"If you are talking about proselytizing Christianity where does ego-gratification come in?" --Stark

No sit back and think about it a little.
I suspected that the ego-gratification thing may have been just thrown in there. Sometimes people just launch accusations to see if anything sticks, I'm not necessarily pointing at you...it could be you have a very reasonable response.

"No, I cannot do a better job of converting people then God Himself, and no God does not "need" my help...but can He use me to advance His gospel?"

Here is your ego shouting so loud you cannot hear anything for the din. You convince yourself God is "using" you.

Interesting that you would insert my ego into my response. I was saying that God can use me, I said nothing about whether he was or not. Now why would you do that?

I know you grew up in an environment where this sort of thing is taken for granted, so you probably cannot see through it, but think intellectually for a moment and see how fundamentally absurd your words are.

Then think spiritually and see how arrogant they are.
Okay, so you say my words are absurd, really, before I can respond, you'll have to explain which words and how they are absurd.
Same thing "spiritually" which words and how are they arrogant.
I'm more then willing to discuss this with you, but really would like some clarification...thanks.

"Keep the adherents preaching so that they will not listen and will instead only become more emotionally committed to the faith"???? Is that what the centuries of Christian scholarship and thinking was all about, just a trick to keep anyone from thinking about what they believe?
Yes.

That states it pretty matter-of-factly.
Okay, one vote for: Christian history has never had Christians really examine what they believe and why they believe it.

Who knows?

While he succumbed to a mild infection with the religious meme, he nontheless maintains that he still stands by his landmark argument for atheism.
As a deist he stands with his "argument for atheism"? Where does he say that? I'd like to read the interview.

What do you make of this verse?
1 Peter 3:15-16 "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience,..."
I don't see it as a requirment to "defend" their beliefs at every turn. Only to answer respectfully when asked.
Very good point.

But there is still:
2 Corinthians 10:5 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
And the book of Acts, where we find Paul going city to city defending his faith.

All I can say is that if you can't see it, you are beyond redemption, so I suspect your ignorance is less than straightforward. I would urge you to stop being so damn self-righteous and try to see things from someone else's perspective.

People don't preach to others to "save" them, but to justify themselves. If the preaching is accepted, then wonderful--"what a good thing I've done." If, on the other hand, the preaching is rejected, then "Well, at least I tried--what a good person I am."

Religions (a form of meme) perpetuate themselves by taking advantage of these natural human tendencies. The old maxim "know thyself" can defeat such things, but few have the opportunity to actually achieve that.

By the way, your tendency to try to "turn the tables" by saying that I am doing what you are doing is pitiful. I have no Christ to shove down anyone's throat.

Interesting that you would insert my ego into my response. I was saying that God can use me, I said nothing about whether he was or not. Now why would you do that?

OK, so you say my words are absurd, really, before I can respond, you'll have to explain which words and how they are absurd.
Same thing "spiritually" which words and how are they arrogant.
I'm more then willing to discuss this with you, but really would like some clarification...thanks.

The idea that God uses you, that you do God's work, is just about the most arrogant idea possible. The reality is that you do your own work and attribute it to God--this is the source of the great evils religions can cause--if something is "God's will," then any evil, no matter how horrid, can be justified.

The rest of your message takes a more reasonable tone than I have heard from you before, so I will elaborate, even though I think what I say is obvious.

Intellectually, the idea that God uses men to do his work is just simply absurd on its face. Men could not help but do this work poorly, generally cause more harm than good. This fact is well recognized, even among fundamentalist Christians, and various work-arounds are tried (the most common being that God "gives" Christians this work for their own good). The whole line of thinking resolves down into a mass of double-think and ego-gratification without logic.

From a spiritual point of view, we have to recognize that each person is individually responsible for their own lives, their own development, and their own "salvation." We cannot and, more important, should not, try to impose the methods we find onto others.

Compassion of course sometimes drives us to try to intervene when we see people doing active harm, but even here the moral questions are abundant. How do we know they are doing harm? How do we know our intervention will not make things worse? We have to watch our arrogance carefully to make sure we are not just assuming we are right because of our pride.

As a deist he stands with his "argument for atheism"? Where does he say that? I'd like to read the interview.

http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=172&article=0

"When asked if he still stands by his landmark argument for atheism, The Presumption of Atheism (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm), Flew said: "Oh yes. Yes I think so. That's how you should deal with any question which is seriously controversial. You don't wonder whether the evidence is something that other people know much more about than you do."

Yeah.

That'll happen. :rolleyes:

The religionist will suddenly look deep within, and have a moment of intellectual clarity where he fully recognizes the fundamental absurdity of the supernaturalist worldview he is promoting and that he is basing his life upon.

Actually Freethinker it does happen. You were raised in a Chrisitian environment. I was raised as a Roman Catholic and did not question "Christianity" or the possiblity that it was not the "end all, be all". Like most Christians it was easier for me to see the glaring differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. Both camps think their way is best. It has only been in the last 15 years or so that Rome has looked toward Ecumenicism. My world was small and white and Chrisitian.

I am still a theist. I believe in a God but that we are beings which solely choose our own journey. I don't know if that's true. I only know my expereinces have lead me to that conclusion. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it works for me. So therefore as much as people say others do not change, we do. I learn everyday. So does everyone here or they would not come to a forum. Exposure to others changes us even if we do not seek it consciously.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
Yeah.

That'll happen.

The religionist will suddenly look deep within, and have a moment of intellectual clarity where he fully recognizes the fundamental absurdity of the supernaturalist worldview he is promoting and that he is basing his life upon.

Actually Freethinker it does happen.

Yes. Ok. You're right.

It does.

But only VERY rarely......probably in less than one in ten thousand of those fully indoctrinated into religious belief.

The sadness here is the true Christian will win every thing but the others will inherit the lake of fire.

if in 2010 Damascus is destroyed fall to your knees and repent to YAHSHUA. They say when Damascus falls the 7 yrs starts.

if in 2010 Damascus is destroyed fall to your knees and repent to YAHSHUA. They say when Damascus falls the 7 yrs starts.
So we have to worry about a small town in Maryland now?

I don't defend my beliefs, I don't need to. What usually happens is wrong info is posted and I don't want someone believing that. Actually we have the mandate not to cast pearls before swines, not to answer scoffers, and if they won't listen to shake the dust off our feet.
We only need to get info out . The belief must come from the hearers.

All I can say is that if you can't see it, you are beyond redemption, so I suspect your ignorance is less than straightforward. I would urge you to stop being so damn self-righteous and try to see things from someone else's perspective.
Beyond redemption? Thislin, that sounds as if you are trying to redeem me. The question is what are you trying to redeem me from, and what are you trying to redeem me into?
This sounds suspiciously as if you think that my world view is wrong, and you are trying to rescue me from it and into the right world view.

Interesting you would use the term self-righteous, in Christianity the teaching is that we cannot be righteous on our own, that all people are sinners in need of Christ's righteousness.

Oh, and about my ignorance, sorry, I've got what I got.

People don't preach to others to "save" them, but to justify themselves. If the preaching is accepted, then wonderful--"what a good thing I've done." If, on the other hand, the preaching is rejected, then "Well, at least I tried--what a good person I am."
So do you justify yourself when you tell me this? Do you feel that you are a "good person" having told me? Or is this a rule only when I preach?
It's like this, you feel your world view is better then mine, I'm fine with that, I disagree, but I'm fine. The only good way for you to express your world view is to "preach" it, I'm fine with that, but I will also express my world view.

By the way, your tendency to try to "turn the tables" by saying that I am doing what you are doing is pitiful. I have no Christ to shove down anyone's throat.
Did I say you are shoving Christ down anyone's throat? In no way did I mean to suggest it, but I would like to take a look at the quote that made you think that I was suggesting you was shoving Christ down anyone's throat.
Of course, even if you were here preaching Jesus Christ, I wouldn't be so silly as to suggest that you were shoving Christ down anyone's throat, seeing that this is a religion based chat area, and anyone coming into this area would assume they would here from Christians.
Just as I don't consider Freethinker, or Blob, or any other atheist, to be shoving atheism down my or anyone's throat. They have a world view concerning God, they come in here to defend that world view, I find the exchange of ideas stimulating. I don't agree with there world view, but hearing it, examining it and having them examine mine is beneficial to me.
I do, however, understand that some resent, and hate when others speak confidently about their beliefs, those people probably shouldn't enter places like this...but I'm fine if they do.

Thats right. Because reason is the object, and atheists wouldn't say that theists have reason too because the act of believing in God, to them, is unreasonable.Yes - it would make a poor put-down.
Faith is a different thing. Faith is not the object, what someone has faith in is the object. If you have faith that a professional airline pilot will fly you safely to your destination, that would be a wise faith. If you have faith that I could fly you safely to your destination, that would be an unwise faith.
I have faith that there is a God, that is a wise faith. The atheist has faith that God doesn't exist, that is an unwise faith. Of course for an atheist this is turned around.I disagree with the airline analogy and that "atheists have faith" the Abrahamic creator deity does not exist - due to the issue of certainty I discussed previously. You personally acknowledged the possibility of doubt and that is commendable as well as highly unusual, Stark. I ask monotheists about doubt all the time and the almost invariably answer they have no doubt whatsoever (in fact you and my own mother are the only exceptions I have encountered).
Faith, itself, is not an insult, nor is it, itself, an admirable quality. Faith in X (x can also include the non-existent) is what is an insult or an admirable quality.Then why do theists, yourself and Turek included, spend so much time hammering the point that atheists have faith? If you sincerely consider it to be a neutral statement why make an issue of it?

