Was God a good father? (1 Viewer)

[Leroy Hoard]

Lol.

"Don't trust anyone else. Except me. I know that God exists but that no one who purports to know truth about God can be trusted. Except me."

-Random Internet Guy

Wasn't that taken first by almost any well known religion?

 

[jon_mx]

Considering that god picked out a virgin and impregnated her without asking her permission, I'd say that ranks him pretty low on the 'good father' scale. Kinda makes him a rapist, really.

An angel let her know before hand and she seemed pretty honored by it.

And for all, whatever religion you practice it is wrong. There is no right religion. Believe in a higher being, religion is man made: learn it, know it, love it.FYI you priest or pastor is just some guy. Not a special guy, just some guy.

Just because you were given such a small penis is no reason to be so bitter at your creator.

 

[bostonfred]

No. He was a bit of a ####. Think about it what he did to Adam and Eve. "I'm putting you here....and you can have everything what you want but this".......and then when they take it.....the punishment doesn't fit the crime....it's akin to me throwing my three year old out in the snow because I tell him not to touch my television.

Most parents do throw their three year olds out in the snow, eventually. Just not when they're three, and not when they touch the television. When your three year old is old enough, you're going to make them leave the "perfect place" you've build for them and go out in the real world. And the reason you're going to do that is because they've acquired the knowledge to live outside on their own. Not by eating a literal apple, but the figurative apple of the tree of knowledge. And like most parents, it will make you sad when they leave, because you'll always remember when they were young and innocent.

Whether that's the story of God kicking Adam and Eve out of Eden, or a fictional story written and improved over the generations by people who had experienced that loss, it's got a grain of truth in it. And that truth - whether you believe in God or not - is really powerful. Some people call it God, other people don't. If you believe in the truthiness of it, instead of getting caught up in the details of whether someone tells you you're supposed to go to church on Sundays or what God's policy on shellfish, property rights or homosexuality were, then you believe in the same thing I believe in.

I don't worship the same God as most Christians I know. I worship the same God as the atheists, they just don't like it when I say that.

 

[matuski]

Words any son could be proud of, and aspire to:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

[Jayrod]

People who believe in the bible would be cute if so many of them weren't so ####### scary

 

[Jayrod]

Words any son could be proud of, and aspire to:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Man you captured the full context here perfectly.

 

[Jayrod]

God is love and embodies all of the attributes of I Corinthians 13.

One of my favorite love stories:

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeeredat him. Get out of here, baldy! they said. Get out of here, baldy! 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

Yup, God loved one of his dearest sons, Elijah, a great deal. You should research Elijah a bit. One of the greatest men in the entire Bible.

 

[Jayrod]

He was & is a perfect father.

Abba-Father is a term of endearment used by Jesus throughout the gospels. Jesus was willing to endure the cross out of the love of the Father for mankind and in so doing was exalted to the right hand of the Father.

God is love and embodies all of the attributes of I Corinthians 13.

Quit this.

Why?

Why?I will tell you why.

Answer this question first. Did the biblical Adam and Eve humans exist on our earth.

If you answer yes, join a cult or you might be in one.

Not sure if the story is literal or not. Doesn't matter to me either way.

 

[joffer]

STOP ANTHROPOMORPHIZING IT!

 

[Jayrod]

Considering that god picked out a virgin and impregnated her without asking her permission, I'd say that ranks him pretty low on the 'good father' scale. Kinda makes him a rapist, really.

An angel let her know before hand and she seemed pretty honored by it.

And for all, whatever religion you practice it is wrong. There is no right religion. Believe in a higher being, religion is man made: learn it, know it, love it.FYI you priest or pastor is just some guy. Not a special guy, just some guy.

He's some guy in the same way a history professor is some guy. Not everything he says is absolutely accurate, but it's an educated start.

My pastor is just some guy who happens to be a great man.

 

[danielmclark]

Words any son could be proud of, and aspire to:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Man you captured the full context here perfectly.

Oh, I can't wait to hear this. Tell us, what kind of context justifies that passage?

 

[Jayrod]

Words any son could be proud of, and aspire to:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Man you captured the full context here perfectly.

Oh, I can't wait to hear this. Tell us, what kind of context justifies that passage?

I can't even tell what passage this is off the top of my head, but there are several instances of God telling his people to treat their enemies harshly.

 

[danielmclark]

Words any son could be proud of, and aspire to:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Man you captured the full context here perfectly.

Oh, I can't wait to hear this. Tell us, what kind of context justifies that passage?

I can't even tell what passage this is off the top of my head, but there are several instances of God telling his people to treat their enemies harshly.

And that's okay with you? You're cool with a god that says raping and pillaging ones enemies is A-OK?

And you wonder why the hell people have a problem with your religion?

 

[Jayrod]

Words any son could be proud of, and aspire to:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Man you captured the full context here perfectly.

Oh, I can't wait to hear this. Tell us, what kind of context justifies that passage?

I can't even tell what passage this is off the top of my head, but there are several instances of God telling his people to treat their enemies harshly.

And that's okay with you? You're cool with a god that says raping and pillaging ones enemies is A-OK?

And you wonder why the hell people have a problem with your religion?

Not once in the Bible is rape condoned or suggested.

 

[danielmclark]

Words any son could be proud of, and aspire to:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Man you captured the full context here perfectly.

Oh, I can't wait to hear this. Tell us, what kind of context justifies that passage?

I can't even tell what passage this is off the top of my head, but there are several instances of God telling his people to treat their enemies harshly.

And that's okay with you? You're cool with a god that says raping and pillaging ones enemies is A-OK?

And you wonder why the hell people have a problem with your religion?

Not once in the Bible is rape condoned or suggested.

<sigh> It's an expression. Raping & pillaging. Never mind. Let's try again:

And that's okay with you? You're cool with a god that says murdering the children of ones enemies and keeping their virgin daughters (to be used, let's be honest, as sex slaves) is A-OK?

And you wonder why the hell people have a problem with your religion?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Jayrod doing work in here.

