Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

Yes. But what if pain and suffering WAS caused by God? That's exactly what I'm wondering! How do you know it isn't?

I can see what causes pain and suffering and it is not the finger of God.

Can you prove he isn't lying? Also who says you can't prove or stop it?

Edit:
Reading this I see I have my answer already. You can't prove he isn't lying, then what makes you say he's telling the truth about anything?

Nope, but I can prove the times he's telling the truth. Since there's no correspnding mess-ups poving he lies, I tend toward the truth telling. I have no reason to automatically distrust someone that I am not aware is harming me and is in fact make my life happier.

Further, I don't have much problem with people trying to prove he's lying, it just won't amount to anything.

 

[soul creator]

I can see what causes pain and suffering and it is not the finger of God.

God works in mysterious ways. God is supernatural, and his ways are beyond your meager human comprehension. I have faith that this is true. Your eyes are only seeing the "physical" world, but there is a supernatural world where God routinely injects cancer into people. After all, we're just tiny ants to him, why would he have any special feelings about us?

...so, how do we determine which of us is "correct"?

Nope, but I can prove the times he's telling the truth. Since there's no corresponding mess-ups proving he lies, I tend toward the truth telling. I have no reason to automatically distrust someone that I am not aware is harming me and is in fact make my life happier.

How did you "prove" those things? I wouldn't think "I felt this to be true and it says so in the bible" counts as a valid answer (at least, not for the purposes of a productive discussion). After all, there have been plenty of other gods described in other holy books that people have "felt" to be true, and you obviously don't believe in those.

And how did this "someone" manifest himself to you? Your conscience? A vision? What method does this God use to "tell" the truth? Or is it just the words in the Bible again? How exactly does God communicate with you in the first place? I've always been curious about that.

How did you determine that it was specifically the Christian God making you happier, and not actually the devil (or one of the hundreds of other gods) making you happier?

Spoiler

whatatwist.jpg

After all, if you accept that it's supernatural stuff anyway, it's not like you can use normal standards of evidence to determine these things. With the supernatural, anytime you think something is consistent and regular, it could actually just be an elaborate mysterious ruse beyond human comprehension. There's no way to really tell. So how do you narrow down the "correct" answer beyond just saying "I feel like this is true and the book I read says so"?

 

[Dude Abides]

Again the claims don't match the rebuttal...at all which is why this gets nowhere. :lol

They do. You just deny one of the premises of the rebuttal: that slavery is wrong.

You apparently have the easy job of simply saying based on you modern day opinion slavery has alway been immoral to the point of it being ingrained in our psyche (inherantly wrong) and then stopping there. Sounds fair to me...

What does "ingrained in our psyche" have to do with it? Slavery is wrong because it violates fundamental concepts of human equality and dignity. You and your God don't adhere to those concepts. Anyone who does should reject the morality set forth by you and your God.

At the times the Bible was written, the morality of slavery was based on treatment and not on ownership. This was the case over thousands of years and verified by partially quoted, out of context scripture by Dani.

Who cares? Nobody is disputing that people were barbaric in Bible times. The question is why an allegedly moral and unchanging God condoned that barbarity.

In this day and age, slavery, regardless of treatment is immoral because there is no sound reason to go back to it.

How do you know? Modern-day practitioners of slavery may have good reasons to do so in their particular time and place, just as you assert the people in "Bible times" did.

I will never ever condone slavery and there is no Christian requirement saying that I must- just like there has never been a scriputural requirement even in those times that a person must champion slavery.

You've been condoning and justifying it for several pages.

 

[JGS]

God works in mysterious ways. God is supernatural, and his ways are beyond your meager human comprehension. I have faith that this is true. Your eyes are only seeing the "physical" world, but there is a supernatural world where God routinely injects cancer into people. After all, we're just tiny ants to him, why would he have any special feelings about us?

...so, how do we determine which of us is "correct"?

The bolded is not a scriptural teaching. We know why God does things.

Do you routinely inject cancer into ants? I care nothing about ants, but I personally don't go out of my way to kill them unless they are a bother for me. The difference between ants and us is we do not create ants, God creates us.

I guess it's possible that God created us for the sole purpose of causing us to suffer, but that doesn't seem at all natural or in line with what I've read.

How did you "prove" those things? I wouldn't think "I felt this to be true and it says so in the bible" counts as a valid answer (at least, not for the purposes of a productive discussion). After all, there have been plenty of other gods described in other holy books that people have "felt" to be true, and you obviously don't believe in those.

If we are talking about the Bible and specific instances in the Bible where God tells the truth, why would I not be allowed to use the Bible as proof - especially since the implication was that God lies in the Bible?

How did you determine that it was specifically the Christian God making you happier, and not actually the devil (or one of the hundreds of other gods) making you happier?

Spoiler

whatatwist.jpg

After all, if you accept that it's supernatural stuff anyway, it's not like you can use normal standards of evidence to determine these things. With the supernatural, anytime you think something is consistent and regular, it could actually just be an elaborate mysterious ruse beyond human comprehension. There's no way to really tell. So how do you narrow down the "correct" answer beyond just saying "I feel like this is true and the book I read says so"?

If it were the devil and I thought it was God, then why would I need to know it was the devil? Especially if there was no proof whatsoever that it is the devil?

I am unable to get into the supernatural/spiritual aspects of it as that would be pointless, but the gist is that from the book I happen to ascribe to, I derive happiness from what I read in it. So if that book says God is good and Satan is evil, it goes on to give examples of that, & there's is no proof within or outside of the Bible that God injects cancer into people, then why would I doubt it for doubts sake?

I'd rather be happy than racked with pointless doubt.

 

[JGS]

They do. You just deny one of the premises of the rebuttal: that slavery is wrong.

Who the heck is denying it?

I am, however, denying the notion that most of the world thought slavery was wrong for much of it's existence. That's completely false and is only used to prop up a false hope that mankind somehow knows morality more than God.

What does "ingrained in our psyche" have to do with it? Slavery is wrong because it violates fundamental concepts of human equality and dignity. You and your God don't adhere to those concepts. Anyone who does should reject the morality set forth by you and your God.

This is untrue. It did not violate any fundamental belief/concept system that's existed for the majority of humankind's existence.