It seems my retort to the supposedly value-free mantra "atheists have faith too!" should not be "Theists' shit smells too" but something utterly banal such as "Theists use verbs too!"

So do you justify yourself when you tell me this? Do you feel that you are a "good person" having told me? Or is this a rule only when I preach?

Well you did what I said you would do--ignored the point I made and instead merely respond with "You are doing it too." It is interesting how predictable a certain form of Christian can be. I would suggest you don't worry about others; I have to worry about what I do, and what I may or may not do is no excuse for you.



--Martin

I don't defend my beliefs...

LOL.

For obvious reasons.

The atheist has faith that God doesn't exist...

Absolutely false.

Athesim cannot be equated to a statement of positive belief, such as --""I assert that (or have 'faith' that) god does not exist".

Atheism is about an absence of belief.

Atheism cannot be equated to a statement of positive belief, such as --""I assert that (or have 'faith' that) god does not exist".

Atheism is about an absence of belief.

I really have a problem with this approach. I suppose on an intellectual level it can work for agnosticism (although even here it depends on the exact form of agnosticism), but atheism is more of an assertion than just the absence of an assertion, and any assertion has a burden to produce evidence.

Even if you are right, can't you produce evidence? I can think of many lines of evidence that tend to tell us there probably is no God (at least of the Christian sort).

To my mind, the strongest of these are the hairy old scholastic self-referential logical contradictions involved in the "omni-" assertions. The existence of an "omnipotent" being, for example, leads to the hairy old self-referential logical contradiction of whether or not such a being can create a problem it cannot solve.

Similarly, the "omniscient" assertion raises the question of how can such a being be sure realms outside its knowledge do not exist--and hence such uncertainty in and of itself contradicts omniscience. It also raises the problem of whether it could create systems that generate information it cannot know (a basis sometimes proffered for the existence of free will).

LOL.

For obvious reasons. Is that how you debate by using partial quotes ????

Is that how you debate by using partial quotes ????

I do not debate mentally imbalanced twits who see the *end of the world* as a "good thing".

I just fire satirical jibes in their general direction and watch as they, in bafflement and frustration, bite at their own tails.

I really have a problem with this approach. I suppose on an intellectual level it can work for agnosticism (although even here it depends on the exact form of agnosticism), but atheism is more of an assertion than just the absence of an assertion, and any assertion has a burden to produce evidence.
There are two forms of atheism. Strong atheism, "I believe that there is no god." Weak atheism, "I profess no belief in a god." 90% of atheists (or so) are weak atheists.

As for agnosticism, it mainly means, "I don't know if there is a god or not." There are a number of subsets of agnosticism, including a number of deist-leaning agnostics and a number of atheist-leaning agnostics.

Deists, agnostics, and weak atheists are all weak-willed pansies!

Evangelical atheism is the One True Way!(TM) Convert or die, heathens!

Deists, agnostics, and weak atheists are all weak-willed pansies!

Evangelical atheism is the One True Way!(TM) Convert or die, heathens!
Yeah, let's polarize everything and strike no middle ground. No wait, I shall smite both sides...

Middle ground is for fence sitters and Arab-lovers.

Middle ground is for fence sitters and Arab-lovers.
Or the Chinese, they like to hang out up there.

And the hobbits.

Wait...wrong places.

There are two forms of atheism. Strong atheism, "I believe that there is no god." Weak atheism, "I profess no belief in a god." 90% of atheists (or so) are weak atheists.

--I agree with your categories here, but would only say that even the "weak atheist" (which is where I put myself) has a certain burden. A lot depends on who one is "professing" to, and if one is professing to, for example, a sincere Christian, then one has a certain burden.

--I think maybe it has to do with respect for other people. I think what someone else believes is entitled to the respect of not just dismissing it without reason. That someone else believes it--in particular the person one is talking to--is itself enough to create a burden in me to provide evidence.

As for agnosticism, it mainly means, "I don't know if there is a god or not." There are a number of subsets of agnosticism, including a number of deist-leaning agnostics and a number of atheist-leaning agnostics.

--As with atheism, I would suggest there are also two flavors of agnosticism--a "hard" variety that asserts it is not possible, for logical reasons, for a finite being to know the infinite, and a "soft" reason--the proverbial fence-sitter. So, even with some agnostics (the hard variety), there is a burden.

"Burden of proof" is an unfortunate expression, even though I must use it since it is the English idiom. In fact there is no way to prove anything. What is meant is simply a burden to provide evidence.

--Martin

That is not an excuse for posting half truths. You do know what truth is don't you or may be
If you can't debate a subject say so, personal attacks are a libs way of debating, very sad.

If you can't debate a subject say so, personal attacks are a libs way of debating, very sad.

No, that seems to be a common theme on this board on both sides of the political spectrum.

The idea that God uses you, that you do God's work, is just about the most arrogant idea possible.
Arrogant only if it's not true, but the teaching through out the Bible is that God uses people to get his message across, and the very command from Christ to spread the Gospel to all the nations suggests that God is using people to spread that message of the Good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. Though, I must add that to tell someone that God would never use them suggests that either you have an incredible knowledge of the universe or you are just voicing your world view. So tell me is your world view superior to my world view?

The reality is that you do your own work and attribute it to God
What is your greatest evidence that what you said here is true?
--this is the source of the great evils religions can cause--if something is "God's will," then any evil, no matter how horrid, can be justified.
True, politicized Christianity has wrecked havoc throughout history, but to cause the destruction that it has the perpetrators had to step outside of Christian teaching. So it is men using Christ to gain power that brings destruction, not the true teachings of Christ.

Intellectually, the idea that God uses men to do his work is just simply absurd on its face.
In your world view isn't the teaching of a personal caring loving God intellectually absurd "on its face"? If that's the case then it would follow that God using men would have to be intellectually absurd also.
So you are defining what is intellectually absurd based on your world view.

Men could not help but do this work poorly, generally cause more harm than good. This fact is well recognized, even among fundamentalist Christians,
Really? These fundamentalist Christians are teaching that by doing the work God instructed us to do we are in fact doing more harm then good? Would you name some of these fundamentalists, I'd like to check out what they are saying.

and various work-arounds are tried (the most common being that God "gives" Christians this work for their own good). The whole line of thinking resolves down into a mass of double-think and ego-gratification without logic.
"Without logic"? I'm interested in this...what law of logic is being broken?

From a spiritual point of view, we have to recognize that each person is individually responsible for their own lives, their own development, and their own "salvation."
It's interesting, every religion, but Christianity, teaches that very same thing...we have to work to gain our own "salvation." It's Christianity that says we cannot work to gain salvation it's a free gift from God.

We cannot and, more important, should not, try to impose the methods we find onto others.
Is this only for methods of salvation that "we cannot and, more important, should not, try to impose" on others, or does that go for any beliefs?

Compassion of course sometimes drives us to try to intervene when we see people doing active harm, but even here the moral questions are abundant. How do we know they are doing harm?
A question I've often asked... what is the bases for objective right and wrong?

How do we know our intervention will not make things worse? We have to watch our arrogance carefully to make sure we are not just assuming we are right because of our pride.
Why is that right?

http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=172&article=0

"When asked if he still stands by his landmark argument for atheism, The Presumption of Atheism (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm), Flew said: "Oh yes. Yes I think so. That's how you should deal with any question which is seriously controversial. You don't wonder whether the evidence is something that other people know much more about than you do."

He says that yet he turns and says this:
"We must follow the argument wherever it leads," he said. "I've never thought I knew that there was no God. I merely thought there is no sufficient reason that there is."

It sounds as though he makes a case for agnosticism not atheism, but I should probably read "The Presumption of Atheism" before I say much more.

Anyway thanks for both links.

"Arrogant only if it's not true, but the teaching through out the Bible is that God uses people to get his message across." --Stark

That the Bible says something is not persuasive to me that it is true, since, as I pointed out and you manage to ignore, the proposition is absurd--illogical--contradictory to good sense.

By the way, the whole idea also remains patently arrogant. I can imagine, however, why you don't want to see this, so let me elaborate.

Limited human beings cannot know "truth" with any finality--we can only approach understanding, never get there, and we never know how close we really are.

That being so, the presumption that you know what to preach to others, that you know God has commanded you to do this, and so on, cannot possibly be an accurate description of the reality. You persuade yourself otherwise for the same reason the atheists hereabouts persuade themselves they are so right--human arrogance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thislin
The reality is that you do your own work and attribute it to God

What is your greatest evidence that what you said here is true?--Stark

Are you deaf? I see no point in continuing this exchange if you don't even bother to read (really read) what I post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thislin
The reality is that you do your own work and attribute it to God

What is your greatest evidence that what you said here is true?--Stark

Are you deaf? I see no point in continuing this exchange if you don't even bother to read (really read) what I post.

I'm always open for correction...tell me what I missed that answers my question.
As for this exchange...continuing is your choice.

Thinking about it though...you hint that I may not read your posts, yet looking back it appears I've answered them point by point which suggests I've read them...now why do you suggest that I don't bother reading them? Just wondering, in fact you have the right to debate anyway that makes you feel comfortable.

A question I've often asked... what is the bases for objective right and wrong?

Third base and home base.

you don't think one can know right from wrong without a book to tell you?
If that were the case then why was murder a wrong in every society before the Bible was ever collected?

I'm always open for correction...tell me what I missed that answers my question.
As for this exchange...continuing is your choice.

Thinking about it though...you hint that I may not read your posts, yet looking back it appears I've answered them point by point which suggests I've read them...now why do you suggest that I don't bother reading them? Just wondering, in fact you have the right to debate anyway that makes you feel comfortable.
It is frustrating to have you ask a question I already answered in the message you are responding to; it tells me you read things with blinders on and don't really pay attention.