 

[Politician Spock]

Words any son could be proud of, and aspire to:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Man you captured the full context here perfectly.

Oh, I can't wait to hear this. Tell us, what kind of context justifies that passage?

I can't even tell what passage this is off the top of my head, but there are several instances of God telling his people to treat their enemies harshly.

And that's okay with you? You're cool with a god that says raping and pillaging ones enemies is A-OK?

And you wonder why the hell people have a problem with your religion?

Not once in the Bible is rape condoned or suggested.

<sigh> It's an expression. Raping & pillaging. Never mind. Let's try again:

And that's okay with you? You're cool with a god that says murdering the children of ones enemies and keeping their virgin daughters (to be used, let's be honest, as sex slaves) is A-OK?

And you wonder why the hell people have a problem with your religion?

It's easier to understand why God commanded this by reading the books of 1 and 2 Enoch. Unfortunately those were left out of the Bible.

 

[fatness]

God is love and embodies all of the attributes of I Corinthians 13.

I Peter 2:18-21
"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps."What many of you don't realize about the Bible is that it isn't meant to be a commentary on morality of all situations. Many right wingers have proclaimed it as such, but just because someone says something doesn't make it true.

The fact was that in Peter's time there were people in slavery. Some of their masters were harsh. How were they to deal with that? That's all this passage is talking about and Peter's advice was to bear up under unjust punishment just like Jesus did, their example in all things.

I'm pretty much voting bad father.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Words any son could be proud of, and aspire to:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Man you captured the full context here perfectly.

Oh, I can't wait to hear this. Tell us, what kind of context justifies that passage?

I can't even tell what passage this is off the top of my head, but there are several instances of God telling his people to treat their enemies harshly.

And that's okay with you? You're cool with a god that says raping and pillaging ones enemies is A-OK?

And you wonder why the hell people have a problem with your religion?

Not once in the Bible is rape condoned or suggested.

<sigh> It's an expression. Raping & pillaging. Never mind. Let's try again:

And that's okay with you? You're cool with a god that says murdering the children of ones enemies and keeping their virgin daughters (to be used, let's be honest, as sex slaves) is A-OK?

And you wonder why the hell people have a problem with your religion?

Condescension, weak interpretation, and begging the question. If you had included a false dilemma in that one, I would've had BINGO. Drat.

 

[zoonation]

Words any son could be proud of, and aspire to:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Man you captured the full context here perfectly.

Oh, I can't wait to hear this. Tell us, what kind of context justifies that passage?

I can't even tell what passage this is off the top of my head, but there are several instances of God telling his people to treat their enemies harshly.

And that's okay with you? You're cool with a god that says raping and pillaging ones enemies is A-OK?

And you wonder why the hell people have a problem with your religion?

Not once in the Bible is rape condoned or suggested.

<sigh> It's an expression. Raping & pillaging. Never mind. Let's try again:

And that's okay with you? You're cool with a god that says murdering the children of ones enemies and keeping their virgin daughters (to be used, let's be honest, as sex slaves) is A-OK?

And you wonder why the hell people have a problem with your religion?

Condescension, weak interpretation, and begging the question. If you had included a false dilemma in that one, I would've had BINGO. Drat.

Please enlighten us on what the correct interpretation of that passage is then.

 

[bostonfred]

I can totally understand agnostics. But I have a huge problem with most atheists. It's fine to demand proof of a God before you believe in Him. Makes perfect sense to me. But don't hide behind science. Science doesn't tell us there's no such thing as God. It's fine to say "I find it highly unlikely that there's a God", but that's just a deeply skeptical agnosticism. The people who claim to know that there is no God are just speculating, and claiming that science is on their side. It isn't. Science tells us that there are lots of things we don't fully understand, and lots of hypotheses which may explain them.

There may once have been something called a sasquatch. There's no certain proof that there isn't. There's lots of data that suggests that it might once have existed, and a definitive proof would need to explain why so many people would misguidedly claim to have seen a sasquatch. That's not to say that it's hard to do, just that a burden of proof exists.

Most of string theory seems like bull####. When you start talking about how many dimensions there are, you start getting into cuckoo land. And then when you start talking about maybe the whole universe is, like, a hologram, man, it just sounds like the things you talk about when you're high while you finish the last slice of pizza. But there are scientists who are deadly serious about the universe being easier to explain if we treat it as a hologram, and they have good data to back it up.

Rejecting these things out of hand is not science. Rejecting religion out of hand is not science. It's certainly not inclusive. And it doesn't do much to win the hearts and minds of the people whose votes bother you. So what's the point?

To my mind, you're much better off finding some common ground with the people you disagree with. Most of us agree, for example, that thou shalt not kill. We might disagree on whose idea it was, but it seems like there's general agreement that it's a pretty good idea. We can work with that. In fact, there's a lot of good truthiness in the Bible, and in other religious texts. Instead of trying to figure out which religion is "right" and which other ones must therefore be "wrong", let's start with the stuff that they all agree on - don't be a #### to people, try to be good to your own people, don't start fights, but don't lose them, either. That all seems like pretty good advice, and near as I can tell, all of the major religions seem to agree on those basic concepts, as do most of the atheists, agnostics, and so on.

If we can agree that there are some pretty basic concepts there, and that these were not always taken as self-evident truths, then there's something very cool about the ideas. Maybe it's just that humanity evolved to a point where people learned something good, and different people expressed it in different ways. Maybe there's something divine about that truth. Maybe God or a prophet of some kind divined that truth and it spread like wildfire. Don't know, don't need to know. The reality is that certain truths are tremendously powerful. Some people call it divine. I think it's appropriate for agnostics and atheists to refer to those truths as divine, too - even if you don't believe that any deity provided them to you, "divine" is as good a word as any to describe those truths, and it's a more inclusive term for speaking with people who have different beliefs from you. I think it's reasonable to believe in God*, where the asterisk pretty much says "or whatever it is that makes all these cool things possible". It's a good placeholder for the stuff we don't understand, as long as you don't go off the deep end sacrificing goats or killing people because they don't believe the same way you do. I understand not wanting to lend credibility to something you are highly skeptical of, but you're not certain, and there's no reason to be a #### about things. Same thing goes for religious people ####ting on people of other religions, fwiw.

