way to communicate with him, by being created in his image, we can enjoy his friendship as well. He created us in a way that there is genuine love for him. You can't know about love if there is no choice involved.

Does that answer the "self
worship" question for you?

Dueces, feeno

Chuck O'Connor said...

Feeno,

It does but it also makes me see your perspective as the rationalizations of a kind man really wanting to believe in a kind god. It does not make me believe the theology that gets you there to be kind or sane.

I do like you though and hope our paths cross some day.

Be well.

Scott said...

Feeno wrote: True, however God would have always spared a remnant so that Christ would've been born to save the rest of us.

And this somehow makes the situation acceptable in your eyes?

Feeno, do you realize that, should God actually be all powerful, he wouldn't need the Israelites to exist to save us. Or are you suggesting it would be impossible for the Holy Spirt to impregnate a Gentile virgin?

Perhaps you think it's possible for a being to be 100% God and 100% Jewish male, while impossible in the case of 100% God and 100% Gentile male?

In fact, nothing would be necessary as God could have simply decided to forgive everyone at any time without any requirements. Yet he did not and still has not.

Eureka!!! You got it. (Except for the part about God not anticipating we'd screw up)

Feeno,

Here's where I get confused.

You claim that God is so intelligent that he knew how to create our universe and fine tune all of it's parameters to support human life. Then God designed the earth, with it's complex climate and environment. Finally, he created human beings down to the smallest detail.

Surely, if he had planned a particular outcome from the start, God would have to had account for millions of complex variables to actually pull this off even remotely successfully.

We could have been killed off by a giant astroid impact or the earth's magnetic core could have stopped turning, exposing us to radiation from the sun. We could have all frozen to death during a unusually cold ice age. Our Milky Way galaxy could have collided another galaxy (an event which we have already observed, and may possibly still occur) spinning our planet out into the cold of deep space. Our sun could have had less fuel, causing it expand into a red giant - either vaporizing the earth or burning off it's oceans and atmosphere - several billion years ahead of schedule. The number factors would be literally astronomical.

Yet you claim this same God would have no idea how the human beings he himself made would respond or react his rules or communication? I'm baffled by this canned response.

God wouldn't need to be omniscient, as he would have experiential knowledge of human beings when he supposedly created us. If we are made in God's image, but are not the same as God, then surely he must have intentionally decided exactly what parts of himself to "leave out." And should God actually be infinite and omnipresent, he would have had thousands (if not millions) of years to observe the behavior of billions of people.

As such, should your own description of God be accurate, it seems impossible that he would be in the dark about how we would respond.

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume regardless of how intelligent he must have been, you are right in that God didn't anticipate that we'd screw up.

If his plan has failed in the past, why couldn't it fail again?

Has God learned something new that he didn't know before? Was God simply not trying hard enough? Was simply having a bad day or not paying close enough attention?

Could we unpredictable human beings decide to release a bio-weapon, which could wipe out all life on our planet within hours, without God expecting it? Should this occur, no one would be left to see Jesus descending from the clouds.

Or would God take away an individual's free-will to prevent them from releasing the agent?

In other words, you must assume God must have failed, otherwise there would be no past event that would explain why we need to be saved. But, on the other hand, you must assume that God cannot fail, so he can save you in the future.

Yet, we see no substantial reason to reach these contradictory conclusions beyond the personal benefit one receives by placing themeless in time between these two specific outcomes.

Russ said...

feeno,
You said,

The 10 commandments weren't given to people who work at Burger King or Wal-Mart.They written for and to the Israelites only.

You claim to know that some OT material was meant exclusively for particular segments of the population. Regarding biblical interpretation I know of many approaches, but earmarking rules and regulations for specific ethnic groups by one's own designation I find peculiar.

Somehow, I'm guessing that you're absolutely sure that original sin applies to all of mankind and not just the Israelites. And the supposed Biblical admonitions concerning homosexuality also has broader scope than the Jews. Truly you possess an insight into the Judeo-Christian scriptures that few would claim.

What I would like to know is how you draw the ethnic or tribal distinctions. Which edicts are for Israelites only? The pork thing? How about shellfish? How about the stuff related to menstruation? Circumcision? Rubbing foreskins on things to achieve certain outcomes? Only one god?

If you've convinced yourself that the OT rules and regulations are meant for the Israelites, how is it that you conclude that the inheritable sin of Adam and Eve encompasses all of mankind?