I already explained my reasons for saying that the idea of "doing God's work" is irrational. If you had responded to the reasons I stated, we would have an exchange--but, instead, you merely ask me to give my reasons.

OK, I repeat: God does not need you. God is omnipotent. You are nothing. Now you admit this intellectually, but you plainly do not really understand what it means or you would not imagine that you could possibly "do God's work."

Furthermore, God is perfect, you are not. What do you imagine "perfect" means? It means never doing something imperfect. Therefore, by definition, God's using you (an imperfect being) would be gross imperfection on God's part.

Third base and home base.

you don't think one can know right from wrong without a book to tell you?
If that were the case then why was murder a wrong in every society before the Bible was ever collected?
The question of the real basis for right and wrong is a false question. We can take right and wrong as givens and work from there.

It is not unlike the question of the real basis for energy. We haven't the slightest idea--there may not even be one--but we can still take "energy" as a given and work from there.

We can take right and wrong as givens and work from there.
We could, but we shouldn't. Ideas need an origin, some framework to grow out of. My idea as to the origin of right and wrong comes from instinctual behaviors built into us by millions of years of evolution. A big part of the emergence of civilization was the monopoly on the use of force. This kept people from simply killing other people who got on their nerves. Sooner or later the idea came about that it was not acceptable to kill another person for perceived slights, a position that has not always been, regardless of the irrefutable veneer of the idea. All of the things we think of as right or wrong can be traced from ancient primal social behaviors. People forget that modern humanity spent the first hundred and ninety four thousand years of it's existence in primitive tribal and chiefdom form.

Back then, bands would remorselessly slaughter one another if they got in each other's way. Ethics and morality simply didn't exist. Only once populations became dense enough that people could not avoid meeting people outside of their tribe on a semi-regular basis, did the ideas emerge.

No inductive system provides certainty, and deductive systems are only as good as their axioms.

If one is to build an ethical system, one can do so inductively by trying to see what works best in promoting general welfare and happiness, or something along these lines. Alternatively, one can begin with certain axioms and derive theorems--much as Kant did with his "ethical imperative."

Neither approach is fully satisfactory--people can always come along and complain that things are not certain. This is a lot like the creationist picking at evolutionary science--demanding absolute proofs and a fossil for every conceivable intermediate step. The approach is unreasonable and only reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the limits of our knowledge.

Induction and deduction have to do with conclusions, not with the philosophy itself. If you arrive at a conclusion by using general laws that are good for most situations, you have an inductive conclusion. If you arrive at one by analyzing all of the disparate elements of the precepts individually, and trying to be objective about the result, you are being deductive.

One could take the paradigm and try to apply it to the philosophies itself, but it loses meaning and luster. Deductive analysis is clearly superior to inductive generalizing, but it's much, much easier to get wrong, by incorrectly arbitrating the import of certain precepts over others, usually due to faulty inductive thought that is necessary for analyzing.

The nature of truth, which I have given in a preceding thread, is the best guide for determining whether your own deductions hold water.

Induction and deduction have to do with conclusions, not with the philosophy itself. If you arrive at a conclusion by using general laws that are good for most situations, you have an inductive conclusion. If you arrive at one by analyzing all of the disparate elements of the precepts individually, and trying to be objective about the result, you are being deductive.

One could take the paradigm and try to apply it to the philosophies itself, but it loses meaning and luster. Deductive analysis is clearly superior to inductive generalizing, but it's much, much easier to get wrong, by incorrectly arbitrating the import of certain precepts over others, usually due to faulty inductive thought that is necessary for analyzing.

The nature of truth, which I have given in a preceding thread, is the best guide for determining whether your own deductions hold water.

Hon, I think you have deductive and inductive confused...

I disagree with the airline analogy and that "atheists have faith"
Atheist have to have a measure of faith, unless they possess all knowledge about all things.

the Abrahamic creator deity does not exist - due to the issue of certainty I discussed previously.
We obviously have a difference of opinion here. I am certain that the God of the Bible does exist, and my faith is based in logic, reason, and that reality is knowable. I understand that in this culture, this kind of Christian certainty is frowned on, but I'll live with that.

You personally acknowledged the possibility of doubt and that is commendable as well as highly unusual, Stark. I ask monotheists about doubt all the time and the almost invariably answer they have no doubt whatsoever (in fact you and my own mother are the only exceptions I have encountered).
I suspect that when the monotheists, you talk with, speak about the certainty of their faith, they are saying that they have the maximum psychological conviction that what they believe is true. When I speak of the certainty of my faith that is what I'm speaking about, not that I have all knowledge of all existence. I go where facts and reason take me, and am not limited by the notion that there is no super-natural.

Then why do theists, yourself and Turek included, spend so much time hammering the point that atheists have faith? If you sincerely consider it to be a neutral statement why make an issue of it?
I make it an issue because it appears, to me, that part of the foundation in the attack against Christianity is that Christians operate by faith. Well yes we do, but my contention is that everyone operates on faith in all areas of their life, and that indeed faith, in that which is true, is a good thing. I think of "bias," every one is biased in someway or another, the problem with bias is when it is focused in an unfair manner. Someone not hiring a child rapist to take care of their ten year old because they are biased against child rapists is based in reason, it's a wise bias. Not hiring a person because you are biased against their ethnicity is an unfair bias.

So do you justify yourself when you tell me this? Do you feel that you are a "good person" having told me? Or is this a rule only when I preach?

Well you did what I said you would do--ignored the point I made and instead merely respond with "You are doing it too." It is interesting how predictable a certain form of Christian can be.
Merely responded with "You are doing it too"?? Why did do that? Why did you quote only part of what I said and then claim that I "merely responded with "You are doing it too."??
Here is the rest of what I said:
It's like this, you feel your world view is better then mine, I'm fine with that, I disagree, but I'm fine. The only good way for you to express your world view is to "preach" it, I'm fine with that, but I will also express my world view.
My point is I believe X, I preach it, you believe non-X you preach it, I'm fine with that.

I would suggest you don't worry about others; I have to worry about what I do, and what I may or may not do is no excuse for you.
Worried about others? I actually am worried about others in the sense of their eternal salvation, but I don't think that's the context that you are talking about...do you want to clarify?

Hon, I think you have deductive and inductive confused...
What? Read it again, and if it still looks wrong, go hit those books again.

Deduction is the use of general principles to explain an individual circumstance. Induction is the use of individual circumstances to formulate a general principle. The dictionary and my English textbook support me on this.

Well then. Both of those books are wrong then.

I invented deduction and induction.

Well then. Both of those books are wrong then.

I invented deduction and induction.
:rolleyes: I'm sure.

It's true. I told Aristotle he could take credit for induction.

"Arrogant only if it's not true, but the teaching through out the Bible is that God uses people to get his message across."

That the Bible says something is not persuasive to me that it is true, since, as I pointed out and you manage to ignore, the proposition is absurd--illogical--contradictory to good sense.
Whether you think that the Bible is true, absurd, illogical, or contradictory, is not my point, I was saying that what you were calling my arrogance is really a teaching of my religion, and that is -God uses people.

By the way, the whole idea also remains patently arrogant. I can imagine, however, why you don't want to see this, so let me elaborate.

Limited human beings cannot know "truth" with any finality--we can only approach understanding, never get there, and we never know how close we really are.
Is that true?
Here is the problem, while telling me humans cannot know truth with any finality, you are making truth claims about truth, about knowledge, and about humans. You are so convinced that what you believe about this world is true that you come into this chatroom and tell me that what I believe is wrong.
Look at this truth claim in the next quote of yours:
That being so, the presumption that you know what to preach to others, that you know God has commanded you to do this, and so on, cannot possibly be an accurate description of the reality.
You are so confident that what you believe is the truth, concerning what I believe, you say: "cannot possibly be an accurate description of reality." So do you have the truth?

You persuade yourself otherwise for the same reason the atheists hereabouts persuade themselves they are so right--human arrogance.

Again, here you are correcting us all with, what you seem to claim is, the truth. Is that arrogance?
Look at this confidence in what you believe concerning God in one of your posts:
OK, I repeat: God does not need you. God is omnipotent.
As soon as someone defends their belief that no one can know the truth, they defeat their own claim.
In reality everyone believes that they have the truth.

It is frustrating to have you ask a question I already answered in the message you are responding to; it tells me you read things with blinders on and don't really pay attention.
Not much I can do, you throw out a statement such as:
"The reality is that you do your own work and attribute it to God"
and I want to see how you came to your conclusion, feel free to check it out page 14 post #208 you explain nothing. You make statements, that's fine, but I like to see how you come to your conclusions.

I already explained my reasons for saying that the idea of "doing God's work" is irrational. If you had responded to the reasons I stated, we would have an exchange--but, instead, you merely ask me to give my reasons.
I may be way off, but it appears you explain your reasons by making more statements here is an example from post #208:
"The idea that God uses you, that you do God's work, is just about the most arrogant idea possible. The reality is that you do your own work and attribute it to God--this is the source of the great evils religions can cause--if something is "God's will," then any evil, no matter how horrid, can be justified."
There is no explanation here just accusations. I of course realize I may be missing something from other posts, I'm open for your explanation.

OK, I repeat: God does not need you. God is omnipotent. You are nothing. Now you admit this intellectually, but you plainly do not really understand what it means or you would not imagine that you could possibly "do God's work."
First, yes God does not need me. Yes, God is omnipotent. Yes, I am nothing. But the key word is "need" I've never said God needs me...rather I should not have said it...I may have by accident. Anyway, God doesn't need me, but He can use me if He wants to. Though I suspect I've already said about the same thing a few pages ago.