 

[joffer]

I can totally understand agnostics. But I have a huge problem with most atheists. It's fine to demand proof of a God before you believe in Him. Makes perfect sense to me. But don't hide behind science. Science doesn't tell us there's no such thing as God. It's fine to say "I find it highly unlikely that there's a God", but that's just a deeply skeptical agnosticism. The people who claim to know that there is no God are just speculating, and claiming that science is on their side. It isn't. Science tells us that there are lots of things we don't fully understand, and lots of hypotheses which may explain them.

your definition of atheist needs work. "do you believe in a god?" if the answer is no, you're an atheist. you don't have to claim to know for sure.

 

[danielmclark]

I can totally understand agnostics. But I have a huge problem with most atheists. It's fine to demand proof of a God before you believe in Him. Makes perfect sense to me. But don't hide behind science. Science doesn't tell us there's no such thing as God. It's fine to say "I find it highly unlikely that there's a God", but that's just a deeply skeptical agnosticism. The people who claim to know that there is no God are just speculating, and claiming that science is on their side. It isn't. Science tells us that there are lots of things we don't fully understand, and lots of hypotheses which may explain them.

your definition of atheist needs work. "do you believe in a god?" if the answer is no, you're an atheist. you don't have to claim to know for sure.

And I'll throw in, it doesn't even have to have anything to do with science. Belief is binary: you either believe or you don't. If you do, you are a theist - congratulations, enjoy your chosen deity. If you don't believe, you are an atheist. The definition of the word does not include the reason you don't believe, whether that reason is science or anything else.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It's fine to say "I find it highly unlikely that there's a God", but that's just a deeply skeptical agnosticism.

Well, no, that's atheism. Some atheists take a stronger stance, much like many theists take the stance that, "my god exists" rather than, "I find it highly likely that my god exists." Both positions are untenable.

To my mind, you're much better off finding some common ground with the people you disagree with. Most of us agree, for example, that thou shalt not kill. We might disagree on whose idea it was, but it seems like there's general agreement that it's a pretty good idea. We can work with that. In fact, there's a lot of good truthiness in the Bible, and in other religious texts. Instead of trying to figure out which religion is "right" and which other ones must therefore be "wrong", let's start with the stuff that they all agree on - don't be a #### to people, try to be good to your own people, don't start fights, but don't lose them, either. That all seems like pretty good advice, and near as I can tell, all of the major religions seem to agree on those basic concepts, as do most of the atheists, agnostics, and so on.

If we can agree that there are some pretty basic concepts there, and that these were not always taken as self-evident truths, then there's something very cool about the ideas. Maybe it's just that humanity evolved to a point where people learned something good, and different people expressed it in different ways. Maybe there's something divine about that truth. Maybe God or a prophet of some kind divined that truth and it spread like wildfire. Don't know, don't need to know. The reality is that certain truths are tremendously powerful. Some people call it divine. I think it's appropriate for agnostics and atheists to refer to those truths as divine, too - even if you don't believe that any deity provided them to you, "divine" is as good a word as any to describe those truths, and it's a more inclusive term for speaking with people who have different beliefs from you. I think it's reasonable to believe in God*, where the asterisk pretty much says "or whatever it is that makes all these cool things possible". It's a good placeholder for the stuff we don't understand, as long as you don't go off the deep end sacrificing goats or killing people because they don't believe the same way you do. I understand not wanting to lend credibility to something you are highly skeptical of, but you're not certain, and there's no reason to be a #### about things. Same thing goes for religious people ####ting on people of other religions, fwiw.

This whole thing is better addressed to theists than atheists, imo. If all the believers in the world adopted the position you've laid out here - e.g. "let's not worry about which one of us is 'right' about god, let's just agree on the important stuff" - then I think atheists, generally, would have much less of an issue with the whole thing.

 

[bostonfred]

We've had these conversations before so I should have known to be more precise in my language.

1) I agree with the posts above. I am talking about strong atheism (belief that there is no God) and more specifically, the people who evangelize it, like bill maher, richard dawkins, and the flying spaghetti monster folks. I actually like and agree with most of dawkins message, its just the negativity towards all religion that bothers me.

2) I have no problem with you coming to the rational conclusion that you believe there is no God. I do have a problem with claiming certainty and crediting science. Claiming uncertainty and choosing not to believe is technically called weak atheism, but in my mind its still just deep agnosticism. You're leaving the door open a tiny crack.

3) I agree with I.e. that the same message is appropriate for religious people. Its basically just the golden rule. The obvious challenge for theists is that they may beieve certain thing to be right because their religion teaches it. there's a difference between believing that there's a right way to live life, and compelling others by threat of physical force to live that way (which is basically what all laws do). So the message to theists is simple, teach what you believe but vote for freedom.

 

[matuski]

I can totally understand agnostics. But I have a huge problem with most atheists. It's fine to demand proof of a God before you believe in Him. Makes perfect sense to me. But don't hide behind science. Science doesn't tell us there's no such thing as God. It's fine to say "I find it highly unlikely that there's a God", but that's just a deeply skeptical agnosticism.

I always have and still do leave it at " I have never been given a reason to think a god exists". It is not a declaration that a god or gods do not exist, just that I have never found a single reason to consider it.

I don't think we have seen too many posters claim otherwise. Yet your perception seems to be the way most approach the so called "atheist" position.

I'm sure you lump me in under this "atheist" tag, but claiming to know with certainty there is no god is only slightly askew reasonably than claiming to know with certainty there is a god.

 

[matuski]

We've had these conversations before so I should have known to be more precise in my language.