Who cares? Nobody is disputing that people were barbaric in Bible times. The question is why an allegedly moral and unchanging God condoned that barbarity.

Bible times weren't barbaric. Slavery does not equal barbarity anymore than war does.

How do you know? Modern-day practitioners of slavery may have good reasons to do so in their particular time and place, just as you assert the people in "Bible times" did.

OK, so I don't know for sure. That would still disprove your opinion that slavery "violates fundamental concepts of human equality and dignity" since people would so easily turn back to it with the numerous options available now.

You've been condoning and justifying it for several pages.

No, I have been condoning history & Biblical teaching. Huge difference there.

Would you rather I act like you and think that slavery was some kind of abomination only practiced by followers of God because he cheerleaded it?

Sorry, I can't jump on that phony bandwagon.

 

[soul creator]

I am unable to get into the supernatural/spiritual aspects of it as that would be pointless, but the gist is that from the book I happen to ascribe to, I derive happiness from what I read in it. So if that book says God is good and Satan is evil, it goes on to give examples of that, & there's is no proof within or outside of the Bible that God injects cancer into people, then why would I doubt it for doubts sake?

I'd rather be happy than racked with pointless doubt.

So, just to confirm...you believe the supernatural claims of the Holy Bible (compared to the supernatural claims in plenty of other holy books, or the supernatural claims I made, or that anyone else makes) because you derive happiness from that specific source?

 

[JGS]

So, just to confirm...you believe the supernatural claims of the Holy Bible (compared to the supernatural claims in plenty of other holy books, or the supernatural claims I made, or that anyone else makes) because you derive happiness from that specific source?

If I didn't believe in at least some of the supernatural claims, wouldn't that mean I didn't believe in God?

Just because I believe in God does not mean I need to believe or there is an equal basis to believe in other gods.

 

[Dude Abides]

Who the heck is denying it?

You. You've made many posts to the effect that there was nothing wrong with slavery as practiced in "Bible times."

I am, however, denying the notion that most of the world thought slavery was wrong for much of it's existence.

Nobody has asserted otherwise. Why do you think this is relevant to whether God is a source of unchanging moral truth?

This is untrue. It did not violate any fundamental belief/concept system that's existed for the majority of humankind's existence.

That's an odd standard for morality. It requires more than a bare assertion to justify it.

Bible times weren't barbaric. Slavery does not equal barbarity anymore than war does.

Perhaps to a pacifist or a slavery apologist. I think most people are able to hold both that war is sometimes justifiable but that slavery never is.

No, I have been condoning history & Biblical teaching. Huge difference there.

Which in turn condones slavery, which condonation you have gone to great lengths to explain and justify. This is a distinction without a difference.

Would you rather I act like you and think that slavery was some kind of abomination only practiced by followers of God because he cheerleaded it?

I never made this claim. Plenty of peoples practices slavery, not just those who believed in the Abrahamic God. But not many people today follow Baal or whatever, and you don't have contemporary Baalists making apologies for human slavery.

This discussion is going in circles at this point. The facts are clear: you think slavery is morally acceptable, at least in some circumstances. You believe that position is consistent with God's moral teachings.

Sorry, I can't jump on that phony bandwagon.

Nobody's asking you to. But you might ask yourself why you're so willing to jump on the bandwagon of a morality that condones human slavery.

 

[soul creator]

If I didn't believe in at least some of the supernatural claims, wouldn't that mean I didn't believe in God?

There's hundreds of Gods and supernatural claims that humans have come up with over the years. What made you believe your version of Christianity's specific set of supernatural claims, compared to all of the other ones? According to your previous post, the answer seems to be that you derive happiness from Christianity's specific set of supernatural claims. That's what I was attempting to confirm.

Just because I believe in God does not mean I need to believe or there is an equal basis to believe in other gods.

I'm just once again trying to figure out your reasons for believing your god and its supernatural claims vs. all of the other gods and supernatural claims that exist. If you rule out all of the other gods (which to an atheist, obviously they all look pretty similar, so it would be very interesting to know how to differentiate between them, and decide if one was true over another), then what process did you use to rule out the other ones?

Your recent post seems to imply that you essentially picked Christianity because it made you the happiest. Which is fine, and obviously that's very convincing to JGS. But it does seem to imply that you're far more interested in what supernatural claim makes you feel a certain way, rather than if a supernatural claim is actually true or not.

Once again, that's perfectly ok for your day to day life obviously, but it doesn't really make for a productive discussion if your only "evidence" is that it makes you happier than other supernatural claims.

 

[JGS]

You. You've made many posts to the effect that there was nothing wrong with slavery as practiced in "Bible times."

This is the part that is giving you the ability to interpret things anyway you please apparently.

Nobody has asserted otherwise. Why do you think this is relevant to whether God is a source of unchanging moral truth?

Who the heck is arguing this?

God's morality is unchanging. However, that has nothing to do with whether his is the only morality which it is not.

That's an odd standard for morality. It requires more than a bare assertion to justify it.

You're the one that said it. I agree it's odd to set a universal standard that was never praticed universally - even in our day.

Perhaps to a pacifist or a slavery apologist. I think most people are able to hold both that war is sometimes justifiable but that slavery never is.

I think most people could have made an argument for the justifications of slavery even a couple of hundred years ago. This isn't about justifications which are always faulty.

Justifications are simply perspectives and don't belong in a debate about godly morality and the fact that slavery was not a part of it one way or the other. There is always a bad guy in war and it's determined by which side you're on.

Which in turn condones slavery, which condonation you have gone to great lengths to explain and justify. This is a distinction without a difference.

So because I acknowledge slavery existed in absence of Godly concern about it, I now condone it and thus am looking forward to a new slavery movement that's coming around the corner (If I pray hard enough!:lol )?

I get the feeling that I'm in the wrong for actually knowing that slavery existed past the Deep South USA.

I never made this claim. Plenty of peoples practices slavery, not just those who believed in the Abrahamic God. But not many people today follow Baal or whatever, and you don't have contemporary Baalists making apologies for human slavery.

I'm not making apologies for human slavery. No one is following God with the expectation of getting a slave. If that's what you get out of the Bible, you must be reading it upside down.

This discussion is going in circles at this point. The facts are clear: you think slavery is morally acceptable, at least in some circumstances. You believe that position is consistent with God's moral teachings.

