Genuine Question To Theists Part 2 :)

[enlightenment]

If all you're doing is pointing out that false prophets existed, exist now, and will continue to exist, then we agree. I'm just pointing out the purpose of Christianity as it relates to the question of human meaning beyond secularism and awakening to it which requires being capable of detachment.

I am just really pointing out that prophets are neither new nor anything special.

Jesus was said to be a prophet.

Mohammed, some years later, he claimed to be a prophet.

These are two of the best known.

The Koran even accepts Jesus as a prophet, just not the son of god, and neither does Judaism.

People of these religions all claim to be worshipping the same god, yet their methods are diametrically opposed to each other, which must make one of them right, and the other two wrong, or all three are wrong.

For the record, I think all three are based of a fallacy.

 

[Nick_A]

I am just really pointing out that prophets are neither new nor anything special.

Jesus was said to be a prophet.

Mohammed, some years later, he claimed to be a prophet.

These are two of the best known.

The Koran even accepts Jesus as a prophet, just not the son of god, and neither does Judaism.

People of these religions all claim to be worshipping the same god, yet their methods are diametrically opposed to each other, which must make one of them right, and the other two wrong, or all three are wrong.

For the record, I think all three are based of a fallacy.

This is what is called a search. We feel that there is an essential truth underneath all this BS. Many just are conditioned into a belief and just remain that way. Some begin to seriously question what is going on and want to learn how to know.

To say that all prophets are the same is like saying all chess players are the same. We can learn chess and quickly admit that all players are not the same. Kasparov is far better than me. We don't have a similar scale so as to determine a Prophet from a loss. We have to acquire the ability.

 

[Marsh]

'Atheists' are not an organised group, like Catholics or Muslims, one of the 'strengths' of the religous grip is that the flock are bound together by folklore and guilt.

I cannot recount any war that has been done in the name of atheism.

Actually, I just saw a news report this week of an organized group of atheists who have put together an ad campaign with the slogan, "There's probably no god. Now go and enjoy your life." This group has already launched campaigns in the UK and other countries and-- you're gonna love this-- is accepting donations for the cause.

Collection plates, mission trips, evangelism...

What was the difference between theists and atheists again?



FYI: During the communist era, there was wholesale destruction of religious institutions within the more devout Marxist areas of the Soviet Union. Would have been a war had the Christians fought back instead of going underground...

 

[Dondi]

Enlightenment

Just so I understand you correctly, are you saying that you find the following biblical passage incomprehensible if not downright insulting?

Luke 14:

25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

There is a certian ring of truth in what you are saying in regard to attachments, Nick A.

It is highly instructive, in keeping in context, to consider the parable Jesus taught just prior to this:

Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.
And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.
So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.
And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.
And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper. - Luke 14:16-24

How amazing it is that each one who had excuse are ones who have an attachment to something. In our attachments we miss the greater cause. Only when we are free from what we are bound to are we able to grasp the higher call of our lives. That is all Jesus meant when he said that we must hate our mother, father, sister, brother, spouses, children, and even ourselves.

It's not that Jesus is some narcissist wanting attention, but he calls us to reach that level of life that he has, through a relationship with the Divine. Now that's not saying that family relationships are bad, but from Christ's perspective, they can weigh us down. Our own self, ego can weigh us down, if we are not open to looking beyond ourselves. To reaching out to the unfamiliar, to strangers, to things we don't understand, except if we are willing to experience them. The high life is not in what we can gain, but what we can give. It is sacrifice, it is outbound.

 

[Marsh]

Are you married or have kids?

Do you believe in a god?

If you had to keep believing in god or let go of your kids and partner, which would you do.

That is what I am asking...

By the way, to answer your original question, E:

In my opinion, loving your wife and your children (and anyone else significant to you) is the first step to knowing and through knowing truly loving God, so the question is a non-question to me. I understand what you're getting at, though, and I think it's worthwhile for everyone with spiritual beliefs to take inventory of them every once in a while-- and also everyone without them

 

[enlightenment]

By the way, to answer your original question, E:

In my opinion, loving your wife and your children (and anyone else significant to you) is the first step to knowing and through knowing truly loving God, so the question is a non-question to me. I understand what you're getting at, though, and I think it's worthwhile for everyone with spiritual beliefs to take inventory of them every once in a while-- and also everyone without them

In a Christian wedding, it is said that 'god brought these two together, and let no one cast them asunder', or some such thing.

It's interesting.

Brought together by god, and commanding that no one break their marriage.

Yet Christians get divorced at the same rate as non Chritians.

 

[wil]

In a Christian wedding, it is said that 'god brought these two together, and let no one cast them asunder', or some such thing.

It's interesting.

Brought together by god, and commanding that no one break their marriage.

Yet Christians get divorced at the same rate as non Chritians.

I appreciate how you as an atheist find that interesting. What exactly do you find interesting about that? Knowing that your aim is not to offend as you indicated prior.

 

[enlightenment]

I appreciate how you as an atheist find that interesting. What exactly do you find interesting about that? Knowing that your aim is not to offend as you indicated prior.