2) I have no problem with you coming to the rational conclusion that you believe there is no God. I do have a problem with claiming certainty and crediting science. Claiming uncertainty and choosing not to believe is technically called weak atheism, but in my mind its still just deep agnosticism. You're leaving the door open a tiny crack.

I am leaving it open a tiny crack, but lets illustrate the size of that crack.

The same crack exists for the invisible purple dragon with pink polka dots hiding in my garage. I have all the evidence for it I do for any god or gods, but I can't prove it isn't there. The crack I leave open is also the same in terms regarding the dragon ever showing himself, obviously I would accept its existence and react accordingly.

So the crack is there - but the only reasonable position is to live my life as though there is not an invisible dragon in my garage, as if there is not an invisible peeping tom in the clouds.

 

[joffer]

We've had these conversations before so I should have known to be more precise in my language.

1) I agree with the posts above. I am talking about strong atheism (belief that there is no God) and more specifically, the people who evangelize it, like bill maher, richard dawkins, and the flying spaghetti monster folks. I actually like and agree with most of dawkins message, its just the negativity towards all religion that bothers me.

2) I have no problem with you coming to the rational conclusion that you believe there is no God. I do have a problem with claiming certainty and crediting science. Claiming uncertainty and choosing not to believe is technically called weak atheism, but in my mind its still just deep agnosticism. You're leaving the door open a tiny crack.

3) I agree with I.e. that the same message is appropriate for religious people. Its basically just the golden rule. The obvious challenge for theists is that they may beieve certain thing to be right because their religion teaches it. there's a difference between believing that there's a right way to live life, and compelling others by threat of physical force to live that way (which is basically what all laws do). So the message to theists is simple, teach what you believe but vote for freedom.

Thank you. There's no "strong", there's no "weak". Do you believe in a god? No? You're an atheist. It's not difficult. Who is "claiming "certainty"?

 

[Jayrok]

I know that it can get confusing when Jayrod and I post in the same thread, even though we tend to post from opposite sides of these types of topics. But I never cared for the father-child relationship described between God and man.

A father who loves his child will do anything in his power to protect that child. Let's say you live in a house with a back yard that extends up towards a busy highway. One day you look out the window and see your child dangerously close to the highway. What do you do? I do everything I can to go and get my child and take her away from the danger. I could leave a note beforehand warning her of the dangers of the highway. But I wouldn't just stand in the kitchen and not do anything because "well, I left her a note."

Who is the better father? The man who protects the child at all costs or the man who leaves a warning note and doesn't physically check periodically on his child?

The highway is hell and the note is the Bible. It tells you the dangers of hell and how to avoid it, but sometimes children need more than a written note from their father or messages from strangers that their father sends to talk to them. A child needs a physical connection with his or her father.

The Bible says that God's ways are not our ways, and that is ok. But I wish we would stop calling it a father/child relationship because in the context of how we understand a father's love, the relationship between God and man just doesn't fit.

 

[danielmclark]

I can totally understand agnostics. But I have a huge problem with most atheists. It's fine to demand proof of a God before you believe in Him. Makes perfect sense to me. But don't hide behind science. Science doesn't tell us there's no such thing as God. It's fine to say "I find it highly unlikely that there's a God", but that's just a deeply skeptical agnosticism.

I always have and still do leave it at " I have never been given a reason to think a god exists". It is not a declaration that a god or gods do not exist, just that I have never found a single reason to consider it.

I don't think we have seen too many posters claim otherwise. Yet your perception seems to be the way most approach the so called "atheist" position.

I'm sure you lump me in under this "atheist" tag, but claiming to know with certainty there is no god is only slightly askew reasonably than claiming to know with certainty there is a god.

You are an atheist, whether you want to be labeled as such or not. You do not believe. Period. There's no such thing as "leaving the door open" or some such nonsense - belief is binary. You do or you don't. Whether or not you will consider new evidence about the existence of a god is a separate question and does not factor into the definition of the word "atheist" whatsoever.

Atheism does not claim certainty. It does not claim to know. It is simply the answer to a binary question: do you believe or not? People like Dawkins who are using atheism the way people like Pat Robertson use Christianity have nothing at all to do with the definition of the word 'atheism'.

 

[bostonfred]

We've had these conversations before so I should have known to be more precise in my language.

2) I have no problem with you coming to the rational conclusion that you believe there is no God. I do have a problem with claiming certainty and crediting science. Claiming uncertainty and choosing not to believe is technically called weak atheism, but in my mind its still just deep agnosticism. You're leaving the door open a tiny crack.

I am leaving it open a tiny crack, but lets illustrate the size of that crack.

The same crack exists for the invisible purple dragon with pink polka dots hiding in my garage. I have all the evidence for it I do for any god or gods, but I can't prove it isn't there. The crack I leave open is also the same in terms regarding the dragon ever showing himself, obviously I would accept its existence and react accordingly.

So the crack is there - but the only reasonable position is to live my life as though there is not an invisible dragon in my garage, as if there is not an invisible peeping tom in the clouds.

Right, I'd put you closer to the strong atheist side of things. You're incessantly disrespectful towards religion and religious people, you work your way into any thread where religion of any kind is discussed, and your points, while perfectly rational, are usually totally unreasonable because you believe you have some kind of intellectual superiority. Inevitably, people who disagree with you lose interest and you end up arguing with only the strongest and most intolerant people on the other side of the ledger. I have very little respect for intolerant stances, including but not limited to yours. I'm sure I will agree with your inevitable response, so there's no need to post it. I'll just concede that you're right and leave it at that.

 

[bostonfred]

We've had these conversations before so I should have known to be more precise in my language.

1) I agree with the posts above. I am talking about strong atheism (belief that there is no God) and more specifically, the people who evangelize it, like bill maher, richard dawkins, and the flying spaghetti monster folks. I actually like and agree with most of dawkins message, its just the negativity towards all religion that bothers me.

2) I have no problem with you coming to the rational conclusion that you believe there is no God. I do have a problem with claiming certainty and crediting science. Claiming uncertainty and choosing not to believe is technically called weak atheism, but in my mind its still just deep agnosticism. You're leaving the door open a tiny crack.