The argument is going in circles because
- You keep saying incredibly stupid statement like this
- You insist on revising history
- You insist on not reading an argument and instead...
- You insist in assuming one
- You insist on branding me rather than tackling your own rebuttal points
- You basically continue to remain a jerk on the subject just because you want to
- You insist on having the appearance of a liar when you accuse me of things I've addressed numerous times.

Nobody's asking you to. But you might ask yourself why you're so willing to jump on the bandwagon of a morality that condones human slavery.

I didn't.

Now you realize the argument that is going in circles can end right there? Right?

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm not making apologies for human slavery. No one is following God with the expectation of getting a slave. If that's what you get out of the Bible, you must be reading it upside down.

You're following God despite the fact that He condones slavery. Is it really that hard to grasp? When your arbiter of morality condones a morally wrong practice, you might start to question whether He's such a good arbiter, or, alternatively, whether you are interpreting his moral commands correctly.

The argument is going in circles because
- You keep saying incredibly stupid statement like this
- You insist on revising history
- You insist on not reading an argument and instead...
- You insist in assuming one
- You insist on branding me rather than tackling your own rebuttal points
- You basically continue to remain a jerk on the subject just because you want to
- You insist on having the appearance of a liar when you accuse me of things I've addressed numerous times.

Name-calling is also no excuse for an argument. I can see why you'd get frustrated by the fact that you either have to hold the view that slavery is not inherently immoral or reject Biblical literalism, but it really isn't my fault. Blaming others for your difficulties in coherent moral reasoning will not make them go away.

 

[JGS]

There's hundreds of Gods and supernatural claims that humans have come up with over the years. What made you believe your version of Christianity's specific set of supernatural claims, compared to all of the other ones? According to your previous post, the answer seems to be that you derive happiness from Christianity's specific set of supernatural claims. That's what I was attempting to confirm.

Like I said, I'm not getting into the supernatural aspects. However, the way spirituality works from the Bible's teaching is in harmony with what I experienced (& expect).

However, I can compare religions (& no religion) from a practical standpoint and weed out the ones that are undesireable to me. That's not hard at all.

I'm just once again trying to figure out your reasons for believing your god and its supernatural claims vs. all of the other gods and supernatural claims that exist. If you rule out all of the other gods (which to an atheist, obviously they all look pretty similar, so it would be very interesting to know how to differentiate between them, and decide if one was true over another), then what process did you use to rule out the other ones?

Well, all religions beliefs are not created equal which is how man non-religious people view it - all myth is the same. They may think that if you worship God, you might as well be worshipping Zeus. Faith is a lot more complex & personal than that. For whatever particular reason, I fonf other religions to be lacking, some, based on the basics I've heard were immediately dspleasing to me.

Your recent post seems to imply that you essentially picked Christianity because it made you the happiest. Which is fine, and obviously that's very convincing to JGS. But it does seem to imply that you're far more interested in what supernatural claim makes you feel a certain way, rather than if a supernatural claim is actually true or not.

Context is important. The argument was whether or not I should asume God is lying to me. The answer that I am happy was in relation to that. It had nothing to do with other religions at all, just why I would trust God to tell the truth.

Once again, that's perfectly ok for your day to day life obviously, but it doesn't really make for a productive discussion if your only "evidence" is that it makes you happier than other supernatural claims.

I never said this either. I mentioned what context the evidence is in.

 

[JGS]

Name-calling is also no excuse for an argument. I can see why you'd get frustrated by the fact that you either have to hold the view that slavery is not inherently immoral or reject Biblical literalism, but it really isn't my fault. Blaming others for your difficulties in coherent moral reasoning will not make them go away.

That was not name calling. I've got better insults than those. Those were completely legitimate descriptions of you based on what you have consistently said about me and how you handle an argument. Wear them with pride I say.

I don't have the time, energy, or patience to hear regurgitated accusations that are based completely on someone's closed mind. Both of us have better things to do with our time actually.

Your constant misinterpretation of my feelings, desires, & intentions after being repeatedy told otherwise makes you a borderline liar unless you are a borderline telepath. Considering how wrong you are on reading my mind, you are most certainly not a mind reader.

Anyone who considers me a person looking forward to slavery or me finding God in the practice or legitimizing it beyond acknowledging it's existence after reading several pages of me discussing it is most certainly illiterate, a liar, or a non-reader. Which are you?

 

[Dude Abides]

That was not name calling. I've got better insults than those. Those were completely legitimate descriptions of you based on what you have consistently said about me and how you handle an argument. Wear them with pride I say.

I don't have the time, energy, or patience to hear regurgitated accusations that are based completely on someone's closed mind. Both of us have better things to do with our time actually.

Your constant misinterpretation of my feelings, desires, & intentions after being repeatedy told otherwise makes you a borderline liar unless you are a borderline telepath. Considering how wrong you are on reading my mind, you are most certainly not a mind reader.

Anyone who considers me a person looking forward to slavery or me finding God in the practice or legitimizing it beyond acknowledging it's existence after reading several pages of me discussing it is most certainly illiterate, a liar, or a non-reader. Which are you?

Nobody's claiming to read your mind, just your words. Nor did anyone accuse you of looking forward to slavery or finding God in the practice, your self-pitying emotive outburst notwithstanding. The only claim being made is that your moral code, derived from your understanding of God's moral teachings, does not hold that slavery is inherently immoral. A subsidiary claim is that anyone who does feel that slavery is inherently immoral should reject the teachings of your God as you have presented them. You have presented nothing to rebut either of those claims.

 

[soul creator]

Like I said, I'm not getting into the supernatural aspects. However, the way spirituality works from the Bible's teaching is in harmony with what I experienced (& expect).

The supernatural aspects are the entire foundation of your religion. From what I can tell Christianity isn't just "be nice like Jesus". Christianity is be nice like Jesus because he died for your sins and was the divine son of God. If you don't nail down the supernatural aspects, then how did you determine that your version of Christianity is the most accurate one, compared to everything else?

And your second statement is pretty much the same exact reasoning every religious person uses. Beyond JGS' personal feelings and experiences, you haven't actually shown why yours are true, and others aren't.