Furthermore, God is perfect, you are not. What do you imagine "perfect" means? It means never doing something imperfect. Therefore, by definition, God's using you (an imperfect being) would be gross imperfection on God's part.
Yes, God is perfect. Yes, I am not. But couldn't God use an imperfect being; perfectly?

It is hard for me to repress the uneasiness I feel when someone tells me they are doing God's work. Can't you realize that this is the basis for everything from the Crusades to the Inquisiton to the Taliban?

Human nature being what it is, it seems to me likely that such a teaching leads to self-righteounness at a minimum, and ultimately to intolerance of those who question the claim.

Frankly, such an idea is abhorrent to me anyway. It is also, as I explained in detail earlier, utterly illogical. Therefore any such claim has to be false, which makes anyone making such a claim not only unbelievable in anthing he says but also downright scary.

I attacked FT awhile back for politicizing the religous right in America--using it to bash Republicans, but now I see where this fear comes from. You and another "Christian" on these boards scare me about America, and I certainly hope people like you never do gain real political power.

It is hard for me to repress the uneasiness I feel when someone tells me they are doing God's work.
It may be that you are so slanted against those with a Christian world view that you can only imagine that when some one says they are doing God's work, or God's will, or are used by God that they are going to hurt someone. If you are set in this particular world view I can't help that.

Can't you realize that this is the basis for everything from the Crusades to the Inquisiton to the Taliban?
Like I've said before, the actions of those "Christians" involved in the Crusades or the Inquisition had to step outside the teachings of the Bible to do what they did. For example the leaders of the Church told those involved in the Crusades that if they died in battle they would automatically go to heaven, that is not Christian teaching. It's the teaching of men who want power. And men wanting power is the real basis for the Inquisition and the slaughter of millions in such events as Stalin's rise to power.

Human nature being what it is, it seems to me likely that such a teaching leads to self-righteounness at a minimum, and ultimately to intolerance of those who question the claim.
Or it leads to people helping the poor, rushing down where disaster has devastated an area to help feed the victims and help rebuild.
As for intolerance of those who question the claim, I'm not sure what level of intolerance you speak of? Would you clarify?

Frankly, such an idea is abhorrent to me anyway. It is also, as I explained in detail earlier, utterly illogical.
Yes, you said is was utterly illogical, but you didn't say what rule of logic is broken when a person claims that God uses them. Though I do leave room that I missed your answer when I asked before, so just give me the post number and I'll check it out. I'm assuming that by illogical you don't mean "goes against your world view."

Therefore any such claim has to be false, which makes anyone making such a claim not only unbelievable in anthing he says but also downright scary.
If the claim truly goes against the laws of logic you are correct they have to be false, but if they merely go against what you believe...well...

I attacked FT awhile back for politicizing the religous right in America--using it to bash Republicans, but now I see where this fear comes from.
Funny, I never considered any of FT's attacks against Christianity as fear. I always considered that he spoke, as he did, out of passion for what he believes, and a strong conviction that he was right and Christians were wrong, but fear... no.
It may be that I have missed something and that you have a greater insight into the psychology behind his post then I have, so I'll leave room for you to explain why his passion is really fear?

You and another "Christian" on these boards scare me about America, and I certainly hope people like you never do gain real political power.
Now, apparently I and another on this site scare you, I can only assume that you are not the type who fears and loathes those who believe differently then them, so I'd like to know, is your fear based on my believing that God has plans for my life, and will use me towards His ends, or is it based in something else?
I'd like to point out that many who claim that they are doing God's work, or are used by God, are opening up places in the cities to feed the homeless, and give them shelter. Others who are doing God's work are rushing to places where some disaster has struck, and are providing food, clean water, and shelter, while they help to rebuild homes, and supporting them are churches providing large amounts of money to help. Many churches, claiming to be doing God's will, are giving a lot of money to orphanages over seas.
As for political power...don't worry about me, I would hate to have any political power, I'm in no way a leader of men.

I don't like it when people chop up my messages the way you do. It utterly confuses the discussion. Therfore I will limit myself to your first statement, which was more than I could believe someone actually said, all by itself.

Where have I demonstrated the sort of slant "against" of Christianity you claim? In fact I defend all relgions as being good things, as long as they don't become harmfully narrow or violent.

This is one of many things wrong with fundamentalism, not with Christianity. There are "fundamentalist" atheists too--such as Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin, and we can see where that lead. The fundamentalism now found in Christianity is perceived by many to be equally as dangerous, and having been on this topic a couple weeks now, I see why.

The very claim to be doing "God's work" is so dangerous I am terrified that it is taken seriously and not just as a metaphor for doing good. It is also an irrational idea, as though God needs human beings. Finally, and this adds to its danger, it is fundamentally a self-righteous, arrogant idea--the opposite of humility and making any humility that may be claimed a lie.

I don't like it when people chop up my messages the way you do. It utterly confuses the discussion.
Sorry about that, but I like to answer someone's post point by point. But, your dislike for chopped up messages explains why you've missed many of my responses. You seem to think that answering you point by point "confuses the discussion" but I don't understand why you would be confused?

Therfore I will limit myself to your first statement, which was more than I could believe someone actually said, all by itself.
Are you stunned that I don't believe that your world view is the correct one?

Where have I demonstrated the sort of slant "against" of Christianity you claim? In fact I defend all relgions as being good things, as long as they don't become harmfully narrow or violent.
I'm sure you think that Christianity and other religions are good things, but when you speak against the fundamental teaching of Christianity you are displaying a slant against Christianity. For example:
from post #18, when you said: "I don't think that you can "learn" God's word by reading the Bible." That is directly opposed to the teaching of Christianity.
When you said, in post #30, "hearsay accounts of generally unknown authors who are obviously not objective observers." Christianity as well as the Bible teaches different.
Or when you said, in post #37, "You tell me that the writings are first-hand accounts, but when I read them objectively, I know better." That's right you "know better" but you are also showing your slant.
There is this from post #79, "...the myths that have come to be the foundation story of Christianity." And with that quote there is also this from post #103, "It seems obvious that the Jesus story, like the Buddha story or the Trojan War, is a myth." all of Christianity is built on Jesus and the fact of Jesus.
Also on #103 you said: "Paul has "Jesus of Nazareth" as a resurrected being, about to come to Earth to set up a heavenly kingdom. He shares the characteristics of many other Greek mystery cults--the deity lived on the earth in "mythical time," was betrayed and then raised to Heaven." Clear slant against the most important belief in Christianity.
Another one from #103 is this: "So one concludes that a non-Jewish "Christianity" existed first, adopting ideas from the LXX (the Greek version of the Old Testament) patterned by Greek mystery thinking. What Paul teaches seems utterly foreign to Judaism (symbolically drinking the savior's blood, for example)..." Here again you show a slant against Christianity.
Here is another example from #106 "The issue of God-given law as our moral foundation has a serious logical problem." Again Christianity teaches that God's given law is a moral foundation.
There is also this from #183 "The Christian meme has built into it the command to go out and preach. This is one of the reasons it has persisted over the centuries. Keep the adherents preaching so that they will not listen and will instead only become more emotionally committed to the faith." This is a ridiculous idea but it's understandable that you believe it because your world view insists on it.
Finally from #208 "The idea that God uses you, that you do God's work, is just about the most arrogant idea possible." Yet it is a major belief in Christianity.
I understand that you believe these quotes they are a result of your belief system, but to suggest that you are not slanted against true Christianity does not fit the evidence. I do believe, however, that you have, in your mind, created a different Christianity one where Jesus is not real, God does not give us a foundation for morality, and the follower should never be so arrogant as to suggest that God would or could use them. It is that Christianity that you would not be slanted against.

This is one of many things wrong with fundamentalism,...
Is that a fundamental belief that you hold, or is it merely an unimportant suggestion?

There are "fundamentalist" atheists too--such as Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin, and we can see where that lead.
Yes, and where that lead is the logical out working of their world view.

The fundamentalism now found in Christianity is perceived by many to be equally as dangerous, and having been on this topic a couple weeks now, I see why.
Yes I understand one of those "many", Rosie O'Donnell, feels that Christianity is equally as dangerous as radical Islam. But I don't understand why people would be fearful of the fundamentalist Christian. It is the fundamentals of Christianity that teaches Christians to feed the poor, take care of the widow, protect the young, turn the other cheek, don't judge the unbeliever, love your enemies, pray for those who mistreat you, and don't get revenge.
The person who goes out and blows up an abortion clinic, or kills a doctor is not practicing the fundamentals of Christianity. There are those who wear Christianity like a cloak to gain money and power, they are not practicing the fundamentals of Christianity, and the Christian is warned to be on the look out for these types of people in the teachings of the Bible.

The very claim to be doing "God's work" is so dangerous I am terrified that it is taken seriously and not just as a metaphor for doing good. It is also an irrational idea, as though God needs human beings. Finally, and this adds to its danger, it is fundamentally a self-righteous, arrogant idea--the opposite of humility and making any humility that may be claimed a lie.
I've already discussed this, so I'll just suggest that this belief of yours is totally wrong and limits God, at least from the Christian view. I do however see where you're saying that someone believes that "God needs human beings," what religion believes that? I don't think it's Buddhism, I don't think they believe in God, and I'm not sure about Islam or Hinduism, would you tell me which one?

There is a fairly famous experiment that you may have heard about that I would like to describe, since it conveys to me the horror of the "Doing God's Work" attitude.