3) I agree with I.e. that the same message is appropriate for religious people. Its basically just the golden rule. The obvious challenge for theists is that they may beieve certain thing to be right because their religion teaches it. there's a difference between believing that there's a right way to live life, and compelling others by threat of physical force to live that way (which is basically what all laws do). So the message to theists is simple, teach what you believe but vote for freedom.

Thank you. There's no "strong", there's no "weak". Do you believe in a god? No? You're an atheist. It's not difficult. Who is "claiming "certainty"?

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1]Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.[1][2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

I'm not inventing these terms.

 

[Jayrod]

I know that it can get confusing when Jayrod and I post in the same thread, even though we tend to post from opposite sides of these types of topics. But I never cared for the father-child relationship described between God and man.

A father who loves his child will do anything in his power to protect that child. Let's say you live in a house with a back yard that extends up towards a busy highway. One day you look out the window and see your child dangerously close to the highway. What do you do? I do everything I can to go and get my child and take her away from the danger. I could leave a note beforehand warning her of the dangers of the highway. But I wouldn't just stand in the kitchen and not do anything because "well, I left her a note."

Who is the better father? The man who protects the child at all costs or the man who leaves a warning note and doesn't physically check periodically on his child?

The highway is hell and the note is the Bible. It tells you the dangers of hell and how to avoid it, but sometimes children need more than a written note from their father or messages from strangers that their father sends to talk to them. A child needs a physical connection with his or her father.

The Bible says that God's ways are not our ways, and that is ok. But I wish we would stop calling it a father/child relationship because in the context of how we understand a father's love, the relationship between God and man just doesn't fit.

But God does provide a better connection than just "a note". He sent his son, He sends other people and speaks through them and uses their love to show his, and he speaks more directly through his Holy Spirit.He isn't ever far away, but is always there if you need Him.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

I know that it can get confusing when Jayrod and I post in the same thread, even though we tend to post from opposite sides of these types of topics. But I never cared for the father-child relationship described between God and man.

A father who loves his child will do anything in his power to protect that child. Let's say you live in a house with a back yard that extends up towards a busy highway. One day you look out the window and see your child dangerously close to the highway. What do you do? I do everything I can to go and get my child and take her away from the danger. I could leave a note beforehand warning her of the dangers of the highway. But I wouldn't just stand in the kitchen and not do anything because "well, I left her a note."

Who is the better father? The man who protects the child at all costs or the man who leaves a warning note and doesn't physically check periodically on his child?

The highway is hell and the note is the Bible. It tells you the dangers of hell and how to avoid it, but sometimes children need more than a written note from their father or messages from strangers that their father sends to talk to them. A child needs a physical connection with his or her father.

The Bible says that God's ways are not our ways, and that is ok. But I wish we would stop calling it a father/child relationship because in the context of how we understand a father's love, the relationship between God and man just doesn't fit.

But God does provide a better connection than just "a note". He sent his son, He sends other people and speaks through them and uses their love to show his, and he speaks more directly through his Holy Spirit.He isn't ever far away, but is always there if you need Him.

Okay...Someone's gonna have to change their name. You have 24 hours to decide. After that, we flip a coin.

 

[Ilov80s]

He was a good father. Like most dads, he did some wild and questionable things before he became a dad. Even when he was doing crazy things like flooding the world, he was still thinking about the good morals he wanted to teach. He made a real quality list of 10 rules (listen to your dad, don't steal, don't kill, don't cheat).

Now he messed up knocking up that young chick and he skipped out, but Joe was a stand up guy so Jesus seemed to have a typical life. God felt bad about not being involved so he told his son all his biggest secrets. Now having him be killed, it was hard but in the end it paid off big time. This is what a good dad does, pushes their son to do the hard work that pays off later.

 

[Jayrod]

Okay...Someone's gonna have to change their name. You have 24 hours to decide. After that, we flip a coin.

Its not that hard. Do you guys not know the difference between a "k" and a "d"?Jayrod = religious nut with kid avatar

Jayrok = champion of atheists with Bill Murray Stripes avatar

 

[Politician Spock]

God instructed the nation of Israel to wipe out all the male and non-virgin females of lands because of God's love for mankind. The Nephelim were on the earth before the flood of Noah and after the flood. The flood wiped out most of the Nephilim (perhaps even all that existed at the time). But somehow they existed afterward, and the elimination of the Nephilim was accomplished by killing all the male and non-virgain females of lands where Nephilim lived.

To understand why God's solution worked, and why it shows a love for the mankind he created and not a tyrannical act against it, it needs to be understood what a Nephilim is, and also where the spirit of a man/woman comes from.

We see in Genesis 6 that Nephilim are the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men". In the 4th century the Roman Catholic church decided the "Sethite" interpretation is the true interpretation of who the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" are. The "Sethite" interpretation says that the "sons of God" are the line of Seth, and the "daughers of men" are the line of Cain. Since Cain murdered Able, the theory says the line of Cain was cursed, and as such no one from the line of Seth was permitted to marry and produce offspring from the line of Cain. The theory says because the line of Seth violated this restriction, it produced Nephilim and corruption on the earth so bad that God had to wipe it out and start over. Why an offspring from the line of Seth and the line of Cain would produce an offspring worthy of being given a unique name (Nephilim) which means "giant" (some say it also means "fallen ones"), and that these Nephilim would become known as "heroes of old, men of renown" isn't really clear in the theory. But that's what Roman Catholicism and most protestant denominations say is the correct interpretation, and they are sticking to it.