However, I can compare religions (& no religion) from a practical standpoint and weed out the ones that are undesireable to me. That's not hard at all.

Do you think something should be considered true/false depending on how "undesireable" it is? This isn't a discussion of what religion you like, it's a discussion of what religion is true.

Well, all religions beliefs are not created equal which is how man non-religious people view it - all myth is the same. They may think that if you worship God, you might as well be worshipping Zeus. Faith is a lot more complex & personal than that.

That seems to be the key word. I think that when it comes to whether something is "true" or "false", what you "personally" feel shouldn't factor into the discussion at all.

If we're discussing whether something can make you feel a certain way or not, sure, that's valid. But I think non-believers want to figure out whether it's true or not first, before we even consider whether it personally makes us feel a certain way.

For whatever particular reason, I fonf other religions to be lacking, some, based on the basics I've heard were immediately dspleasing to me.

Once again, this is kind of the point. Phrases like "displeasing to me", imply that you view religious claims as something you like or don't like, rather than true or untrue. After all, country music can make me feel or not feel a certain way, but that's an entirely separate question from "does country music exist?"

Every statement you make seems to continuously reinforce the idea that you don't really have a good way to determine which of the hundreds of other supernatural claims are true or not. You've only decided that they're "displeasing" to you. Which is fine! No one can't define what makes you as an individual feel or not feel a certain way.

But in a discussion about whether something is true or not, "I don't think it's true because it's displeasing to me" doesn't seem very helpful.

Context is important. The argument was whether or not I should asume God is lying to me. The answer that I am happy was in relation to that. It had nothing to do with other religions at all, just why I would trust God to tell the truth.

But you don't have evidence (besides "personal experiences"), that it is actually your god that's telling you the truth. Once again, it's not like there are any "rules" and easy ways to observe to the supernatural. If there were, it'd be natural! You have a "feeling" (other religions are displeasing, and you derive happiness from your version of Christianity, and based on your personal experiences), but as mentioned earlier, every religious person says that. They can't all be true. It's one reason why "personal experiences" are often the worst way to determine the truth of something.

 

[JGS]

Nobody's claiming to read your mind, just your words. Nor did anyone accuse you of looking forward to slavery or finding God in the practice, your self-pitying emotive outburst notwithstanding.

If you had read my words:

- You wouldn't have said most of your statements about me.
- You would not have assumed that I think the only moral code out there is God's
- You would have seen that I view slavery as immoral.
- You would have know that I couldn't care less that someone feels the need to reject God on the basis of slavery. Do what you like.
- You would have seen that your attacks on me have nothing to do with God and the morality of slavery, but rather on your pompous attitude that you know more than you actually do about others and the Bible for that matter which causes you to repeatedly making silly, ludicrious, false, and immature statements.

I did read your words:

you think slavery is morally acceptable, at least in some circumstances. You believe that position is consistent with God's moral teachings.

The only claim being made is that your moral code, derived from your understanding of God's moral teachings, does not hold that slavery is inherently immoral. A subsidiary claim is that anyone who does feel that slavery is inherently immoral should reject the teachings of your God as you have presented them. You have presented nothing to rebut either of those claims.

The rebuttal that God's moral teachings does not hold that slavery is inherently immoral is not a rebuttal at all since the the first post I made about the subject made that clear. Am I supposed to make a rebuttal about my own claim?:lol However, it also means that God did not view slavery as inherently moral either. He allowed people to do what they do and made sure slaves were treated well since they were there.

Further, if you say that God did not feel slavery was inherently immoral, why would you think that makes the incorrect statement that mankind thinks slavery is inherently immoral correct. Now THAT's what needs a rebuttal.

On top of that one could have felt that slavery was inherently immoral back in Bible times. You know the solution? Don't own slaves and convince others not to as well. It would be highly unlikely a bolt from the sky would get you.

However, looking at the 21st century, why on Earth would someone reject the teachings of God on the basis of him not condemning slavery in the first place? No country on the planet has ever been required to apologize for the slave industry they directly implemented, why would a worshipper have to feel outraged at God who did not own slaves? It makes more sense to ask people to leave the country that practiced in the slave trade since there is direct culpability.

I would understand the argument a little better if there was a "How to Wrangle a Slave" chapter in the Bible. Howeverm we both know that if a chapter like that existed, slavery would still be around, However, the idea that someone is going to reject God because the Bible was honest about slavery is silly.

I feel a summary with some bold to set it off is in order thus dampening the incessant need to write false statements. It probably won't work.

So the claim:
1. "The only claim being made is that your moral code, derived from your understanding of God's moral teachings, does not hold that slavery is inherently immoral. "

So the rebuttal:

I do view slavery as an immoral act.

In my words, you read that my moral code is derived from more than one source and the claim that God's moral teachings do not hold slavery as inherently immoral is correct.

However I claim that man didn't view it that way either for most of their existence, thus unlikely to be an inherently moral issue.

So the claim:
2. "anyone who does feel that slavery is inherently immoral should reject the teachings of your God as you have presented them."

So the rebuttal:

As I have presented them there is not a connection between worshipping God, followng the example of Christ, and the inherent immorality of slavery. Both slaves and their masters worshipped God just fine and dandy. Further, there was no evidence of spiritual blessings/curses on the basis of owning slaves. To link the two is adding in a new Biblical moral standard when it is not our place to do so and no evidence at all that there should even be a link.

However, ones who do find slavery inherently immoral & do not wish to reject God are certainly free to do so.

 

[jdogmoney]

Not beside the point. Has there ever been a dispute about the Bible saying that a man is head of the woman in a family?

It's not a question of whether the Bible says it, it's a question of whether it's true.

The idea that a man should be superior to a woman is not true.

 

[JGS]

The supernatural aspects are the entire foundation of your religion. From what I can tell Christianity isn't just "be nice like Jesus". Christianity is be nice like Jesus because he died for your sins and was the divine son of God. If you don't nail down the supernatural aspects, then how did you determine that your version of Christianity is the most accurate one, compared to everything else?

I don't say I didn't nail down the spiritual aspects, I said I don't discuss them. It is a waste of time to convince someone of spiritual matters when they have no belief in them.

It's certainly true that supernatural/miraculous things occur, but the fundamentals you are arguing can usually be explained quite easily on practical terms. Much of Biblical writings have no miracles mentioned, but there is always lessns to be learned.