My guess is that since there are no standards for Biblical hermeneutics and no means to enforce them - Constitutional freedom of religion means that everyone can say the Bible says whatever they want it to say, thus negating any authority, including the Bible itself - you read into it precisely the interpretation you want. There is no "orthodox" meaning to the Bible, and, at least here in the US, by Constitutional Amendment, I possess no absolute Biblical authority, you possess no absolute Biblical authority, and neither does anyone else. What's more, my interpretation of the Bible is every bit as legitimate as yours.

I say Genesis was written by a woman named Genesis. Exodus was written by a middle-aged bisexual hermaphrodite with bad teeth who was high on magic mushrooms. Revelation is its own proof that its author was an opium-addicted mercury-poisoned psychotic who was far too consumed by existential angst. And, by the way, the entire OT applies to everyone(except, of course, those naughty bits I, His Esteemed Russiness, elect to leave out for my own personal and arbitrary reasons).

If Joseph Smith can do it, so can I. If Benny Hinn can do it, so can I. If Pat Robertson, the Pope, Fred Phelps, David Koresh and Mary Baker Eddy can do it, so can I. And, so can you.

History shows us that for some Christianity to gain a cash-flow producing horde of followers, nothing about it needs to be verifiable or verified. There are tens of thousands of Christianities, all correct. Mine is just one more.

Any imagined religious authority is authority only in some people's imagination. There are lots of mutually-contradictory Christianities, and, by law instituted in the US Constitution, I can add mine to the lot. What should I call it? The Russists? Rustianity? Church of The Exalted Russ(COTER)? Church of Worldwide Almighty Russ Divine(COWARD)? Name might need a little work, but when those tax-exempt donations start flowing we can hire a marketing and public relations firm just like the brand-name industrial Christianities.

feeno, as this highlights, you have no basis for assigning who Biblical excerpts apply to, and any authority you presume to have results only from imaginings of your own or others in your particular religious social group. For any such claims to hold up you would need to know that the Bible is complete and accurate. No one knows that. And, faith doesn't work in this regard, since even I can play the same faith card to endorse my own Russtifarian views.

db said...

A painfully weak argument but believers will eat it up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldHF6PFUukw&feature=player_embedded

Chuck O'Connor said...

I want to be a Russtifarian. Another well written post Russ.

feeno said...

Scott

I can clear up your second question real quick. And I'm sorry I didn't make myself more clear, but it was actually Chuck who said "which somehow this all powerful being didn't anticipate".
And I agreed with what he said, except for the part about God not knowing we'd screw it up.

Now to your first point. God could have chosen a hundrend ways to send Christ, but there would always be someone who didn't like the way he chose to do it. However in order to fullfill prophecies Christ had to come from the line of Abraham, the tribe of Judah and the house of David. And they all be Jews.

Also Scott and Russ, If I don't respond to you guys today it's because I'm headed out the door and probably wont see a computer for 24 hrs or so?

Happy 4th, feeno

______________________________________________________________________


Russ

I truly didn't think what I wrote was that controversel. I could be wrong but I'd guess most ex-Christians on this site understood that God choose the nation of Israel to be a kingdom of priests, set apart, to show the rest of the world that the God they served is the only true God. Read the first 6
verses of Ex. 19.

And I could see the Russcapalian movement sweeping across the USA?

Happy 4th, Dueces, feeno

Geonite said...

You could make a case if you could read and understand the original.

I highly doubt that's the case so anything you say about the Bible is merit less.

Christianity has misinterpreted and distorted the Bible in so many ways that nothing you quote is worth reading.

Scott said...

Feeno wrote: And I agreed with what he said, except for the part about God not knowing we'd screw it up.

Sorry if I misinterpreted you, but It's hard to tell, as this is not a view held by all Christians.

However, I'd have do ask a follow up question. If God knew, then how did he know?

As I indicated in my comment, God would have experiential knowledge of our response to his messages and his rules by virtue of having supposedly created us. Should this be the case, it would appear that God really isn't interested in saving everyone and he would have knowingly created people who would reject him due to a lack of information that he himself refuses to provide. God would also be delivering a message that he knew would be inadequate. It's as if God was intentionally grading on a scale with the intent that people will "fail" his test.

Furthermore, these people are eternally separated because of decisions they made based on incomplete information.