Prior to the 4th century there was much debate as to who the "sons of God" were. While some during those 300 to 400 years of the birth of Christianity believed in the "Sethite" theory, an extention of the belief of Sadducees that angels do NOT exist. Many others at the time believed "sons of God" are angels. The Nephilim are an offspring of an angel and a human woman. Why they would be described as "giants" and "heroes of old, men of renown" makes sense. An offspring of an angel and a human woman would be different than an offspring of a human man and human woman. It could be bigger (a giant). It could be capable of things purely human offspring are not capable of (heroes). It could become a leader (men of renown). In fact, some who believe the "sons of God" = angels theory suggest that the Greek and Roman mythologies may have actually happened to some degree. They suggest that men saw the angels who came down and produced offspring with woman as "gods" and their offspring as "demigods". And the stories of war within those mythologies are why it greived God to the point of wiping it all out with a flood. Regardless of whether the "sons of God" = angels theory is taken so far as to explain Greek and Roman mythology, all who believe the theory say the angels who did this were punished by being locked up in chains in the abyss, and have been there ever since, and will be there until the Day of the Lord and their judgement. You can see references to their imprisonment in the books of 2 Peter and Jude. Their imprissonment took care of them and there sin, but their offspring were alive and causing havoc. An issue God took care of by flooding the earth and drowning them.

Before I go on, let's address where a spirit of a man/woman comes from. In today's day and age it's easy to understand that the body of a human offspring is a combination of both the father's body and the mothers body. Science in the 21st century shows as the two strands of our DNA, one inherited from the father and the other inherited from the mother. But where does the spirit of a human offspring come from? Is it the combination of both the father's spirit and the mother's spirit like the body? Science provides us nothing here as science has no way to test theory in the spiritual realm. What we see from the Bible is that God created the spirit of Adam. He breathed it into existance, and in the image of God's spirit. The spirit of Adam however is not the same as the spirit of God. When God used Adam's rib to create Eve, the spirit of Eve was created from one and only one entity... Adam. When Eve sinned and bit the apple, she then tempted Adam to eat too, and he did.... yet despite Eve sinning first, the Bible is very clear that original sin has been passed down through mankind via Adam. Why? Because no man or womans spirit is the spiritual offspring of the mother. While a persons body is made up of both the body of the father and mother, a person's spirit is made up of ONLY the spirit of the father.

We can see this in the birth of Christ. Mary cannot produce an offspring of her spirit. No woman can. So Mary, despite birthing Jesus and Jesus's body having been made up of Mary's DNA, had nothing to do with where the spirit of Jesus came from. The Roman Catholic Church's belief in the "Sethite" theory of Genesis 6 has caused them to go so far to say that Mary never sinned, and that is why Jesus did not inherit sinful nature by being born from Mary. It is a ridiculous assertation to suggest Mary never sinned, but when you reject the truth of what happened in Genesis 6, it leads one to create lies to explain other doctrins. Mary sinned. The Catholic Church is wrong.

So when we look at "sons of God" being angels and producing offspring with human women, the spirit of that offspring did NOT come from Adam. The Bible does not say where angels came from or when/how they were created. So we do not know the nature of an angel spirit other than we know it is NOT the spirit of Adam that God created. So the Nephilim, in addition to being "giants", and "heroes of old" and "men of renown", they lack God's creation: the spirit of Adam. To God, the are an abomination, corrupting his creation which he loves.

When seen from this interpretation, the flood is an act of love by God towards his creation, mankind, the spirit of Adam. We can also see God commanding Israel to wipe out lands of their males and non-virgin females in the post flood clean up of the Nephilim. If you read about those lands that God command Israel to wipe out the male and non-virgin females, they contained "giants". How Nephilim existed after the flood isn't entirely clear. But Genesis 6 says they were on the earth both in those days (pre-flood) and AFTER.

The "sons of God" = angels theory also explain where demons on the earth came from. God did NOT create demons. The demons are the Nephilim's spirits. When they died in the flood, and when Israel killed them off, their bodies died, but their spirits live on, romaing the earth, and causing havoc. The book of Jubilees suggests that post flood Noah prayed to God to throw the demons in the same abyss as the angels that sinned, and God abided by throwing 90% of them into the Abyss too. The remaining 10% still remain on the earth. When Jesus encoutered the man possessed with the demon call "Legion, for we are many", the demons begged to be thrown into a nearby group of pigs instead of being thrown into the Abyss. They were well aware of the Abyss where the angels and demons are imprissoned, and would rather possess pigs than be thrown into that Abyss too.

When one accepts this theory, and goes so far as to say it explains the Greek and Roman Mythologies, it opens up an understanding of the book or Revelation that actually makes some decent sense, at least compared to the reaches a lot of interpretations attempt to make. This topic itself could be an entire book, but in a nutshell, the Beast with seven heads are the "gods" Diana, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, and Apollo in Roman Mythology, who are the "gods" Artemis, Ares, Hermes, Zeus, Aphrodite, Crous, and Apollo in Greek mythology respectively. They are also the "gods" that each day of our week is named after (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday). They are not "gods" but are angels. They are locked up in the Abyss, and will be released at the 5th Trumpet. They and their fellow angels who sinned, and the 90% of demons that were thrown into the Abyss with them, at the 5th trumpet are released from the Abyss, and cause havoc on earth for 5 months like locusts. And they're leader is Apollo. He is the antichrist. Apollo is the son of Zeus, who is supposed to be the father of the gods. So Apollo is the son of god the father, a status he will use to proclaim he is Jesus Christ, the Son of God the Father. Being angels, they will perform miracles, and decieve the whole world. Revelation says the beast was, is not, but will be again. These angels once existed on earth, do not now, but will again when the 5th trumpet releases them. Their time on earth will be short, because the 7th trumpet, the last trumpet is when God arrives to judge them, and everyone who chose to worship them and accept their mark.

The 1st book of Enoch explains the angels sin in detail, but the books of Enoch are rejected due to what the 3rd, 4th and 5th books get into, such as Enoch becoming an arch angle named "Metatron", and a lot of witchcraft and the occult use the later books of Enoch in their craft. As such, I'm not advocating the study of all the books of Enoch, but the 1st book is a decent read that helps explain that God's love of mankind exists within the context of sinning angels and their demonic offspring that lived among His creation that he loved, mankind, the spirit of Adam.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12

 

[Jayrok]

Okay...Someone's gonna have to change their name. You have 24 hours to decide. After that, we flip a coin.

Its not that hard. Do you guys not know the difference between a "k" and a "d"?Jayrod = religious nut with kid avatar

Jayrok = champion of atheists with Bill Murray Stripes avatar

I am agnostic, not atheist.

 

[cstu]

We've had these conversations before so I should have known to be more precise in my language.

1) I agree with the posts above. I am talking about strong atheism (belief that there is no God) and more specifically, the people who evangelize it, like bill maher, richard dawkins, and the flying spaghetti monster folks. I actually like and agree with most of dawkins message, its just the negativity towards all religion that bothers me.

2) I have no problem with you coming to the rational conclusion that you believe there is no God. I do have a problem with claiming certainty and crediting science. Claiming uncertainty and choosing not to believe is technically called weak atheism, but in my mind its still just deep agnosticism. You're leaving the door open a tiny crack.

3) I agree with I.e. that the same message is appropriate for religious people. Its basically just the golden rule. The obvious challenge for theists is that they may beieve certain thing to be right because their religion teaches it. there's a difference between believing that there's a right way to live life, and compelling others by threat of physical force to live that way (which is basically what all laws do). So the message to theists is simple, teach what you believe but vote for freedom.

Thank you. There's no "strong", there's no "weak". Do you believe in a god? No? You're an atheist. It's not difficult. Who is "claiming "certainty"?

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1]Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.[1][2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

I'm not inventing these terms.

Dawkins calls himself an agnostic, for a common sense reason - science never claims to prove something does not exist.

His views are actually negative/weak atheism, but I imagine he just wants to avoid those terms.

 

[fatness]

God instructed the nation of Israel to wipe out all the male and non-virgin females of lands because of God's love for mankind. The Nephelim were on the earth before the flood of Noah and after the flood. The flood wiped out most of the Nephilim (perhaps even all that existed at the time). But somehow they existed afterward, and the elimination of the Nephilim was accomplished by killing all the male and non-virgain females of lands where Nephilim lived.

To understand why God's solution worked, and why it shows a love for the mankind he created and not a tyrannical act against it, it needs to be understood what a Nephilim is, and also where the spirit of a man/woman comes from.

Pretty similar to what happened in Europe around the time of World War II.

 

[Politician Spock]

God instructed the nation of Israel to wipe out all the male and non-virgin females of lands because of God's love for mankind. The Nephelim were on the earth before the flood of Noah and after the flood. The flood wiped out most of the Nephilim (perhaps even all that existed at the time). But somehow they existed afterward, and the elimination of the Nephilim was accomplished by killing all the male and non-virgain females of lands where Nephilim lived.

To understand why God's solution worked, and why it shows a love for the mankind he created and not a tyrannical act against it, it needs to be understood what a Nephilim is, and also where the spirit of a man/woman comes from.

Pretty similar to what happened in Europe around the time of World War II.

Europe was a land with giants around the time of World war II?

 

[cstu]

Excerpt from Playboy interview - August 2012

PLAYBOY: You’ve described yourself as a “tooth fairy” agnostic. What is that?

DAWKINS: Rather than say he’s an atheist, a friend of mine says, “I’m a tooth fairy agnostic,” meaning he can’t disprove God but thinks God is about as likely as the tooth fairy.

PLAYBOY: So you don’t completely rule out the idea of a supreme being. Critics see that as leaving an opening.

DAWKINS: You can think so, if you think there’s an opening for the tooth fairy.

 

[Jayrok]

I know that it can get confusing when Jayrod and I post in the same thread, even though we tend to post from opposite sides of these types of topics. But I never cared for the father-child relationship described between God and man.

A father who loves his child will do anything in his power to protect that child. Let's say you live in a house with a back yard that extends up towards a busy highway. One day you look out the window and see your child dangerously close to the highway. What do you do? I do everything I can to go and get my child and take her away from the danger. I could leave a note beforehand warning her of the dangers of the highway. But I wouldn't just stand in the kitchen and not do anything because "well, I left her a note."

Who is the better father? The man who protects the child at all costs or the man who leaves a warning note and doesn't physically check periodically on his child?

The highway is hell and the note is the Bible. It tells you the dangers of hell and how to avoid it, but sometimes children need more than a written note from their father or messages from strangers that their father sends to talk to them. A child needs a physical connection with his or her father.

The Bible says that God's ways are not our ways, and that is ok. But I wish we would stop calling it a father/child relationship because in the context of how we understand a father's love, the relationship between God and man just doesn't fit.

But God does provide a better connection than just "a note". He sent his son, He sends other people and speaks through them and uses their love to show his, and he speaks more directly through his Holy Spirit.He isn't ever far away, but is always there if you need Him.

Do you mean pastors who are flawed themselves? There is one pastor I'd love to talk with in particular. He died 5 years ago. A godly man if I ever saw one. I'd love to sit and talk with him now. Or my mom or my sister. Or my father-in-law who passed away two weeks ago. If I sat in my car and Jesus was sitting in the passenger seat, I would instantly believe again.

But it doesn't work that way. It works by faith and faith is the things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1). A child doesn't have to have faith that his father exists because he is physically there and raises him. He can have faith in that his father will be there if he is in trouble sometime in his life (though those things require faith because they haven't happened yet, or haven't been "seen"). That is what faith in God is. You can't see him or prove that he even exists, but you can have faith that he is there and will save you from some terrible afterlife.

But that is not a father/child relationship. Not the way we understand it.

 

[matuski]

We've had these conversations before so I should have known to be more precise in my language.

2) I have no problem with you coming to the rational conclusion that you believe there is no God. I do have a problem with claiming certainty and crediting science. Claiming uncertainty and choosing not to believe is technically called weak atheism, but in my mind its still just deep agnosticism. You're leaving the door open a tiny crack.

I am leaving it open a tiny crack, but lets illustrate the size of that crack.