And your second statement is pretty much the same exact reasoning every religious person uses. Beyond JGS' personal feelings and experiences, you haven't actually shown why yours are true, and others aren't.

This is where you get confused. I am not trying to convince you of my beliefs. I'm answering questions I like to answer, giving my opinion, and I refuting mistatements. It takes more than a largely non-religious forum to make someone religious.

The evidence I speak of though is not my personal feelings, but is based on Bible teachings including the supernatural such as prophecy, miracles, etc...

Do you think something should be considered true/false depending on how "undesireable" it is? This isn't a discussion of what religion you like, it's a discussion of what religion is true.

I agree with this. I'm being reamed now for discusssing undesireable aspects of religion, so I'm far from ignoring it controversy!:lol

I have nothing against learning the truth about something. The undesireable aspect was me saying there was no truth to what I learned about a particular religion.

That seems to be the key word. I think that when it comes to whether something is "true" or "false", what you "personally" feel shouldn't factor into the discussion at all.

No, the key word is complex. The complexity involved with belief (or non-belief I guess) is key to finding out what our personal view is.

You can't say that snce one thing is a belief, it is equal to other beliefs or that it deserves equal weight.

If we're discussing whether something can make you feel a certain way or not, sure, that's valid. But I think non-believers want to figure out whether it's true or not first, before we even consider whether it personally makes us feel a certain way.

Religious people can have that feeling to.

I actually disagree with you about non-believers. I don't think it's as empirical as you think it is. I think they often start with what they think and then find dissatisfaction in things contrary to that view. The examples on just this page verify that to an extent from the what if God is lying controversy or all people in a loving God's eyes or even slavery should have been condemened by God before humans did it. These are opinions that will never change and the [insert particular] religion won't warp to agree with them, so it's condemned.

Once again, this is kind of the point. Phrases like "displeasing to me", imply that you view religious claims as something you like or don't like, rather than true or untrue. After all, country music can make me feel or not feel a certain way, but that's an entirely separate question from "does country music exist?"

You're repeating yourself. You can't have faith without belief and a love of it. It is impossible to be faithful and hate what you have faith in. This is why many don't even bother and why many also fake it. Still others make up a belief so they can believe that (Non-believers do that too).

Every statement you make seems to continuously reinforce the idea that you don't really have a good way to determine which of the hundreds of other supernatural claims are true or not. You've only decided that they're "displeasing" to you. Which is fine! No one can't define what makes you as an individual feel or not feel a certain way.

No, every statement you make simply suggest you haven't figured it out!:lol

But you don't have evidence (besides "personal experiences"), that it is actually your god that's telling you the truth. Once again, it's not like there are any "rules" and easy ways to observe to the supernatural. If there were, it'd be natural! You have a "feeling" (other religions are displeasing, and you derive happiness from your version of Christianity, and based on your personal experiences), but as mentioned earlier, every religious person says that. They can't all be true. It's one reason why "personal experiences" are often the worst way to determine the truth of something.

This isn't true. You are simply assuming the bolded part because I'm not telling you otherwise. I haven't even given you a personal experience and yet that's all I've got?

The more likely scenario is I'm telling you to look for it yourself if you are truly interested. If you're not, then it a pearls before swine situation that I'm not looking to get into.

 

[Dude Abides]

So the rebuttal:

I do view slavery as an immoral act.

In my words, you read that my moral code is derived from more than one source and the claim that God's moral teachings do not hold slavery as inherently immoral is correct.

I did not realize you viewed God's moral teachings as inadequate. If that had been clearer it could have saved a lot of time.

 

[JGS]

It's not a question of whether the Bible says it, it's a question of whether it's true.

The idea that a man should be superior to a woman is not true.

The Bible doesn't address superiority, it addresses headship. It's not a question of superiority. They are equal to each other.

Headship are an organizational arrangement. It is without unquestionably true that the Bible states that man is head over the woman in a family and congregation arrangement. No way to make that one a true/false statement.

 

[JGS]

I did not realize you viewed God's moral teachings as inadequate. If that had been clearer it could have saved a lot of time.

That's because I don't view them as inadequate.

I also don't view them as all-encompassing which is something you should have picked up on a long time ago.

 

[jdogmoney]

The Bible doesn't address superiority, it addresses headship. It's not a question of superiority. They are equal to each other.

Headship are an organizational arrangement. It is without unquestionably true that the Bible states that man is head over the woman in a family and congregation arrangement. No way to make that one a true/false statement.

"Superior" in the sense that your boss is superior to you in the hierarchy. I know what the Bible says; it's still wrong.

 

[JGS]

"Superior" in the sense that your boss is superior to you in the hierarchy. I know what the Bible says; it's still wrong.

No it's not unless you're saying the Bible was misinterpreted:lol

 

[jdogmoney]

No it's not unless you're saying the Bible was misinterpreted:lol

No. The Bible says a woman has to answer to a man. That the man is the unquestionable head of the family.

This is wrong.

 

[JGS]

No. The Bible says a woman has to answer to a man. That the man is the unquestionable head of the family.

This is wrong.

OK

 

[Dude Abides]

That's because I don't view them as inadequate.

I also don't view them as all-encompassing which is something you should have picked up on a long time ago.

Same thing.

 

[jdogmoney]

OK

Good point. You're right, clearly the Word is law and therefore I'm wrong. ohwaityousaidnothingatall

 

[JGS]

Good point. You're right, clearly the Word is law and therefore I'm wrong. ohwaityousaidnothingatall

I can't even say OK?

The Word of God says a woman's head is the man and the head of man is Christ.

You don't agree. What else am I supposed to say?

 

[JGS]

Same thing.

No they're not.

 

[jdogmoney]

I can't even say OK?

The word of God says a woman head is the man and the head of man is Christ.

You don't agree. What else am I suppsoed to say?

Right now, we're discussing the veracity of scripture. Scripture says something that is, at best, debatable, and the only thing you have to back up your argument is that the Bible says so. I'm trying to give you a chance to back up your claim, or at least explain why you think it's okay for a man to have more authority than a woman.