A number of college students were recruited and told to administer an electric shock to a person whenever he did certain things (since I am recounting this from memory I forget details). The lab assistant was not actually shocked--he only pretended--but the students didn't know this.

About half of the students objected (the rest "did as they were told" in spite of the fact that they were inflicting pain). That half that objected were strongly urged (by in important professor in the school) to continue the experiment in behalf of science--that the lab assistant accepted the pain "for science," so they should be willing to cause pain "for science."

Only about ten percent of the students refused to proceed regardless. Over ninety percent were willing to inflict pain on another person "in the interest of science."

It is possible to draw too much inference from this, but it does tell us that most people are willing to do something that is fundamentally wrong when told to do so under authority--in this case the "authority" of science as represented by the experimenters.

Reading Spark, I see that he is such a person; he is not only willing but seemingly eager to forgo his own responsibility for ethical judgment to his god. Thereby he can justify the horrible stories about his god as being his god's responsibility, not his (and also failing, thereby, to see what an evil god he makes of his deity).

We must not do this; we are each responsible for ourselves, and if anyone else, no matter who they are, commands us to commit an evil, it is our responsibility to recognize the evil and to refuse.

Abraham, commanded to sacrifice his son, was told to commit an evil--and, although the story is sugared by the last-minute rescue, the story is an abhorrent one of an evil god "testing" his followers.

The harmful thing about this myth is that it draws the wrong conclusion, and thereby teaches evil. Abraham, as a man of "faith" was in reality a weak man surrendering his will to a greater power. He should have refused to do evil no matter who commands it.

Reading Spark, I see that he is such a person; he is not only willing but seemingly eager to forgo his own responsibility for ethical judgment to his god. Thereby he can justify the horrible stories about his god as being his god's responsibility, not his (and also failing, thereby, to see what an evil god he makes of his deity).

We must not do this; we are each responsible for ourselves, and if anyone else, no matter who they are, commands us to commit an evil, it is our responsibility to recognize the evil and to refuse.

Abraham, commanded to sacrifice his son, was told to commit an evil--and, although the story is sugared by the last-minute rescue, the story is an abhorrent one of an evil god "testing" his followers.

The harmful thing about this myth is that it draws the wrong conclusion, and thereby teaches evil. Abraham, as a man of "faith" was in reality a weak man surrendering his will to a greater power. He should have refused to do evil no matter who commands it.

Good Thislin, another demonstration of your slant against Christianity. As an example of that slant you've given us the story of Abraham and his son Isaac. You paint a picture of this story as being an abhorrent one, with an evil god, and a weak Abraham. You also suggest a sugaring of this abhorrent story by a last minute rescue. Why would you put such a negative spin on this story? A story of, indeed as you mentioned, faith, but also trust and belief. See this evil god you speak of is really the God who had promised Abraham a son, and starting with this son Abraham would have countless offspring. Abraham was so sure of this promise that when they (Abraham and Isaac) started up the mountain, and Isaac mentions that there is fire and wood, but no lamb for the burnt offering, Abraham says, confidently, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And we see from the story God does provide.
This is not an "abhorrent" story, it does not have an evil god, and there is no sugaring, because Abraham knew all along God would provide, because God had made a promise, which is the point of the story.
You once again show a slanted bias against Christianity, and this time Judaism, which is fine, I understand that not everyone will believe as I do, but I can't help but notice, you suggest, from your posts that all religions are a good thing, but seem rather put out when someone actually believes their religion, though, to be fair, I must add that you have always maintained that one should not take their "scriptures" to seriously.

Remember from post #207 you said:
People don't preach to others to "save" them, but to justify themselves. If the preaching is accepted, then wonderful--"what a good thing I've done." If, on the other hand, the preaching is rejected, then "Well, at least I tried--what a good person I am."
You've done a lot of preaching...how are you feeling?

By the way, preach on, this exchange with you has been valuable to me.

By the way, preach on, this exchange with you has been valuable to me.

Is this a "reverse psychology" effort to get me to stop? I think so. You should be more honest.

This is not an "abhorrent" story, it does not have an evil god, and there is no sugaring, because Abraham knew all along God would provide, because God had made a promise, which is the point of the story.

I have to say that a god who creates such a test for a father is an evil god. There is really no other way to see it. He is a bully seeing how far he can push those under his thumb.

Is this a "reverse psychology" effort to get me to stop? I think so. You should be more honest.
So suspicious. The answer is no this is not reverse psychology, when I get tired of debating in a thread I just drop out, but seeing as you questioned my integrity in my previous post, I suspect you'll question it in this post.
I might add that I don't get offended, angry, or upset, because someone else has a different worldview then I have, and that I actually do learn from and enjoy some of the posters on this forum be they atheist, agnostic, antitheist, or Christian.

So suspicious.

You seem to have missed the point, and I often tire of repeating myself, but I will make it once more.

A person presented with an immoral command by an authority figure does have an important issue to resolve. This is to ascertain whether the command is really immoral, or only something the recipient doesn't like. This is a practical matter and is extremely difficult.

With the Bible story, however, this is not in doubt. The killing of Abraham's son is never presented as moral. Since we know it is an immoral act, we have a situation where God commands Abraham to commit something wrong.

Moral people take personal responsibility for their behavior and do not slide it off to others. Abraham was therefore not moral; he submitted and was willing and preparing to commit an immoral act.

The interpretation you put on it--that he trusted God's promise--does not relieve Abraham of this responsibility.

A different but also pertinent issue is what are we to make of a deity that tests its followers like this? That is a separate issue, and one where, to paraphrase Virginia Wolfe (after her reading the book of Job, where the OT god is similarly portrayed), "God doesn't come off at all well."

you post budda sayings at the bottom of your posts. Why????

This is interesting, you make this accusation against me:
Is this a "reverse psychology" effort to get me to stop? I think so. You should be more honest.
So I respond with this post:
So suspicious. The answer is no this is not reverse psychology, when I get tired of debating in a thread I just drop out, but seeing as you questioned my integrity in my previous post, I suspect you'll question it in this post.
So then you quote the "So suspicious" part of my post and then say:
You seem to have missed the point, and I often tire of repeating myself, but I will make it once more.
Now why is it that when I respond to your "reverse psychology" post, you say I've missed your point and then carefully explain something that wasn't in the post I was referring to?

I'm very curious about this.

Now, on to your next post.

you post budda sayings at the bottom of your posts. Why????
He is a Buddhist.

I have to say that a god who creates such a test for a father is an evil god. There is really no other way to see it. He is a bully seeing how far he can push those under his thumb.

I think the key phrase, in this, is when you said: "There is really no other way to see it."
That is true, you cannot see the God of the Bible as anything other then an evil bully, your worldview will allow nothing else.

you post budda sayings at the bottom of your posts. Why????

I quote Kassapa Buddha, not Siddhartha (Guatama). It cannot, therefore, be said to be part of "Buddhist Scripture."

I think I would quote this passage even if it were from the Bible or the Q'ran. It presents a concise list of true "stenches," and draws the distinction between these and human interpretations (vegetarianism).

(That doesn't mean I don't try to avoid eathing anything that involves the killing of a sentient being, though).

I think the key phrase, in this, is when you said: "There is really no other way to see it."
That is true, you cannot see the God of the Bible as anything other then an evil bully, your worldview will allow nothing else.

You seem to me to have an ugly habit of avoiding the real issue and instead trying to personalize the responses you get.

In this case, what you do here is avoid dealing with the issue of the immorality of Jehovah's behavior and instead redirect the issue on what you may think are my motives. My motives are not relevant, nor is my mode of thinking.

I would appreciate how it is possible for you to assert that a god commanding a father to kill his beloved son is moral?

A person presented with an immoral command by an authority figure does have an important issue to resolve. This is to ascertain whether the command is really immoral, or only something the recipient doesn't like. This is a practical matter and is extremely difficult.
The God of creation, is more then an authority figure, He is the God over all, He can set a wrong to right, and only He knows what is truly right.

With the Bible story, however, this is not in doubt. The killing of Abraham's son is never presented as moral.
Interesting that you would say that: "the killing of Abraham's son is never presented as moral" when in fact the killing of Abraham's son is never presented at all. Like I said before, Abraham knew from the start that God wasn't going to kill Isaac.
The question for me is why would you attempted to change the story? I can't be sure maybe you didn't mean to, maybe you need your slant on the story to support your beliefs, maybe you didn't read my previous post about the story, I guess I may never truly know why.

Since we know it is an immoral act, we have a situation where God commands Abraham to commit something wrong.
Nope, that only works when you rewrite the story.

Moral people take personal responsibility for their behavior and do not slide it off to others. Abraham was therefore not moral; he submitted and was willing and preparing to commit an immoral act.
Only in the false version of the story.

The interpretation you put on it--that he trusted God's promise--does not relieve Abraham of this responsibility.
Interpretation I put on it? Read the story it's right in it.

A different but also pertinent issue is what are we to make of a deity that tests its followers like this? That is a separate issue, and one where, to paraphrase Virginia Wolfe (after her reading the book of Job, where the OT god is similarly portrayed), "God doesn't come off at all well."
God may not come off very well to Ms. Wolfe, or you, and that's possibly because He is not formed into the being that you may feel is worthy of existence.
To accurately judge God one would have to be all Knowing, all Powerful, self-Existent, perfectly Loving, perfectly Just, and completely Holy. And probably a few more I've forgotten.

To accurately judge God one would have to be all Knowing, all Powerful, self-Existent, perfectly Loving, perfectly Just, and completely Holy. And probably a few more I've forgotten.

?!?

How can a callous monster that orders infants hacked to death be considered --""perfectly Loving, perfectly Just, and completely Holy""................?!