The same crack exists for the invisible purple dragon with pink polka dots hiding in my garage. I have all the evidence for it I do for any god or gods, but I can't prove it isn't there. The crack I leave open is also the same in terms regarding the dragon ever showing himself, obviously I would accept its existence and react accordingly.

So the crack is there - but the only reasonable position is to live my life as though there is not an invisible dragon in my garage, as if there is not an invisible peeping tom in the clouds.

Right, I'd put you closer to the strong atheist side of things. You're incessantly disrespectful towards religion and religious people, you work your way into any thread where religion of any kind is discussed, and your points, while perfectly rational, are usually totally unreasonable because you believe you have some kind of intellectual superiority. Inevitably, people who disagree with you lose interest and you end up arguing with only the strongest and most intolerant people on the other side of the ledger. I have very little respect for intolerant stances, including but not limited to yours. I'm sure I will agree with your inevitable response, so there's no need to post it. I'll just concede that you're right and leave it at that.

I claim zero intellectual superiority.. in fact what I am asking for and lacking regarding evidence for the existence of a god would pass the lowest of bars. I have a lot of fun making the likes of Commish chase his own tail around these things, but that is about as far as any disrespect goes.

I have all the respect in the world for an individual's beliefs, if it makes a person happy.. go for it. If you put your beliefs out there for scrutiny, don't hide behind claims of "disrespect" or "intolerance" when someone scrutinizes it.

eta - your passive aggressive schtick has been a favorite of mine for years.

 

[DrJ]

We usually consider guys that step out of their kids lives to be negligent.

 

[matuski]

I can totally understand agnostics. But I have a huge problem with most atheists. It's fine to demand proof of a God before you believe in Him. Makes perfect sense to me. But don't hide behind science. Science doesn't tell us there's no such thing as God. It's fine to say "I find it highly unlikely that there's a God", but that's just a deeply skeptical agnosticism.

I always have and still do leave it at " I have never been given a reason to think a god exists". It is not a declaration that a god or gods do not exist, just that I have never found a single reason to consider it.

I don't think we have seen too many posters claim otherwise. Yet your perception seems to be the way most approach the so called "atheist" position.

I'm sure you lump me in under this "atheist" tag, but claiming to know with certainty there is no god is only slightly askew reasonably than claiming to know with certainty there is a god.

You are an atheist, whether you want to be labeled as such or not. You do not believe. Period. There's no such thing as "leaving the door open" or some such nonsense - belief is binary. You do or you don't. Whether or not you will consider new evidence about the existence of a god is a separate question and does not factor into the definition of the word "atheist" whatsoever.

Atheism does not claim certainty. It does not claim to know. It is simply the answer to a binary question: do you believe or not? People like Dawkins who are using atheism the way people like Pat Robertson use Christianity have nothing at all to do with the definition of the word 'atheism'.

My post was regarding the definition of an atheist above (and commonly used) as someone who claims to know there is not a god. That would not be me.

 

[Ilov80s]

We usually consider guys that step out of their kids lives to be negligent.

Step out? They talked all the time and God made sure Jesus got anything he wanted. Fish and wine and bread? Dead guy to come back to life? All Jesus had to do was ask. Plus God was like Don Corleone telling Michael that he had been betrayed by someone close to him.

 

[fatness]

God instructed the nation of Israel to wipe out all the male and non-virgin females of lands because of God's love for mankind. The Nephelim were on the earth before the flood of Noah and after the flood. The flood wiped out most of the Nephilim (perhaps even all that existed at the time). But somehow they existed afterward, and the elimination of the Nephilim was accomplished by killing all the male and non-virgain females of lands where Nephilim lived.

To understand why God's solution worked, and why it shows a love for the mankind he created and not a tyrannical act against it, it needs to be understood what a Nephilim is, and also where the spirit of a man/woman comes from.

Pretty similar to what happened in Europe around the time of World War II.

Europe was a land with giants around the time of World war II?

Spock zeroes right in on a detail to distinguish mass murder from mass murder.

 

[Politician Spock]

God instructed the nation of Israel to wipe out all the male and non-virgin females of lands because of God's love for mankind. The Nephelim were on the earth before the flood of Noah and after the flood. The flood wiped out most of the Nephilim (perhaps even all that existed at the time). But somehow they existed afterward, and the elimination of the Nephilim was accomplished by killing all the male and non-virgain females of lands where Nephilim lived.

To understand why God's solution worked, and why it shows a love for the mankind he created and not a tyrannical act against it, it needs to be understood what a Nephilim is, and also where the spirit of a man/woman comes from.

Pretty similar to what happened in Europe around the time of World War II.

Europe was a land with giants around the time of World war II?

Spock zeroes right in on a detail to distinguish mass murder from mass murder.

God is NO FATHER of the Nephilim.

Mass murder? Sure. It fits the definition.... but it is not mass murder of His children. It is not mass murder of His creation that he loves. It's mass murder of what the angels created by their sin and the woman who sinned with them, and the corruption that resulted.

 

[matuski]

God instructed the nation of Israel to wipe out all the male and non-virgin females of lands because of God's love for mankind. The Nephelim were on the earth before the flood of Noah and after the flood. The flood wiped out most of the Nephilim (perhaps even all that existed at the time). But somehow they existed afterward, and the elimination of the Nephilim was accomplished by killing all the male and non-virgain females of lands where Nephilim lived.

To understand why God's solution worked, and why it shows a love for the mankind he created and not a tyrannical act against it, it needs to be understood what a Nephilim is, and also where the spirit of a man/woman comes from.

Pretty similar to what happened in Europe around the time of World War II.

Europe was a land with giants around the time of World war II?

Spock zeroes right in on a detail to distinguish mass murder from mass murder.

God is NO FATHER of the Nephilim.

Mass murder? Sure. It fits the definition.... but it is not mass murder of His children. It is not mass murder of His creation that he loves. It's mass murder of what the angels created by their sin and the woman who sinned with them, and the corruption that resulted.

So he was their grandfather?