 

[JGS]

Right now, we're discussing the veracity of scripture. Scripture says something that is, at best, debatable, and the only thing you have to back up your argument is that the Bible says so. I'm trying to give you a chance to back up your claim, or at least explain why you think it's okay for a man to have more authority than a woman.

I wasn't arguing. I didn't say because the Bible says so as a response to debate.

I was simply saying what Scripture said. I can't argue that unless you can think of some negative ramifications of the Scriptural statement.

You have to tell me the monumental universal evil that was/is caused when that arrangement is followed. Only then can I refute whatever over the top outlandish accusation is brought up.

It may seem like it sometimes, but I really don't argue for arguments sake.

 

[Dude Abides]

No they're not.

Yup. Any moral code that needs to be supplemented on such a fundamental issue as human bondage is inadequate.

 

[JGS]

Yup. Any moral code that needs to be supplemented on such a fundamental issue as human bondage is inadequate.

God's moral code never needed to address EVERYTHING. It was quite sufficient for the needs of the day - slavery included.

You are simply inventing moral code on your own time again.

 

[soul creator]

I don't say I didn't nail down the spiritual aspects, I said I don't discuss them. It is a waste of time to convince someone of spiritual matters when they have no belief in them.

The whole point is that if the supernatural claims of your religion are true (in any normal sense of the word), it wouldn't matter what I "believed" about them beforehand. If I try to run through a wall, I will smack into it, regardless of what my personal faith is.

If you have to believe it first before you can be "convinced of spiritual matters" that's essentially admitting that there's no neutral evidence for it.

And of course, this all ignores the fact that there are plenty of nonbelievers who for years believed the claims of their religion, and then found them unconvincing once they actually tried to match them up with reality, and not their own personal biases. So how are those folks explained?

It's certainly true that supernatural/miraculous things occur, but the fundamentals you are arguing can usually be explained quite easily on practical terms. Much of Biblical writings have no miracles mentioned, but there is always lessns to be learned.

Of course, the discussion is not whether the Bible contains lessons. It's whether the supernatural claims contained within it (many of which are the foundation of the religion) are actually true or not.

This is where you get confused. I am not trying to convince you of my beliefs. I'm answering questions I like to answer, giving my opinion, and I refuting mistatements. It takes more than a largely non-religious forum to make someone religious.

The funny thing is, I actually would want you to convince me of whether the claims you believe are actually true or not. Because that would be awesome! I can then finally see what all the hype is about. I'm not even talking about whether I would even like God or his supernatural actions. I just want to know if they exist in the first place.

I think that tends to be the disconnect between believers/nonbelievers on this topic. I'm not interested in discussing personal opinions. Everyone has personal opinions! I'm trying to find out if these supernatural claims are actually real.

The evidence I speak of though is not my personal feelings, but is based on Bible teachings including the supernatural such as prophecy, miracles, etc...

Once again, this is what every religion with a holy book says.

I agree with this. I'm being reamed now for discusssing undesireable aspects of religion, so I'm far from ignoring it controversy!:lol

I have nothing against learning the truth about something. The undesireable aspect was me saying there was no truth to what I learned about a particular religion.

So when Muslims say the Koran is the word of Allah, how did you come to determine that it's actually false, and in fact, the Holy Bible is the word of God?

And just to clarify, when I discuss "truth" I'm not discussing whether "this has some lessons I agree with and will help me live a better life".

No, the key word is complex. The complexity involved with belief (or non-belief I guess) is key to finding out what our personal view is.

You can't say that snce one thing is a belief, it is equal to other beliefs or that it deserves equal weight.

Usually, we give more or less weight to certain things based on solid evidence. Your "weight" that you give to Christian supernatural claims in comparison to Islamic claims, or Norse claims, or Greek claims seems to be more a result of

1) personal preference
2) an accident of birth (since I would imagine you live in a dominant Christian society)

Sure, you might say that the Bible says this...but of course, Muslims will say the Koran says that, and we're back to square one.

Religious people can have that feeling to.

I actually disagree with you about non-believers. I don't think it's as empirical as you think it is. I think they often start with what they think and then find dissatisfaction in things contrary to that view.

As mentioned previously, it's very likely that a large amount of nonbelievers started out as religious believers.

The examples on just this page verify that to an extent from the what if God is lying controversy or all people in a loving God's eyes or even slavery should have been condemened by God before humans did it. These are opinions that will never change and the [insert particular] religion won't warp to agree with them, so it's condemned.

These seem to me to be just simple thought experiments. After all, believers are usually the ones to mention that we can't analyze supernatural claims based on "normal" standards of evidence. So the point of a question like "what if god is lying?" is simply to display how weird it is to say "supernatural claims can't be observed by any normal standard of evidence, but I have determined that my god out of the 4,080 gods created over the years is the actual real one and would never lie. But I can't actually show you any evidence of that, because you have to believe it first before it's true. ".

Sure, you have faith that your god won't lie to you. But I can have faith in the opposite. And maybe my personal experiences confirm that. But your personal experiences confirm the opposite.

So how is this resolved? If it can only be resolved by "reading the Bible", then any other religion can say the same exact thing, so it isn't really a resolution at all. It's a personal feeling, a preference, and an opinion, but it's not exactly meaningful in a discussion with an outside observer.

You're repeating yourself. You can't have faith without belief and a love of it. It is impossible to be faithful and hate what you have faith in. This is why many don't even bother and why many also fake it. Still others make up a belief so they can believe that (Non-believers do that too).

I repeat myself because there seems to be a very simple point that is overlooked when believers discuss god. Faith is meaningless when discussing whether something is true or not. Love of faith or belief has exactly zero to do with whether or not something exists or is true.

No, every statement you make simply suggest you haven't figured it out!:lol

It's probably because your beliefs don't seem to actually be coherent outside of JGS' world.

This isn't true. You are simply assuming the bolded part because I'm not telling you otherwise. I haven't even given you a personal experience and yet that's all I've got?

Ok, so what unique evidence (evidence that can't apply to the hundreds of other gods and religions) do you have for your god that isn't based around personal experiences?

The more likely scenario is I'm telling you to look for it yourself if you are truly interested. If you're not, then it a pearls before swine situation that I'm not looking to get into.

Ahh, the pearls before swine approach.

 

[jdogmoney]

I wasn't arguing. I didn't say because the Bible says so as a response to debate.

I was simply saying what Scripture said. I can't argue that unless you can think of some negative ramifications of the Scriptural statement.

You have to tell me the monumental universal evil that was/is caused when that arrangement is followed. Only then can I refute whatever over the top outlandish accusation is brought up.

It may seem like it sometimes, but I really don't argue for arguments sake.

You don't know what the negative ramifications of a woman being subservient to a man are.



...

Yeah, no, I got nothing. I don't think I have the energy to try to explain that one.

 

[Ashes]

what are we talking about again?

 

[JGS]

The whole point is that if the supernatural claims of your religion are true (in any normal sense of the word), it wouldn't matter what I "believed" about them beforehand. If I try to run through a wall, I will smack into it, regardless of what my personal faith is.

That reasoning doesn't hold water. People are not religious because of miracles they view. They believe God is the creator and gain benefit from that knowledge. They believe that the laws in place are good enough that no one else could come up with them. They are unsatisfied with the idea that many think the universe came about on it's own when there is no corresponding proof to indicate that to be true. So there are plenty of practical points that indicate divine knowledge.

The reasoning is faulty too because the miracles you apparently want proof of are not enough to keep someone faithful. After all, there are any number of religions that can "prove" their supernatural aspects. Why haven't you follwowed a faith healer yet? How about that guy in India that hasn't eaten in months - verified by the doctors. How about trying some voodoo on for size.

If the supernatural is what moved people, then the religous landscape would be drastically different than it is now and you would be a believer in something already. Why aren't you?

And of course, this all ignores the fact that there are plenty of nonbelievers who for years believed the claims of their religion, and then found them unconvincing once they actually tried to match them up with reality, and not their own personal biases. So how are those folks explained?

Well, I don't believe most religions are right either. However, unlike "plenty of non-believers" I guess I didn't stop at the one failure and make my own path.

Of course, the discussion is not whether the Bible contains lessons. It's whether the supernatural claims contained within it (many of which are the foundation of the religion) are actually true or not.

But the discussion was started by you and I'm not agreeing to the terms!:lol
Even if I were, are you saying that I should question the supernatural aspects of the book as written? Are you saying it is my job to prove those to you? Am I supposed to verify this by going back in time since much of the supernatural mentioned in the Bible is history? Do you want me to focus on prophecy?

The funny thing is, I actually would want you to convince me of whether the claims you believe are actually true or not. Because that would be awesome! I can then finally see what all the hype is about. I'm not even talking about whether I would even like God or his supernatural actions. I just want to know if they exist in the first place.

No one is required to prove stuff simply for your amusement, least of all me.

I think that tends to be the disconnect between believers/nonbelievers on this topic. I'm not interested in discussing personal opinions. Everyone has personal opinions! I'm trying to find out if these supernatural claims are actually real.

Then being a good scientist/journalist and discover that for yourself. If you don't find the evidence, then there's your answer.

Once again, this is what every religion with a holy book says.

I get it, the all religions are the same argument. Didn't I already say you would say this!:lol

So when Muslims say the Koran is the word of Allah, how did you come to determine that it's actually false, and in fact, the Holy Bible is the word of God?

The Koran is the Word of Allah isn't it??

And just to clarify, when I discuss "truth" I'm not discussing whether "this has some lessons I agree with and will help me live a better life".

You don't have the ability or right to define truth for me. You take my version or you move on.

Usually, we give more or less weight to certain things based on solid evidence. Your "weight" that you give to Christian supernatural claims in comparison to Islamic claims, or Norse claims, or Greek claims seems to be more a result of

1) personal preference
2) an accident of birth (since I would imagine you live in a dominant Christian society)

Sure, you might say that the Bible says this...but of course, Muslims will say the Koran says that, and we're back to square one.

I get it, the all religions are the same argument. Didn't I already say you would say this!:lol

These seem to me to be just simple thought experiments. After all, believers are usually the ones to mention that we can't analyze supernatural claims based on "normal" standards of evidence. So the point of a question like "what if god is lying?" is simply to display how weird it is to say "supernatural claims can't be observed by any normal standard of evidence, but I have determined that my god out of the 4,080 gods created over the years is the actual real one and would never lie. But I can't actually show you any evidence of that, because you have to believe it first before it's true. ".

I don't say that. I do say that you define the term normal.

You can say all of that to a non-believer too. After all, a non-believer must believe something right? Just not supernatural. So how do you prove your secular opinions?

Sure, you have faith that your god won't lie to you. But I can have faith in the opposite. And maybe my personal experiences confirm that. But your personal experiences confirm the opposite.

Sure you can. I never disputed this. The problem is you put more weight on your thoughts than i ever would. To me, it is irrelevant that you think the god I worship lies. Therefore, why would I spend much time debating something worthless? Why would you?

So how is this resolved? If it can only be resolved by "reading the Bible", then any other religion can say the same exact thing, so it isn't really a resolution at all. It's a personal feeling, a preference, and an opinion, but it's not exactly meaningful in a discussion with an outside observer.

It may never be resolved for you. That is far from being my problem. Honestly, I think you have it figured out already.

I repeat myself because there seems to be a very simple point that is overlooked when believers discuss god. Faith is meaningless when discussing whether something is true or not. Love of faith or belief has exactly zero to do with whether or not something exists or is true.

That works both ways. Lack of faith is meaningless when it can't be proven. maybe that's what's driving you crazy.

Ahh, the pearls before swine approach.

If the pig fits...

 

[JGS]

You don't know what the negative ramifications of a woman being subservient to a man are.



...

Yeah, no, I got nothing. I don't think I have the energy to try to explain that one.

Here's an easy one since you're having trouble with it.

I am head of my household. There I said it.

Tell me the damage this is causing to my wife. Please.

This really is a freebie.

 

[Ashes]

Wouldn't you rather present an equal front with your wife though? Personally speaking, it'd show a lot more respect to your wife.

 

[JGS]

Wouldn't you rather present an equal front with your wife though? Personally speaking, it'd show a lot more respect to your wife.

It is an equal front. The verse doesn't disrespect women to begin with.

The Bible never says that a woman is less of a human than a man. It is simply an organizational arrangement that some get bent out of shape over. There is not a decision made that doesn't involve the Missus and most examples in the Bible are the same.

The reality is that when the chips are down, someone must represent the family. Biblically speaking, that's the dude because someone has to be. However, that's a custom that transcends just about every religion (& non-belief).

If the woman is strong willed and wears the pants, the man she marries is generally grateful for it too. However, he better be able to man up when and if the time comes that a woman wants her man to take the lead which is not unusual in the slightest.

There's nothing barbaric, sexist, or disrespectful about that. As a favorite saying of mine goes - it just is.

 

[Ashes]

It is an equal front. The verse doesn't disrespect women to begin with.

The Bible never says that a woman is less of a human than a man. It is simply an organizational arrangement that some get bent out of shape over. There is not a decision made that doesn't involve the Missus and most examples in the Bible are the same.

The reality is that when the chips are down, someone must represent the family. Biblically speaking, that's the dude because someone has to be. However, that's a custom that transcends just about every religion (& non-belief).

If the woman is strong willed and wears the pants, the man she marries is generally grateful for it too. However, he better be able to man up when and if the time comes that a woman wants her man to take the lead which is not unusual in the slightest.

There's nothing barbaric, sexist, or disrespectful about that. As a favorite saying of mine goes - it just is.

Your answer seems a little anachronistic to the time of the bible. Are you sure that you're interpreting it faithfully?

 

[soul creator]

That reasoning doesn't hold water. People are not religious because of miracles they view. They believe God is the creator

so where did they get this belief

and gain benefit from that knowledge.

Whether god exists or not or if the claims of a religion are true or not is a separate question from if the belief is beneficial or not.

They believe that the laws in place are good enough that no one else could come up with them.

They believe it, but they don't seem to have evidence or a logical argument supporting this beyond personal experience.

They are unsatisfied with the idea that many think the universe came about on it's own

Whether an idea is personally unsatisfying or not has no bearing on whether or not it's true.

when there is no corresponding proof to indicate that to be true.

Even if the universe didn't come about on its own, does any "creator" automatically imply that it's the god of a specific religion? And even if we generalize the "creator" what makes it immune from the same criticisms they apply to the universe?

"The universe can't just exist on its own! Therefore, God!"

"So what made God?"

"God is uncaused and doesn't need an explanation!"

"How come God can be uncaused, but the universe can't be?"

"Because God!"

So there are plenty of practical points that indicate divine knowledge.

I see plenty of God of the gaps arguments.

You don't have the ability or right to define truth for me. You take my version or you move on.

"If someone runs into a wall enough, eventually they can phase through it"

"No current evidence shows this to be true, so I would say that is a false statement, until new evidence arrives."

"You don't have the ability or right to define truth for me. You take my version or you move on."

Even if I were, are you saying that I should question the supernatural aspects of the book as written?

If you're interested in whether or not something is true and accurate, I would recommend it.

Are you saying it is my job to prove those to you?

No, though it helps for a productive discussion if you have more evidence than just "I read the bible and believe it based on my personal experiences". Of course, it's fine if you don't have any actual evidence beyond your own personal experience, since I'm not trying to change you. I just find it interesting that pretty much all of your "evidence" for your version of Christianity is based on personal experiences and desirability, yet you deny that that's actually true. *shrug*

I don't say that. I do say that you define the term normal.

You can say all of that to a non-believer too. After all, a non-believer must believe something right? Just not supernatural. So how do you prove your secular opinions?

I'm trying to steer the discussion towards fact-based claims (god created the universe, god has a son named Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is our savior, he died and was resurrected, he actively communicates with people, he has created an afterlife, etc.), not just "opinions". With fact-based claims in normal reality, you can use things like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

These tend to be useful when it comes to discussing whether something is true or not. But when it comes to the supernatural, I've been told those things don't apply. So what are the special methods used to sort out the supernatural world and its claims, and determine which ones to take seriously, and which ones to ignore?

Sure you can. I never disputed this. The problem is you put more weight on your thoughts than i ever would. To me, it is irrelevant that you think the god I worship lies. Therefore, why would I spend much time debating something worthless? Why would you?

I would assume that if one cared about the accuracy of their beliefs, they would want to discuss it and make sure they've reasoned things through correctly.

Of course, if don't care about the accuracy of your beliefs, and are only concerned with whether your beliefs benefit JGS personally (nothing necessarily wrong with that), then you're free to ignore my statements.

It may never be resolved for you. That is far from being my problem. Honestly, I think you have it figured out already.

The point is that with thousands of other claims, there is a way to resolve it, that completely removes my or your personal feelings from the equation. So if it can't be "resolved" that means that supernatural claims depend on the whims and emotions of whatever the individual happens to believe. If one "opens up to Christianity", it becomes true. If one is just a swine, then the pearl will never be true.

That works both ways. Lack of faith is meaningless when it can't be proven. maybe that's what's driving you crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

 

[Ashes]

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic "

What if a god wanted you to have 'faith'? I don't really know why he would but what if he did just want you to have 'faith'?

 

[soul creator]

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic "

What if a god wanted you to have 'faith'? I don't really know why he would but what if he did just want you to have 'faith'?

Then I'd wonder why he'd also give human beings such as myself a questioning brain.

And of course, how would I know if a god wanted me to have faith, if that god never talked to me in the first place (which would actually negate the need for "faith" since he'd be right there talking to me, lol)

And then if I'm just supposed to pick any god, then that's pretty much Pascal's Wager at that point, and I'd know I was lying to myself.

And if I'm just supposed to make up whatever god sounds good to me and convince myself to "have faith in it", then I'd know I was lying to myself.

 

[Ashes]

wait, what?

 

[jdogmoney]

The reality is that when the chips are down, someone must represent the family. Biblically speaking, that's the dude because someone has to be. However, that's a custom that transcends just about every religion (& non-belief).

*deep breath*

What does this mean.

[Metaphoreus, I swear I haven't forgotten. I'm working on it.]

 

[Ashes]

Are you looking down on him?

 

[soul creator]

wait, what?

since you quoted that stuff from my previous reply I figured you were asking me?

 

[Ashes]

Yes I was.

 

[JGS]

*deep breath*

What does this mean.

[Metaphoreus, I swear I haven't forgotten. I'm working on it.]

The entire statement answers what that means