Maybe it wasn't Bruno Richard Hauptmann who slaughtered Baby Charles after all!

The God of creation, is more then an authority figure, He is the God over all, He can set a wrong to right, and only He knows what is truly right.

If commanded to do an evil thing, no matter who commands it, you have a moral obligation to refuse. A god who would punish you for that is not worthy even of respect.

Further, I think you have to much pride in thinking what you decide is God's command. This is really what bothers me about you--it is far too easy, and personally gratifying, to justify doing harmful things in the name of God's will. You read the Bible and think you know what it says, but the fact that others reading the same material come to other conclusions, and that really knowledgeable people don't even credit the Bible the way you do should give you pause. That it doesn't seem to do so is, I think, a serious personality flaw in you.

The question for me is why would you attempted to change the story? I can't be sure maybe you didn't mean to, maybe you need your slant on the story to support your beliefs, maybe you didn't read my previous post about the story, I guess I may never truly know why.

That is outrageous. Your interpretation is only one of many interpretations, and even your interpretation does not justify putting a father (Abraham) through such grief. That you assert that it is "in the story" only tells me that you read what you want to read--typical of self-righteous types. I have to tell you in all honesty that your approach seems sick to me, and certainly makes me more apprehensive about Christians than I had been. Of course you will manage to convince yourself that this is not your fault.

How can a callous monster that orders infants hacked to death be considered --""perfectly Loving, perfectly Just, and completely Holy""................?!

This may be the lazy way out, but I'm going to answer your post be quoting DanF from the ABC's of the Bible thread.
Dan it may make your skin crawl to be quoted by an evangelical, fundamentalist, born again Christian...sorry...or it may not, but I think you gave a pretty darn good answer to the question.

If such a god existed, he/it might not view the human death as we do.
Death, pain, or mental suffering could merely be stimulation factors to the energy being(soul) with-in.
If the god himself is some sort of energy being, I do not see how he could have ever experienced pain or death, as we experience it, other than as an observer.
It may turn out that these things are some sort of high for energy beings and regrets are merely human responses.

You seem to me to have an ugly habit of avoiding the real issue and instead trying to personalize the responses you get.
I've reviewed some of my posts back to you and am a little stunned that you accuse me of avoiding the issue...but if that's the way you chose to debate, I'm fine with that.

In this case, what you do here is avoid dealing with the issue of the immorality of Jehovah's behavior and instead redirect the issue on what you may think are my motives. My motives are not relevant, nor is my mode of thinking.
I disagree, your motives and thinking are very important here. You have made a very strong statement, of which you believe is fact, you said:
"There is really no other way to see it."
I merely pointed out the reason why I believe that "there is really no other way"...for you ..."to see it."

I would appreciate how it is possible for you to assert that a god commanding a father to kill his beloved son is moral?
When that God is sovereign over all of creation, owns all creation, and is the only reason that creation exists and even holds together, and when his intentions are that He (God) does not really intend to let Abraham kill his own "beloved" son.

I disagree, your motives and thinking are very important here.

Questioning the motives of a person for raising the arguments they raise is to avoid their argument, not to engage it.

Trying to guess another's motives for what they said is speculation; telling that other person what their motives are is not only rude but almost certainly wrong--they are the experts. The only person who might be able to know better would be their psychoanalyst, and then only after many months of personal sessions.

When that God is sovereign over all of creation, owns all creation, and is the only reason that creation exists and even holds together, and when his intentions are that He (God) does not really intend to let Abraham kill his own "beloved" son.

I would be inclined to take such a God as telling me the truth that he wanted my son as a sacrifice. If he is tricking me to test me, he isn't the sort of God you imagine.

I also do not see how his being the creator, etc., etc., would give him any right to demand human sacrifice. Power abused by a god is not better than power abused by a parking attendant. It remains abuse of power.


--Martin

If commanded to do an evil thing, no matter who commands it, you have a moral obligation to refuse. A god who would punish you for that is not worthy even of respect.
Yes, for a god, that isn't really God, but for this to be true for The God it would suggest that a person knows better then the God of the universe about what is good and what is evil.

Further, I think you have to much pride in thinking what you decide is God's command. This is really what bothers me about you
Isn't it equally as prideful for you to decide what is not God's command?
Having said that, I don't decide what is God's command, people have believed the Bible is the Word of God thousands and thousands of years before I was ever born.

--it is far too easy, and personally gratifying, to justify doing harmful things in the name of God's will.
What does the God of the Bible ask you to do, today, that is harmful?

You read the Bible and think you know what it says,
Are you willing to say that you have read the Bible and that you don't know what it is saying?

...but the fact that others reading the same material come to other conclusions, and that really knowledgeable people don't even credit the Bible the way you do should give you pause.
Okay, I'll give you that, but on the other hand, there are really knowledgeable people that do credit the Bible the way I do...so where does that get us?

That it doesn't seem to do so is, I think, a serious personality flaw in you.
Personality flaw...you know, when I read that it took me back to Hawaii, years ago, when a bombshell of a girl asked me to take a personality test. I, of course, said yes and followed her to an office where she gave me my personality test, and wouldn't you know it, I had serious personality flaws. She was most happy to tell me my flaws, and had just the way to fix me right up...scientology. I didn't take her assessment of me seriously, because she was only claiming that I had personality flaws, to get a certain reaction from me.
Of course I most certainly have personality flaws...many, but I figure they go with my physical flaws and my mental capability flaws. When those who love me tell me, then I listen.

That is outrageous. Your interpretation is only one of many interpretations, and even your interpretation does not justify putting a father (Abraham) through such grief.
Would you show me the scripture that shows Abraham grieving over having to sacrifice his son? I've already showed you the verse that shows Abraham confident that God would provide a lamb. At least I think I gave the scripture...well if I didn't it's Genesis 22:6-8.

That you assert that it is "in the story" only tells me that you read what you want to read--typical of self-righteous types.
Yet I provide the scripture to demonstrate my point.
Self-righteous, another personality flaw of mine, interesting you would say that, seeing as I've never brought up the subject of how righteous, or unrighteous I am. Though when you called me self-righteous before, I did mention that the Christian has to rely on Christ's righteousness because we are actually not righteous.

I have to tell you in all honesty that your approach seems sick to me, and certainly makes me more apprehensive about Christians than I had been.
I understand, it's the way of people to be apprehensive of those who are different then them...many, throughout history, have used that apprehension to justify harming others.

Of course you will manage to convince yourself that this is not your fault.
No, that's okay, I'll take the blame, I'm different then you and it makes you apprehensive about other Christians. I could help you by rejecting the most important part of my life, that very part which gives me hope, and meaning, and I could accept your belief system. I'm certain that would help you some, but then another Christian may come along and bring that apprehension right back. So I'll just accept the fact that you don't like what I believe, and that it's my fault.

This may be the lazy way out, but I'm going to answer your post be quoting DanF ......I think (DanF) gave a pretty darn good answer to the question.

His answer was illogical in the extreme.

If such a god existed, he/it might not view the human death as we do.

Possibly.

But if this supposed entity is --as Christianity endlessly claims-- omniscient, he would be perfectly aware of the immense pain and suffering the homo sapien would feel as it was being hacked to death with a sword.


Death, pain, or mental suffering could merely be stimulation factors to the energy being (soul) with-in.

An interesting theory.

But it were true, the "all-loving" , "all-knowing" god would be slaughtering an infant so that the infant's "soul" would receive this supposed "stimulation".

He would also in many cases be sentencing the parents to witness the child's slaughter. More "stimulation", I guess.


If the god himself is some sort of energy being, I do not see how he could have ever experienced pain or death, as we experience it, other than as an observer.

Same situation as the first hypothesis.

If this supposed entity is --as Christianity endlessly claims-- omniscient, he would be perfectly aware of the what it means to a human, and what anguish said human would suffer, from being hacked to death with a sword.


It may turn out that these things are some sort of high for energy beings and regrets are merely human responses.

Absolutely. It is theoretically possible.

But if we are to look at it logically, it is NOT possible for any such entity as that to at the same time be benevolent and --from a human perspective-- "all loving".

I post this in response to Stark's message (277).

I don't like the "line by line" type of discussion. It is confusing and ends up putting both parties into little quibbles. Please overlook my idiosyncrasy here.

If your belief is really as you describe it, the center of your hope and life, then it is ill advised for me to attack it, and I won't. All I really want you to do is be tolerant of others with different beliefs and to try to see why they see things differently, and, especially, to see why I object so strongly to people saying one does things under God's will or command.

So rather than taking the Abraham story as something to argue over, let it me use it as an example of what I mean.

In one place you ask me to point out a passage that says Abraham suffered grief. In other words, if it isn't in the narrative, it could not have been there, even though this flies in the face of Abraham being a loving father.

Or there are your assurances that Abraham knew God would provide him descendants--as though Isaac didn't matter, and so Abraham was unconcerned, or thought God wouldn't do it anyway (which would make the entire story a farce).

The issue is not the historicity of the story--I think it is a myth but when I say "myth" I mean a story in a culture that is part of the intellectual structure of the culture, so historicity doesn't matter.

The issue is what to do when God commands an evil. You can respond asserting that by definition God does not command evil, and our thinking it is evil is only our arrogance or our ignorance of the full picture.

But that makes a mistake. We cannot judge God, but we have to presume our sense of right and wrong are worth something or, in your view of things, God would not have given us such a sense. Further, we must make our own ethical judgments and live with and be judged by the consequences. If we surrender our judgment to God, we are no longer the free agents He made us to be.

Now the story tells us Abraham spoke directly with God, and that is one thing, but how does Abraham know he is not delusional, or someone is not playing tricks on him? Delusional people have ended up killing their children, inspired by this story.