Isn't it obvious?

Hey, god is all powerful, right?

And he 'brought these two people together', as per the line, right?

And commands that no thing shall tear them apart.

And yet for all his apparent 'might', Christians divorce at the same rate as non Christians.

The logical conclusion to that is they divorce in equal measure, because there is no god.

 

[wil]

Isn't it obvious?

Hey, god is all powerful, right?

And he 'brought these two people together', as per the line, right?

And commands that no thing shall tear them apart.

And yet for all his apparent 'might', Christians divorce at the same rate as non Christians.

The logical conclusion to that is they divorce in equal measure, because there is no god.

Actually to me it always seems that man says that G!d brought them together...I've not yet been to a marriage where I heard G!d say that.

But I thought the divorce rates amongst Christians was actually higher than the secular. Now Hindu divorce rates seem to be lower, so this must be proof of their G!ds according to your thesis, correct? And Muslims, well they have an even lower divorce rate, as Allah is the same as the Jewish and Christian G!d, does that help balance the equation somehow?

Or is your atheist thesis specious? (thay that three thimes fast)

 

[enlightenment]

Actually to me it always seems that man says that G!d brought them together...I've not yet been to a marriage where I heard G!d say that.

But I thought the divorce rates amongst Christians was actually higher than the secular. Now Hindu divorce rates seem to be lower, so this must be proof of their G!ds according to your thesis, correct? And Muslims, well they have an even lower divorce rate, as Allah is the same as the Jewish and Christian G!d, does that help balance the equation somehow?

Or is your atheist thesis specious? (thay that three thimes fast)

What it proves is that no matter what gods any religion people have one their side, that there is no god or higher force that cares about their marriage. If there is, I would like to see the evidence of it.

As you well know, in many religions, divorce is either not possible, or v difficult, perhaps yet another reason why in a civilised society, there is no room for these remnants of religion?

 

[wil]

What it proves is that no matter what gods any religion people have one their side, that there is no god or higher force that cares about their marriage. If there is, I would like to see the evidence of it.

As you well know, in many religions, divorce is either not possible, or v difficult, perhaps yet another reason why in a civilised society, there is no room for these remnants of religion?

Ah we agree again. I believe caring to be a human trait. Something that happens when humans anthropomorphize G!d or make G!d in man's image. You don't do that do you?

 

[enlightenment]

Ah we agree again. I believe caring to be a human trait. Something that happens when humans anthropomorphize G!d or make G!d in man's image. You don't do that do you?

Care?

Sure.

Depends what about, I suppose.

 

[Nick_A]

Enlightened

You may think all are based on fallacy but how do you know who or what is genuine and what is not? In chess we can quickly see who the great players are and who are not by their record. But we have no equivalent scale relating to human "understanding." Anyone can say anything so we cannot tell a Prophet from a loss. Jesus admits for example the existence of false prophets but how can we develop the ability to discriminate if there is indeed something worth discriminating?

 

[Dondi]

In a Christian wedding, it is said that 'god brought these two together, and let no one cast them asunder', or some such thing.

It's interesting.

Brought together by god, and commanding that no one break their marriage.

Yet Christians get divorced at the same rate as non Chritians.

Again, we need to see this quote in context:

"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." - Matthew 19:3-8

"What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" speaks of the desired will of God. The joining of a man and wife from the beginning is sacred. The cleaving of one to another into one flesh represents a joining of spirits as well as bodies. And I believe that if the couple remains faithful in accordance to the ordinances of God, as God designed marriage to be, then the bonding between them will be strong, the love of God being the center.

However, since God created us to be autonomous beings, with the freedom to choose between His Divine will and ours, their will always be man's will in the mix. The provision in the Law, which came later, was God's way of giving an out for extreme circumstances, seeing some can be hardhearted. But His desired will is for the couple to keep together and work out any problems that arise.

 

[enlightenment]

However, since God created us to be autonomous beings, with the freedom to choose between His Divine will and ours.

So, it is a bit like this. I have a daughter. I am her father. The theist take would perhaps be that all mankind are 'gods children', whether we accept it or not, right?

Okay, well see, here is the thing.

As parents our children reach an age when we give them free choice and autonomy, okay? Sure, we are always there for them, if they need us, however, what we most certainly do not do is demand that they follow our way, otherwise burn for all eternity in a pit of fire!

If god is our 'father', then what sort of father would punish someone in such a manner? He would have to be very sick indeed, would he not?

This business about 'choice', is a ruse.

What it amounts to is a form of blackmail - eg; believe this or suffer.

That is what it boils down to.

Christians and Muslims are forever being offended, should they deem that anyone is 'attacking' their religion, yet their very religion threatens a terrible demise to those that refuse to believe.

What could be more offensive than a smug threat like that?

 

[enlightenment]

Enlightened

You may think all are based on fallacy but how do you know who or what is genuine and what is not?

We just use our common sense.

Do I believe the sun to be real?

Yes.

Do I believe that a man was killed then rose from the dead, before ascending into heaven?