If you think God knew how I would respond before I died, do you also think God would also know, should I die and find out that God really does exist, that I'd would still reject him and wish to remain apart from him? Would he be sure I would not change my mind throughout eternity?

Should you say yes, I would again ask why would he know and have you thought of the implications of such knowledge?

Feeno wrote: God could have chosen a hundrend ways to send Christ, but there would always be someone who didn't like the way he chose to do it.

I don't think "like" is an accurate assessment. God's actions often appear to conflict with some Christian claims about Gods' s nature. Should God be all powerful and completely "good", one would think God would use his ability to reduce suffering.

Apparently, you think what would be unnecessary suffering is somehow "good", or that suffering is somehow necessary because, otherwise, we wouldn't be suffering. However, the latter would depend on God actually existing and being in control, which isn't really evident.

Furthermore, couldn't an omnipotent God have chosen a hundred ways to forgive us without sending Christ? Such as simply forgiving us in the first place?

Again, should God have simply forgiven us, you'd have no reason to explain why you need to be "saved." Should God not have decided to use a belief in Christ's sacrifice for our sins as the mechanism for forgiveness, and his eventual return to usher in the next age, there would be no reason to explain why we are not yet forgiven and why you are not currently in heaven.

Your motivation for believing God made these specific choices appears not based on what is most probable or likely, but because it results in a unfalsifiable state of affairs which you personally benefit from.

This is in contrast to my belief that it's most probably that I will cease to exist when I die. Surely, I'd rather invent some elaborate state of affairs that would ultimately result in my eternal life. But the lack of sufficient evidence leads me to believe it is highly unlikely.

feeno said...

Scott

Your questions are valid, sincere and well articulated. So now because of this, I feel you are entitled to some sort of response.

But before I go on, please allow me the opportunity for a disclaimer. I can only speak for myself, and for no other Christian or religious affiliation. Why?
Because, what the hell do I know?

#1. How did God know we'd screw up?
God gave us free will, so I don't think he made us to "screw up", however because God is outside of time I believe he foreknew who would screw up?

#2. "...it would appear that God really isn't interested in saving everyone..."
2 Peter 3:9 "...He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but for everyone to come to repentance".

#3. "...and knowingly created people who will reject him..."
This is a great question, and I will have a tough time giving you a fair answer. The reason being is although I'm not a Calvinist, I struggle with this doctrine. However, I do feel God is sovereign and just, and 1st Tim. 2:6 does say "...who gave himself (Christ) a ransom for all men". (I would underlined all, but I still can't use a computer very well).

#4. "Such as simply forgiving us in the first place".
Although God is loving, he is also Holy, and sin can not be overlooked with out a penalty to be paid. But God proved his own love for us in this: while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom. 5:8)

I know I come across as a bit of a blow hard Christian, and I'm sorry for that. I just felt you deserved a response from me?

deuces, feeno

Scott said...

Feeno,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Hope you had a great 4th.

My major stumbling block is the idea that God could somehow create us without knowing how we would respond in at least some way or form.

If God only knew we'd screw up because he exists outside of time, then it seems he'd have no control of the ultimate outcome. In other words, he'd have no way of knowing how we might turn out until we actually "turned out," and by then, it would be too late to do anything about it.

For example, we could have exhibited an extremely violent, destructive behavior that only caused suffering and resulted in everyone rejecting God. Was God just fortunate that we didn't turn out this way or, when he created us, did God influence our behavior to ensure at least a few of us would chose him? Should God exist and be "good", I don't think he would leave the eternal souls of everyone to chance.

Should God's existence outside of time have informed him that no one would have chosen him "before* he created us, this would have allowed him to create us differently so that at least some would choose him. But, would this different creation result some people still rejecting him, by virtue of being outside of time, he'd still have the option to create us differently, etc. God could keep this up until, at some point he created us in a way that everyone would accept him, or he could intentionally decided to allow a specific number of people to reject him, despite having the ability to do something about it.

Take the following analogy. We have six dice. Let's assume if we roll a die and it is four or above it will choose God. A die of three or below will not. Just before we roll the the dice, we know what the outcome would be should we follow though. We do not know based on our technique or because we created the dice, but because we exist "outside" of time.

Clearly, we might roll all ones or all sixes. Or we might roll a one, a six, two, another three, a four and another one. Should we decide to continue the roll anyway, we specifically choose that four would be lost, while two would accept God.. But, since we exist outside of time, we could always decide to stop and hope for some other set of results by preparing for another roll. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

You may claim we could decide to only roll if at least one die would turn up greater than three, to ensure that at least one out of six would choose God. This may appear to absolve us of responsibility in the outcome, but if we know that at least one die will be above three, we also know the specific values of the other five. We could have chosen to only roll if two dice are above three, if five are above three, or even all dice were above three. Ultimately, we still choose exactly how many will choose God and how many will be lost.

Personally, I'm unable to reconcile this problem, as it results in God blindly creating human beings and leaving our response completely to chance or essentially God deciding exactly who accepts him and who does not.

I'd also note, we could ask if God knew his message was sufficient because he existed outside of time? If so, his message might not have been sufficient to cause anyone to believe he existed. Again, I find it difficult to think that God might leave this to chance.

Peace out... Scott

Gandolf said...

Alan said..."I’m so thankful that my experience was totally void of reading other men’s opinions until I had first wholly read the Bible"

Hi Alan.

Unless you can be totally sure God actually personally wrote the bible or it is first proved that what was written within it was ever actually honestly divine etc.

Then your method is completely false and totally flawed, as all that you have really read is only the opinion of others anyway.

In which case you would have possibly been fooled.

feeno said...

Scott

If I was an Atheist I could see how it could get frustrating talking to Christians who will throw out bible passages to "cover their ass". But that's all I got sometimes.

I will try to use 2 simple passages to answer your question about: God knowing/not knowing how we would respond. And it doesn't even directly answer your question, but here goes:

Most Christians should believe that there is only one sin that can not be forgiven, (blasphemy) Mark 3:29 says "But whosoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin. The HS is trying to draw everyone to the knowledge of God. And if we don't succumb to that knowledge before we die, we are in violation of this sin.

Now, this is another thing as a Christian that I have struggled with. I've asked many Christians in my life that I look up to as to why some people accept and some reject. I've used this analogy before: Twin brothers walking down the street and are stopped by a street preacher, he gives them the Gospel message, 1 accepts Christ, the other doesn't. They were born with exact same circumstances, surroundings and experiences etc. How can this be?

No one has ever given me a answer to that question, that I've been happy with.

But, here we go, this is the part where the Christian aggravates and frustrates the Atheist who just wants a direct answer. But because of what I mentioned about the HS
and what I believe about Christ, that he is a Righteous Judge, I'll leave the judging others ti him.

But I will say, in the story Jesus gives in the book of Luke about the Rich man and Lazarus, the Rich man has some complaints, but the fact that he is there (Sheol)is not one of them?

I know in a round about way, I just played the "Hey God can do whatever he wants to card". Like I said some time it's all I can muster up, hope you understand. My agenda here is to only offer an explanation of why I feel the way I do. If some one's Atheism is Debunked because of it, I'd be very happy, but yadda, yadda, yadda.

Shalom, feeno

Scott said...

Feeno wrote: If I was an Atheist I could see how it could get frustrating talking to Christians who will throw out bible passages to "cover their ass". But that's all I got sometimes.

Feeno,

First, it's unclear if you are having problems formulating what you believe or if your having problems supporting what you believe.

Should it be the latter, wouldn't the need to "cover your ass" by throwing out verses, which you yourself indicate are not really answers, appear to be a red flag that your belief might be inconstant or false?

Would the need to "cover your ass" by making statements that are not really answers in any other domain or area of knowledge NOT be a red flag that a belief might be inconstant or false?

Second, if God is justified in doing whatever he wants, has the capacity to do whatever he wants and has the knowledge to do whatever what he wants, then how do you propose we discern the Christian God from any other theistic entity or a myth made by an ancient superstitious culture?

It's unclear as to how retreating to such a position actually puts us in a better situation to reach this goal.

Or perhaps your presence here isn't to help discern false beliefs from true beliefs, but merely an attempt to make the waters more murky?

feeno said...

Scott

I see where I gave you reason to believe what you wrote. But my problem only stems from when I have to use scripture to make my points. I have heard more than once on this site that quoting from scripture is a mute point seeing how it is a book of fables written by man. And believe it or not I am sympathetic towards your beliefs.

Also I don't want to come across as a know it all, mainly because I know so little. I also find that when people are so dogmatic in their beliefs, dialouge seems futile.

So now I will tell you that everything I wrote in my previous post I believe and stand by. I just didn't want to turn you/others off by claiming that I have all the answers.

Recap of my last post:
The Holy Spirit is dealing with you and is expecting you to respond before you die or Christ's return. Otherwise you are in danger of God'd judgement. Christ is called a righteous and just judge, so even tho I may not understand why some reject him, I trust his "judging".

I hope that clarifies the muddy waters a bit?

Have a nice evening, feeno

Scott said...

Feeno wrote: Christ is called a righteous and just judge, so even tho I may not understand why some reject him, I trust his "judging".

Feeno, one one hand, you appear to say that you cannot judge Christ's judgements, but on the other hand you appear to have judged Christ to be a just judge since you apparently trust his judgment.

To illustrate my point further, Allah is said to be a righteous and just judge, yet it appears you have judged Allah NOT to be a just judge and do not trust Allah's judgements.

Perhaps you can you resolve this apparent contradiction for me?

Andre said...

Feeno, you're a cool funny dude man! "If some one's Atheism is Debunked because of it, I'd be very happy, but yadda, yadda, yadda." That's gotta be one of the funniest statement I've ever seen on this blog.

Can I ask you a question?

First, let me get this out now. If that blasphemy stuff is real, I'm pretty much toast then.(No pun intended) But because you said, "The Holy Spirit is dealing with you and is expecting you to respond before you die or Christ's return", I was wondering if in your opinion, the Holy Spirit knows before dealing with you, that you will not accept it?

Scott said...

Just in case it's not clear, I'll rephrase the question.

Why are Christ's actions and decisions supposedly immune from judgment on your part, while Allah's actions and decisions are not?

Both Allah and Christ are said to be just judges. Both are said to be all knowing and all powerful.

As such, *by very definition*, it appears we mere mortals have no grounds to question any action or decision any omnipotent and omniscient being might make, regardless of how how remarkable or how counterintuitive they may appear.

Furthermore, it's unclear how we could discern the inaction of a just God, who is inactive because he is just, from the inaction of a supposedly just God, who is inactive because he simply does not exist.

However, sInce you are a Christian, not a Muslim, it appears that, at some level, you must have personally judged Christ's decisions or actions fair or factual, but Allah's decisions or actions unfair or untrue. Otherwise, it seems you'd have conflicting beliefs or would be an agnostic.

Furthermore, we can apply this insight to provide an answer to your earlier question regarding why only some Christians believe blaspheme is an unforgivable sin.

Those Christians that believe blaspheme is an unforgivable sin ultimately do so because they personally think it is a just punishment, while those who do not believe personally think it an unjust punishment. We could say the same of Christians who do not believe in a literal Hell - they personally consider it an unjust punishment, so they reject it.

Glad I could clear that up for you!

Which leads me back to the point of the thread. It seems that you indorse repulsive actions taken by the God of the Bible because, at a personal level, YOU ultimately think they are just.

Should you think God was just in demanding the Israelites kill those who worked on Sunday, it would also imply you'd think God would be just in demanding the death of those who worked Sunday shifts at Burger King or Wall-mart, should he have decreed it so.

Bluemongoose said...

Howdy, Chuck!

What's the matter, can't your arguments do well on their own? Or is it you don't have any arguments that will stand up to scrutiny?

So you want an example. Here's one (for the sake of brevity): Atheists are enslaved to relativism.

Strydersbane said...

The opening argument of your video centers on the "no work on the sabbath" commandment and shows how EVEN Christian stores are open on "the sabbath".
I submit that you yourself have not actually read the Bible.
Yes, technically, you may have read some of it, maybe most of it, maybe all. However, you are making a foolish error in judgment and should read it carefully one more time. The practical value and spiritual depth of the information recorded in the Bible for all mankind cannot be fully understood nor appreciated by a terse, assuming and biased reading of its pages. That is not to say that you cannot get ALOT out of some quick reading of its pages though, depending on if your heart is soft and open or hard and closed.

Here is a clue as to how and where you should begin, it pertains to your misguided approach to God's commandment about the sabbath:

Read carefully, you may not get another chance to understand and/or accept this...

The Sabbath:

The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
(Mark 2:24-27)

If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.
(Matthew 12:7)

You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
(Matthew 23:24)