When we read the Bible we are even further removed. We read words that have been copied many times and translated and who knows what else (since the earliest MSS date, in this case, from thousands of years after the events they narrate are said to have occurred).

Therefore I think that quoting scripture to discern God's will is terribly dangerous. Many people have done that--Hitler, Napoleon, Cromwell, southern slaveholders, and no end of Christian persecutors (usually of other Christians).

To a large extent they thought they were doing God's will, just as you would think so, but it is not God's will.

Take for example the command to preach. The illogicality of it is obvious enough. That is one thing, but more important is the harm well-meaning but really ignorant and self-righteous missionaries do when they "convert" naive young people and thereby divide families and cause immense suffering? Is that God's will?

I recall the Taliban destroying the centuries-old Buddhas in Afghanistan, and saying it was Allah's Will.

Do you begin to get an idea what it is that bothers me so much?

I don't like the "line by line" type of discussion. It is confusing

It certainly is confusing, the way that you do it.

I don't know whether to attribute it to ignorance or laziness.

Questioning the motives of a person for raising the arguments they raise is to avoid their argument, not to engage it.
That's possible, but doesn't apply to me, seeing as I have not avoided your argument. Which is the reason I break down your post, point by point, so that I don't miss any of your argument. Of course I leave room that I've missed something.

Trying to guess another's motives for what they said is speculation; telling that other person what their motives are is not only rude but almost certainly wrong--they are the experts.Have you made any guesses about God's motives during our debate? If it's rude and wrong for me to guess another's motives, should you be doing it about God's?
Personally, I think a persons motives is very important in any debate.

I would be inclined to take such a God as telling me the truth that he wanted my son as a sacrifice. If he is tricking me to test me, he isn't the sort of God you imagine.
And God was tricking Abraham...how? God wasn't tricking, he gave Abraham a choice, Abraham chose as one who loved God, and believed His promises.

I also do not see how his being the creator, etc., etc., would give him any right to demand human sacrifice. Power abused by a god is not better than power abused by a parking attendant. It remains abuse of power.
That suggests that God was truly demanding a human sacrifice, He wasn't. It suggests that God is abusing His power, He isn't.
Now by this last quote, it appears that you are saying that God, being creator, does not give Him rights over the lives of people...so tell me, should a woman have the right to abort the baby in her womb?

I don't like the "line by line" type of discussion. It is confusing and ends up putting both parties into little quibbles. Please overlook my idiosyncrasy here.
I understand that you don't care for the line by line, but I miss so much of what you say, if I don't do it this way.

If your belief is really as you describe it, the center of your hope and life, then it is ill advised for me to attack it, and I won't.
No, I don't mind your attack on my beliefs at all, having someone examine and attack what I believe is beneficial, it helps me to examine those beliefs in a way that I myself cannot. And it helps me to see where those opponents of Christianity are coming from.

All I really want you to do is be tolerant of others with different beliefs and to try to see why they see things differently, and, especially, to see why I object so strongly to people saying one does things under God's will or command.
Okay, let me see if I'm reading you correctly...you want me to be tolerant of others with different beliefs, and at the same time see why you are intolerant of my belief that I am doing God's will or am following His commands.

So rather than taking the Abraham story as something to argue over, let it me use it as an example of what I mean.

In one place you ask me to point out a passage that says Abraham suffered grief. In other words, if it isn't in the narrative, it could not have been there, even though this flies in the face of Abraham being a loving father.
Abraham being confident that God would live up to His promises does not negate his being a loving father.

Or there are your assurances that Abraham knew God would provide him descendants--as though Isaac didn't matter, and so Abraham was unconcerned, or thought God wouldn't do it anyway (which would make the entire story a farce).
Where did I, or the story, suggest Isaac didn't matter?
Because Abraham trusted God does not make the story farcical. His trusting God makes the story.

The issue is not the historicity of the story--I think it is a myth but when I say "myth" I mean a story in a culture that is part of the intellectual structure of the culture, so historicity doesn't matter.
Historicity does matter, but on that note, why do you think it's a myth?

The issue is what to do when God commands an evil. You can respond asserting that by definition God does not command evil, and our thinking it is evil is only our arrogance or our ignorance of the full picture.
I'm choosing the, God-does-not-command-evil,-and-our-thinking-it-is-evil-is only-our-arrogance-or-our-ignorance-of-the-full-picture, option.

I know you hate it when I do this, but you make a lot of important points...
But that makes a mistake. We cannot judge God,
True
but we have to presume our sense of right and wrong are worth something or, in your view of things, God would not have given us such a sense.
Yes they are worth something, but when we set our senses up against the knowledge or command of God we err.
Further, we must make our own ethical judgments and live with and be judged by the consequences.
Do you believe in an objective moral Good?
If we surrender our judgment to God, we are no longer the free agents He made us to be.
I disagree, I remain free to surrender or not surrender myself and my ethical judgments to God.
Now the story tells us Abraham spoke directly with God, and that is one thing, but how does Abraham know he is not delusional, or someone is not playing tricks on him?
At this point in time and history it doesn't matter what Abraham knows, the question what do we know, and we know that the promise of God to Abraham has been fulfilled in the number of people who can claim Abraham as their ancestor. Another promise has been fulfilled in the birth of Jesus Christ.
Delusional people have ended up killing their children, inspired by this story.
Really? People have read the story of Abraham, and have been so inspired by it that they slaughtered their children? That is delusional.

When we read the Bible we are even further removed. We read words that have been copied many times and translated and who knows what else (since the earliest MSS date, in this case, from thousands of years after the events they narrate are said to have occurred).
The Dead Sea Scrolls copy of Isaiah defuses that problem.

Therefore I think that quoting scripture to discern God's will is terribly dangerous. Many people have done that--Hitler, Napoleon, Cromwell, southern slaveholders, and no end of Christian persecutors (usually of other Christians).
So you're saying that Hitler, Napoleon, Cromwell, southern slaveholders, and Christian persecutors used scripture to justify their actions. Would you point out the scripture these people used, I'd like to see if they were really using scripture in context.

To a large extent they thought they were doing God's will, just as you would think so, but it is not God's will.
I'm really curious as to what Biblical scripture Hitler read that convince him that it would be a clever idea to slaughter all the Jews.

Take for example the command to preach. The illogicality of it is obvious enough.
What law of logic does the command to preach break?

That is one thing, but more important is the harm well-meaning but really ignorant and self-righteous missionaries do when they "convert" naive young people and thereby divide families and cause immense suffering? Is that God's will?
Spreading the Good News of salvation in Christ, and relationship with God, is the call of the Christian, don't get confused between that and the spread of Europeanism.

I recall the Taliban destroying the centuries-old Buddhas in Afghanistan, and saying it was Allah's Will.
I recall Christians helping the poor, building hospitals, and schools, bringing relief to the homeless, opening up and supporting orphanages, standing up against slavery, and saying it was God's will.

Do you begin to get an idea what it is that bothers me so much?
Yes, but I saw the problem, many posts ago.

It certainly is confusing, the way that you do it.

I don't know whether to attribute it to ignorance or laziness.

I'm new to this sort of thing, and just now beginning to feel my way on ways to respond to people.

I doubt that anyone other than the addressee actually reads a line-by-line response, and, besides, it is confusing and too prone to get nasty and personal that way. Also, how does one respond to such an attack, since only the responses and not your own words show up in the "quote?"

Finally, the line-by-line approach suffers from out-of-context-ism while the offender can claim otherwise since the whole message was reproduced (but in such a chopped-up form that this is irrelevant).

I am more use to academic exchanges where one publishes a paper to respond to someone else's attack, and refers to the attack diplomatically and only tangentially.

Of course in such a case an editor has already deemed the attack worthy of publication, so that the arguments are civil and reasoned better. This may be my problem and not so much the format. I've been trying the line-by-line way of responding, but since it produces no follow-up (if think for the reasons I've already listed), it is unsatisfactory. Of course nothing is perfect.

"[A]t the same time see why you are intolerant of my belief that I am doing God's will or am following His commands." --Spark

I attack it because it is an error in thinking and, more to the point, potentially dangerous. Your description of my view as "intolerant" is not called for.

I would have no problem with it, except to silently think it a self-gratifying, grandiose delusion, except that so much evil has been committed by people who think they are doing "God's work."

Thislin why the b----a saying at the end of your posts???

Thislin why the b----a saying at the end of your posts???

I'm a Buddhist. To be sure a "liberal" Buddhist, but still a Buddhist.

Thislin why the b----a saying at the end of your posts???

janrich456, why are you afraid to write the word *Buddha*............?!?!?

His answer was illogical in the extreme.
I disagree

But if this supposed entity is --as Christianity endlessly claims-- omniscient, he would be perfectly aware of the immense pain and suffering the homo sapien would feel as it was being hacked to death with a sword.
As the God of creation could it be that he understands pain and suffering in relation to all eternity? Remember it was through the pain and suffering of the cross that he saved mankind, not in spite of it.

But it were true, the "all-loving" , "all-knowing" god would be slaughtering an infant so that the infant's "soul" would receive this supposed "stimulation".
Why is it that after you read this:
Death, pain, or mental suffering could merely be stimulation factors to the energy being (soul) with-in.
You get: "god would be slaughtering an infant so that the infant's "soul" would receive this supposed "stimulation".?
That isn't even close to what Dan was suggesting

He would also in many cases be sentencing the parents to witness the child's slaughter. More "stimulation", I guess.
These are the same parents who would build a fire under the bronze arms of their god "molech", and place their children on those arms, and let the child fry.