No.

Why not?

If I am being truthful, the latter doesn't sit well with my reason and common sense.

 

[wil]

As parents our children reach an age when we give them free choice and autonomy, okay? Sure, we are always there for them, if they need us, however, what we most certainly do not do is demand that they follow our way, otherwise burn for all eternity in a pit of fire!

If god is our 'father', then what sort of father would punish someone in such a manner? He would have to be very sick indeed, would he not?

This business about 'choice', is a ruse.

What it amounts to is a form of blackmail - eg; believe this or suffer.

Should I lump all atheists in one group?

Should I accept you lumping all theists in one group?

I do not teach my children believe this or suffer. Nor do millions of other Christians. Why atheists align their beliefs in religions with the fundamentalists and literalists is beyond me.

 

[enlightenment]

Should I lump all atheists in one group?

Should I accept you lumping all theists in one group?

I do not teach my children believe this or suffer. Nor do millions of other Christians. Why atheists align their beliefs in religions with the fundamentalists and literalists is beyond me.

Not ALL but many Christian parents will use the old carrot/stick of heaven/hell to gain control on their children.

Not respect. Control.

And I have yet to meet a single Christian prepared to tell me that a good person could still have done enough gallant deeds to get into heaven, even if he had not believed in god, while he was alive.

On the contrary, the non believer, no matter the substance of the man, he is doomed by default, as he refused to bow down to the idea of an invisible god, and his son, for whom there is little physical evidence, and absolutely no evidence that he was any more than just another human being.

The person who does good but refuses to believe, he or she is destined to a life of eternal damnation, by a god who is clearly a control freak, and sadist. What other explaination can there be?

I suppose you also know that according to Biblical history, that god has either directly or indirectly killed many tens of thousands of people, some for the most dubious reason.

Lott's wife. For 'looking back'.

Is that the action of a merciful and loving creator?

If he existed, then it seems to me that he is vain, self obsessed, controlling, and sadistic.

Which is why I am glad that he most probably doesn't.

Btw.

Why do many Christians get offended at the Darwinian ideal that we evolved from ancestors of modern chimps, yet are quite happy to accept that we were made from dust or mud?

 

[Dondi]

So, it is a bit like this. I have a daughter. I am her father. The theist take would perhaps be that all mankind are 'gods children', whether we accept it or not, right?

Okay, well see, here is the thing.

As parents our children reach an age when we give them free choice and autonomy, okay? Sure, we are always there for them, if they need us, however, what we most certainly do not do is demand that they follow our way, otherwise burn for all eternity in a pit of fire!

If god is our 'father', then what sort of father would punish someone in such a manner? He would have to be very sick indeed, would he not?

This business about 'choice', is a ruse.

What it amounts to is a form of blackmail - eg; believe this or suffer.

That is what it boils down to.

Christians and Muslims are forever being offended, should they deem that anyone is 'attacking' their religion, yet their very religion threatens a terrible demise to those that refuse to believe.

What could be more offensive than a smug threat like that?

I, for one, believe that hell is the result of the consequences of our actions. We dig our own hole.

God is offering a life that will bring us toward the highest human potential. If we are on that path, we will experience the best this life has for us. And that will continue in the life beyond. It is all about loving on another, and learning to do so peacefully. The character seed that develops within us will continue when we come into the kingdom of God. And we will grow expodentially toward the perfection of love.

The choice not to follow this pattern will result in a base life. In other words, our ego will seek its own desires, resulting in a selfish life, unfulfilling life that will eventually tear us down. The consequence of this continued, progressive pattern will extend into eternity, only instead of the expodential growth toward love, our degradation will expodentially grow toward the vile base of our animalistic nature, until we become unrecognizable, in absence of God. By our choice.

And that is true hell.

 

[enlightenment]

I, for one, believe that hell is the result of the consequences of our actions. We dig our own hole.

God is offering a life that will bring us toward the highest human potential. If we are on that path, we will experience the best this life has for us. And in that will continue in the life beyond. It is all about loving on another, and learning to do so peacefully. The character seed that develops within us will continue when we come into the kingdom of God. And we will grow expodentially toward the perfection of love.

The choice not to follow this pattern will result in a base life. In other words, our ego will seek its own desires, resulting in a selfish life, unfulfilling life that will eventually tear us down. The consequence of this continued pattern will extend into eternity, only instead of the expodential growth toward love, our degradation will expodentially grow toward the vile base of our animalistic nature, until we become unrecognizable, in absence of God. By our choice.

And that is true hell.

In your vision of things, is 'hell' a place that our soul might go to upon death?

Once there, is it for eternity?

If it is for all eternity, what can possibly be achieved by a god who would send someone to a place to be tormented for ever and ever, on a loop?

It is not as if they can learn anything from it?

Is there a chance to repent at that stage, if not surely it is just sadism of the highest order?

And who oversees 'hell'?

Is it 'satan'?

Do satan and god communicate, I mean, if satan runs hell, and it is god who decides who goes where, then god must have an on going arrangement with satan, right?