If this supposed entity is --as Christianity endlessly claims-- omniscient, he would be perfectly aware of the what it means to a human, and what anguish said human would suffer, from being hacked to death with a sword.
Yes, and He would understand it in a way that we can not.

But if we are to look at it logically, it is NOT possible for any such entity as that to at the same time be benevolent and --from a human perspective-- "all loving".
Isn't there a lot of things an all Powerful, all Knowing, perfectly Just, and perfectly Loving, God could not do if you limit him to a human perspective?

I'm new to this sort of thing, and just now beginning to feel my way on ways to respond to people.[
New? You've got 686 posts under your belt...that's new?

I doubt that anyone other than the addressee actually reads a line-by-line response, and, besides, it is confusing and too prone to get nasty and personal that way. Also, how does one respond to such an attack, since only the responses and not your own words show up in the "quote?"
Thislin, people don't need a line by line to get personal or nasty, for instance I’ve noticed a few time when you’ve gotten a bit personal and nasty with me. I just assumed that was the way you debated.

Finally, the line-by-line approach suffers from out-of-context-ism while the offender can claim otherwise since the whole message was reproduced (but in such a chopped-up form that this is irrelevant).
Anyone can go back and read the post in un-chopped form, as I’ve often done.

I am more use to academic exchanges where one publishes a paper to respond to someone else's attack, and refers to the attack diplomatically and only tangentially.
One should be able to respond to an attack diplomatically whether it’s a published paper or an online forum.

Of course in such a case an editor has already deemed the attack worthy of publication, so that the arguments are civil and reasoned better. This may be my problem and not so much the format. I've been trying the line-by-line way of responding, but since it produces no follow-up (if think for the reasons I've already listed), it is unsatisfactory. Of course nothing is perfect.
I always try to follow up.

Okay, let me see if I'm reading you correctly...you want me to be tolerant of others with different beliefs, and at the same time see why you are intolerant of my belief that I am doing God's will or am following His commands.

I attack it because it is an error in thinking and, more to the point, potentially dangerous. Your description of my view as "intolerant" is not called for.[
A few questions for you:
Why do you consider my posts intolerant?
What is your definition of intolerance?
Are you applying the same definition for intolerance to your posts as you have to my posts?

I would have no problem with it, except to silently think it a self-gratifying, grandiose delusion, except that so much evil has been committed by people who think they are doing "God's work."
Like I’ve mentioned before, what about all the good work done by people who are doing God’s work?
Do you agree that there has been a lot of good done in the name of the Christian God?

"A few questions for you:
Why do you consider my posts intolerant?
What is your definition of intolerance?
Are you applying the same definition for intolerance to your posts as you have to my posts?" --Stark

If I respond, you will (naturally) ask for examples, and this is not worth the trouble.

I am not sure I want to venture defining "intolerance." I would say that anyone who thinks they have the Truth and everyone else is in error is intolerant--whether this is political or religious or something else. I would also say we exhibit intolerance in all sorts of ways--sexism, homophobia, racism, ageism, linguistic or cultural or national chauvinism. I would also include in this thinking various human problems, such as obesity, alcoholism, drug addiction, poverty, and even criminality, makes another any less than a full person, is exhibiting intolerance. (People readily concede that they remain full people, but this is only intellectual--their behavior and theories about these things testify otherwise).

Let me stick my neck out here and mention another human failure that almost everyone (myself included) finds abhorrent and exhibits intolerance toward--the pedophile. Now I do not think for a moment that a pedophile acting out on his sexual urges can be tolerated. However, all societies seem hell bent on destroying the person, with long prison sentences and continuing persecution afterward.

I feel quite sure that pedophiles do not choose this--who would choose such an affliction? It is in their nature. I think it needs to be dealt with quietly (which is also in the interest of the victims and their families). I would prefer to see it handled as a medical matter (if this is possible) and out of the press and courts, although I fully believe that the pedophile has got to be completely abstinent and children take absolute priority (I've raised my own and understand the fears of a parent).

If jail is the only solution, then it should be separate from other prisoners. The point is the deterrence and separation for society when deterrence is not enough--not punishment.

In this respect, while the Roman Catholic Church made mistakes in handling its pedophile priests, I think its attitude was better than the trial attorneys and money seeking individuals who have in America bankrupted several dioceses.

Well, I've gone off on a tangent. As to your last question, I think anyone who takes an "I am preaching God's Word" is intolerant. No one has any right to make such an assertion. They are only preaching their word and claiming it is God's. That they make this assumption about themselves and do not realize that if God exists then we all preach God's word--just different aspects of it--is a species of intolerance.

I am not sure I want to venture defining "intolerance." I would say that anyone who thinks they have the Truth and everyone else is in error is intolerant--whether this is political or religious or something else.

Don't you believe that you have the truth and I'm wrong? After all you have spent much time trying to correct me to the right way of thinking and as I recall you have corrected a few others on this site who don't believe as you do.
By your definition you are intolerant.
It's unfair to say that if you think you have the truth and everyone else is in error you are intolerant, because truth by definition excludes all other opposing views, which makes everyone intolerant, because everyone has a truth claim.
Intolerance is not allowing someone to have a different belief then yours. For instance there is the case of the Karen people of Burma, a Christian people persecuted by the government (if my facts are correct Burma has a Buddhist run government) because of their ethnicity and faith. Consider the rules in Islam for those who leave Islam and convert to Christ, death. There are many examples of intolerance around the world, but telling someone that what you believe is right and any world view that opposes it is wrong is not intolerance. For example when you tell me that I am wrong about my view of God, Jesus, and the Bible, does not make you intolerant.

Don't you believe that you have the truth and I'm wrong? After all you have spent much time trying to correct me to the right way of thinking and as I recall you have corrected a few others on this site who don't believe as you do.
By your definition you are intolerant.
It's unfair to say that if you think you have the truth and everyone else is in error you are intolerant, because truth by definition excludes all other opposing views, which makes everyone intolerant, because everyone has a truth claim.
Intolerance is not allowing someone to have a different belief then yours. For instance there is the case of the Karen people of Burma, a Christian people persecuted by the government (if my facts are correct Burma has a Buddhist run government) because of their ethnicity and faith. Consider the rules in Islam for those who leave Islam and convert to Christ, death. There are many examples of intolerance around the world, but telling someone that what you believe is right and any world view that opposes it is wrong is not intolerance. For example when you tell me that I am wrong about my view of God, Jesus, and the Bible, does not make you intolerant.
Wouldn't it be, though? Wise people know how much they do not know. I don't think you're wrong in your views on God...I don't think you're right, either. I'm agnostic. Maybe "intolerant" isn't the right word..."arrogant", perhaps?

Wouldn't it be, though? Wise people know how much they do not know. I don't think you're wrong in your views on God...I don't think you're right, either. I'm agnostic. Maybe "intolerant" isn't the right word..."arrogant", perhaps?
You don't think I'm wrong and you don't think I'm right?
In keeping with your quote do you think you are wiser then everyone who thinks they do know? If so, don't you think that is rather arrogant?
I understand that in today's culture it is wrong and apparently arrogant to be very confident about ones belief. I was in the local market the other day, when a young lady from the nearby college came in to complain about her purchase. She walked up to the manager and said "I feel there are small insects all over this spinach." I thought it was rather interesting that she didn't know it, she only felt it.
If my confidence is considered arrogant, I guess I'll have to live with that, I've never really been much on conforming to popular culture.
But what of your confidence? Have you posted 8,494 posts to tell people how much you don't know, or do you have a belief system that you are defending? You seem very confident about your agnostic beliefs, is your agnostic world view better then a theistic world view, or don't you know?

You don't think I'm wrong and you don't think I'm right?
In keeping with your quote do you think you are wiser then everyone who thinks they do know? If so, don't you think that is rather arrogant?
I understand that in today's culture it is wrong and apparently arrogant to be very confident about ones belief. I was in the local market the other day, when a young lady from the nearby college came in to complain about her purchase. She walked up to the manager and said "I feel there are small insects all over this spinach." I thought it was rather interesting that she didn't know it, she only felt it.
If my confidence is considered arrogant, I guess I'll have to live with that, I've never really been much on conforming to popular culture.
But what of your confidence? Have you posted 8,494 posts to tell people how much you don't know, or do you have a belief system that you are defending? You seem very confident about your agnostic beliefs, is your agnostic world view better then a theistic world view, or don't you know?
I don't think anyone has enough evidence to make a 100% positive determination on religious beliefs. However, I don't think my position is right, merely unique (to some extent). It's what I believe, and I don't care what you believe or what you think of what I believe.

I don't think anyone has enough evidence to make a 100% positive determination on religious beliefs. However, I don't think my position is right, merely unique (to some extent). It's what I believe, and I don't care what you believe or what you think of what I believe.

You cared enough to tell me, and you cared enough to read my post.

I find it very interesting to find out what others think, and to test what I hold as truth against what others hold as truth.

You cared enough to tell me, and you cared enough to read my post.

I find it very interesting to find out what others think, and to test what I hold as truth against what others hold as truth.
Yes, I find it intellectually stimulating to talk about this kind of thing. However, I have no idea what truth, in fact, is. Especially about something like a god, to the knowledge of which I am not privy.

Yes, I find it intellectually stimulating to talk about this kind of thing. However, I have no idea what truth, in fact, is. Especially about something like a god, to the knowledge of which I am not privy.

Tell me what you think, if God were to make Himself know how, do you suppose, would He do it?

First, He'd get really, really drunk.

Forget all that.

Tell me more about this market where there are bugs all over the spinach.
I want to be sure to stay away from that place!!
:eek: