Jump to content


Photo

Atheist Becomes Theist


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#21 scitsofreaky_*

scitsofreaky_*

    Theta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 359 posts

Posted 11 February 2005 - 12:26 AM

Why is it good for us, what do we have to gain? (You will probably respond with eternal life, or because it is right, or something to that extent, but I wonder if there is a different response) It seems that eternal life is just a reward for worshipping God, not a reason, otherwise we are just being selfish in worshipping Him.
Why is it "right" to worship him? It seems that it is "right" because He demands(or asks, depending on how you look at it) it, but why does he demand it?

#22 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 11 February 2005 - 12:41 AM

It is good for us not just because we will have eternal life - which means we won't die and we'll have a new nature that cannot sin and cannot suffer pain, so that must be good. That reward, by the way, is associated with so many other good things - like fellowship with God, His Son and all believers from all ages. Absolutely fantastic.

But it is also good for us to worship God because it produces in us a way of life which is utterly meaningful and satisfying. Worshipping God helps us help society for the good of all. Unfortunately not many people worship God so we are fighting against a tide that produces sin, disease and death.

#23 scitsofreaky_*

scitsofreaky_*

    Theta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 359 posts

Posted 11 February 2005 - 01:01 AM

Why didn't God create us to not suffer nor be able to sin in the first place, wouldn't that be the truely loving thing to do? It seems that we will lose our freewill.
I agree that those that worship God do seem to be have a certain way of being nice and helpful, etc. But, so do many people that don't worship the christian God or God at all. Deism can produce the same results without worshipping God. It is all about personal responsiblity to do what you feel is the right thing, as dictated by one's conscience.

#24 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 11 February 2005 - 11:30 AM

The Bible has an answer for you: don’t contend with God. He knows what is best and he created us weak for a purpose. Yes we would lose our freewill if God created us perfect.

If Deism produces a moral life then that’s fine. But if it doesn’t solve the problem of death then what’s the point?

#25 scitsofreaky_*

scitsofreaky_*

    Theta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 359 posts

Posted 11 February 2005 - 05:53 PM

So basically, you don't know, correct? (just a question, not a trap)

You assume death is a problem. Do you deny that you are going to die? I see death as a natural part of life, and whatever comes after death will happen, but I feel no need to worry about that until it gets there. Also, if God only loves those who love Him, I don't think that I want to be around Him any way. Ceasing to exist doesn't seem too bad, it's not like I will know I don't exist.

#26 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 11 February 2005 - 06:04 PM

That’s fine for you scitsofreaky, but for me the hope of being raised from the dead when Jesus returns and living for ever in a world full of righteousness and peace in a body transformed to be free from the weaknesses of the flesh, well, it’s too wonderful a hope to pass up.

And yes, I do know why God created us weak. My “don’t know” style answer was simply for your benefit.

#27 scitsofreaky_*

scitsofreaky_*

    Theta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 359 posts

Posted 12 February 2005 - 02:14 AM

What the? How was it for my benefit? Why were we created weak?

#28 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 12 February 2005 - 02:30 AM

Read Hebrews 5.

And read a lot of the rest of the Bible. You come across as if you don't undertand basic Bible principles, which is silly really because you're on a Bible truth discussion forum. not trying to be rude but really you should know what the Bible says about mortality and suffering and chastening etc. before making sweeping statements about it and expressing your personal discomfort with ideas that the Bible explains for our benefit very ably.

#29 scitsofreaky_*

scitsofreaky_*

    Theta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 359 posts

Posted 12 February 2005 - 03:52 AM

I understand that the bible teaches we are imperfect so that we can learn to be obedient through suffering, like Jesus (v 8).
But, since God made the rules, why would God make us to suffer when He can allow everyone to be happy and obediant without suffering, like in the kingdom of heaven/new jerusalem. But instead, in all His "righteous and merciful love" He decided that we have to suffer to learn obedience.
The Bible is a book that tries to comfort people. It does this by trying to give meaning to man's "suffering.". It is admitedly a religion of "hope," but just because one finds comfort and hope in it, does not make it true. It does not give hope to all, only to a select, and selecting few out of many seems to defy reighteousness, mercy and justice. The select are from the twelve hebrew tribes, so it wouldn't even be enough to convert to Judaism because you would be tribeless. So, I don't think that many christians are a part of the "elect" that is described in revelation. How can a just God choose the "elect" just because they are from a certain lineage, and leave out all those who love and serve Him, yet aren't from the right parentage? So, the Bible teaches hope for few, damnation (non-existence) for the majority. The God described in the bible is a God I can neither love nor respect.

#30 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 12 February 2005 - 11:29 AM

I suggest you read:

Romans 9
Isaiah 40
Galatians 3

You'll find a lot of answer to your questions in those places.

If you don't love and respect God then you obviously have no idea whatsoever of the message of the Bible. So I suggest that before you keep debating you try and understand that message.

#31 scitsofreaky_*

scitsofreaky_*

    Theta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 359 posts

Posted 12 February 2005 - 01:27 PM

So, I must not "understand" because I don't agree with you. I have read the bible, and it gives conflicting descriptions of God: from a just and vengeful God to a loving merciful God. Which is it? Did God change suddenly, which isn't possible according to the bible which says that God does not change.
It was disputed among the twelve if they should allow gentiles in because Jesus did not come to save all of mankind, if he was the messiah, but just to save the Jews, God's chosen people. It seems it is as if they realized that they could get more followers if they converted gentiles because the Jews were tougher to convert.
Christians claim to understand some of God's nature, which doesn't seem possible, because how can an imperfect mind undertand any part of perfection. So, either they have become perfect, or God is imperfect, the latter going against God's perfect nature.

#32 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 12 February 2005 - 02:54 PM

So, I must not "understand" because I don't agree with you. I have read the bible, and it gives conflicting descriptions of God: from a just and vengeful God to a loving merciful God. Which is it? Did God change suddenly, which isn't possible according to the bible which says that God does not change.

Both. Read Romans 11 - "behold the goodness and severity of God". He perfectly balances mercy and judgment, as any good father should.

It was disputed among the twelve if they should allow gentiles in because Jesus did not come to save all of mankind, if he was the messiah, but just to save the Jews, God's chosen people.  It seems it is as if they realized that they could get more followers if they converted gentiles because the Jews were tougher to convert.


It may seem this way to you but what you say here is nothing to do with what we are told in the Bible. The New Testament reveals a secret that was there in the OT all the time - God is interested in saving Gentiles as well as Jews. If you knew anything about the Bible you would understand this.

Christians claim to understand some of God's nature, which doesn't seem possible, because how can an imperfect mind undertand any part of perfection.  So, either they have become perfect, or God is imperfect, the latter going against God's perfect nature.


That objection is plain silly. God has revealed himself in the Bible in a way we can understand, otherwise he wouldn't have written it for our instruction.

#33 NutritionGuy_*

NutritionGuy_*

    Delta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 12 February 2005 - 07:53 PM

Both. Read Romans 11 - "behold the goodness and severity of God". He perfectly balances mercy and judgment, as any good father should.


Ah...so you're taking the book of Romans to prove the postulate that God is a loving father. I see.

Your tone with Scitz is rather condescending. Let's see if you and I can get off on better footing, as I thoroughly understand Romans (my thesis was on it) and think the God of the Bible is one hell of a lousy father.

First, you cannot beg the question when discussing a philosophical construct. You do this by defending God using the Bible. Fine. We'll work with that.

Tell me—what do we do with parents who:

Drown their children?
Approve of the sacrificial punishment of their children?
Sadistically test their children?
Give false promises to their children?

Well, for the first two, we KILL THEM...or put them in prison. Jehovah is guilty of these crimes and many more. I did a count once—over 1,000,000 deaths in the Bible; 300,000ish from Jehovah himself, the remainder from his 'faithful' army of short and angry Israelites as they plodded and trodded through the Middle East raping and pillaging. Rape and pillage...lousy way to start a religion, eh? (Eddie Izzard quote...had to do it.)

We'll start there—then we can dismantle Romans. : )

It may seem this way to you but what you say here is nothing to do with what we are told in the Bible. The New Testament reveals a secret that was there in the OT all the time - God is interested in saving Gentiles as well as Jews. If you knew anything about the Bible you would understand this.


Ah, a great way to minister with compassion—the citation of 'ignorance'. Fortunately you will not be able to pull this type of stuff with me.

Gentilian faith—well, I'd really love to see the supporting scriptures you have in mind from the OT...I can think of a few scant verses, mostly non-contextual to the subject. Of course Christ himself was rather focused on the Jews, but for good reason (more on that later.) The Gentiles were a 'scriptural' afterthought, and a heinous breach of promise from a god who never changes. Oh yeah...it was for our benefit. Regardless, this has little to do with the fact that God's form of love is CONDITIONAL, not unconditional—love me or DIE. Very simple, to all but the hopelessly conflicted. If I were to start quoting scripture, I'd miss SNL.

That objection is plain silly. God has revealed himself in the Bible in a way we can understand, otherwise he wouldn't have written it for our instruction.


No, this is plain silly. You cannot in any form or fashion 'prove' that God had a bit to do with the bible...that's a faith-based statement and you know it. God's 'revelation' is one of rampant confusion, despite (a) the fact that his own SON prayed for unity and oneness...hell, if Christ can't get his prayers answered, why bother?; and (b) Paul states that God is NOT the author of confusion. So, the myriad of faiths based on Christ which exist today proves, according to Paul, that God had nothing to do with their creation. Hmmm...and let's not forget the RAMPANT confusion among the first century blokes, all who swore Jesus was returning in theri lifetimes. Gee...wonder HOW they could have downloaded such a silly file? OH YEAH...Paul, Peter, Jesus, John...

The best way to dismiss God as 'author' or 'inspiration' of the scriptures is to start with Genesis. The first 11 verses is enough for me, but I'm happy to proceed to how Koalas made it aboard the Ark if you wish.

Respond with respect, and you'll get it in return.

Edited by Dave Hudson, 13 February 2005 - 12:42 PM.


#34 NutritionGuy_*

NutritionGuy_*

    Delta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 12 February 2005 - 08:12 PM

Oh, a P.S.

Flew is NOT a theist...he's barely a deist. His 'god' resembles Aristotle's god and he fully rejects the God of the Jews.

Don't know who posted the Flew comment, but it's incorrect.

= pray for the end of oil =

#35 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 01:53 AM

Deleted.

Edited by Adanac, 13 February 2005 - 01:55 AM.


#36 NutritionGuy_*

NutritionGuy_*

    Delta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 02:04 AM

Deleted.

'splain, Lucy! "Deleted."

"Punch bowl"?

#37 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 02:07 AM

...I thoroughly understand Romans (my thesis was on it) and think the God of the Bible is one hell of a lousy father.

What you think and what is true are two entirely different and diametrically opposed things.

Tell me—what do we do with parents who:

Drown their children?
Approve of the sacrificial punishment of their children?
Sadistically test their children?
Give false promises to their children?


God never did any of these things to his children.

Well, for the first two, we KILL THEM...or put them in prison. Jehovah is guilty of these crimes and many more. I did a count once—over 1,000,000 deaths in the Bible; 300,000ish from Jehovah himself, the remainder from his 'faithful' army of short and angry Israelites as they plodded and trodded through the Middle East raping and pillaging. Rape and pillage...lousy way to start a religion, eh? (Eddie Izzard quote...had to do it.)


Where on earth do you get the idea that they raped and pillaged?

The reason why they were told to destroy the Caananites is because the Caananites were sin personified. They worshipped sin. God is not a humanist. He hates sin and deals with it, often very harshly. And if there was anyone God thought worth saving in Canaan he would have done it. What you have to face up to is that not many people want to be saved. Most people want to live their lives of sin and die. That's up to them.

Ah, a great way to minister with compassion—the citation of 'ignorance'. Fortunately you will not be able to pull this type of stuff with me.


Mod edit: inappropriate response.

Gentilian faith—well, I'd really love to see the supporting scriptures you have in mind from the OT...I can think of a few scant verses, mostly non-contextual to the subject. Of course Christ himself was rather focused on the Jews, but for good reason (more on that later.) The Gentiles were a 'scriptural' afterthought, and a heinous breach of promise from a god who never changes.


Mod edit: inappropriate response.

The Bible is full of references to hope for the Gentile. Absolutely full from Genesis to Malachi.

Mod edit: inappropriate response.

Have you ever heard of the promises to Abraham? Would you like to start there?

Oh yeah...it was for our benefit. Regardless, this has little to do with the fact that God's form of love is CONDITIONAL, not unconditional—love me or DIE. Very simple, to all but the hopelessly conflicted. If I were to start quoting scripture, I'd miss SNL.


And what's wrong with that? Loving God is easy. You can choose not to love him and you will die. That's your fault, not God's.

No, this is plain silly. You cannot in any form or fashion 'prove' that God had a bit to do with the bible...that's a faith-based statement and you know it.


I can prove it very easily in a number of ways. It's not based on blind faith, but it is based on true faith, a faith fonded on extremely sound evidence.

God's 'revelation' is one of rampant confusion, despite (a) the fact that his own SON prayed for unity and oneness...hell, if Christ can't get his prayers answered, why bother?;


Mod edit: inappropriate response.

and (b) Paul states that God is NOT the author of confusion. So, the myriad of faiths based on Christ which exist today proves, according to Paul, that God had nothing to do with their creation. Hmmm...and let's not forget the RAMPANT confusion among the first century blokes, all who swore Jesus was returning in theri lifetimes. Gee...wonder HOW they could have downloaded such a silly file? OH YEAH...Paul, Peter, Jesus, John...


Mod edit: inappropriate response.

People are only confused because they don't humble themselves to actually read the Bible and let it instruct them.

The best way to dismiss God as 'author' or 'inspiration' of the scriptures is to start with Genesis. The first 11 verses is enough for me, but I'm happy to proceed to how Koalas made it aboard the Ark if you wish.

Respond with respect, and you'll get it in return.


How can I treat with respect someone who is coming onto this web site with an obvious antagonism based on personal opinion...

Mod edit: inappropriate response.

Mod request: Please refrain from language which is offensive and inflammatory. This post was substantially in violation of Board guidelines.

#38 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 02:08 AM

Deleted.

'splain, Lucy! "Deleted."

"Punch bowl"?

Eh? No entiendo.

#39 NutritionGuy_*

NutritionGuy_*

    Delta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 05:05 AM

...I thoroughly understand Romans (my thesis was on it) and think the God of the Bible is one hell of a lousy father.

What you think and what is true are two entirely different and diametrically opposed things.

Tell me—what do we do with parents who:

Drown their children?
Approve of the sacrificial punishment of their children?
Sadistically test their children?
Give false promises to their children?


God never did any of these things to his children.

Well, for the first two, we KILL THEM...or put them in prison. Jehovah is guilty of these crimes and many more. I did a count once—over 1,000,000 deaths in the Bible; 300,000ish from Jehovah himself, the remainder from his 'faithful' army of short and angry Israelites as they plodded and trodded through the Middle East raping and pillaging. Rape and pillage...lousy way to start a religion, eh? (Eddie Izzard quote...had to do it.)


Where on earth do you get the idea that they raped and pillaged?

The reason why they were told to destroy the Caananites is because the Caananites were sin personified. They worshipped sin. God is not a humanist. He hates sin and deals with it, often very harshly. And if there was anyone God thought worth saving in Canaan he would have done it. What you have to face up to is that not many people want to be saved. Most people want to live their lives of sin and die. That's up to them.

Ah, a great way to minister with compassion—the citation of 'ignorance'. Fortunately you will not be able to pull this type of stuff with me.


You appear to be more ignorant than skitsofreaky I am afraid my friend.

Gentilian faith—well, I'd really love to see the supporting scriptures you have in mind from the OT...I can think of a few scant verses, mostly non-contextual to the subject. Of course Christ himself was rather focused on the Jews, but for good reason (more on that later.) The Gentiles were a 'scriptural' afterthought, and a heinous breach of promise from a god who never changes.


You have absolutely no idea whatsover what you are talking about. None. The Bible is full of references to hope for the Gentile. Absolutely full from Genesis to Malachi. Having eyes you see not. Have you ever heard of the promises to Abraham? Would you like to start there?

Oh yeah...it was for our benefit. Regardless, this has little to do with the fact that God's form of love is CONDITIONAL, not unconditional—love me or DIE. Very simple, to all but the hopelessly conflicted. If I were to start quoting scripture, I'd miss SNL.


And what's wrong with that? Loving God is easy. You can choose not to love him and you will die. That's your fault, not God's.

No, this is plain silly. You cannot in any form or fashion 'prove' that God had a bit to do with the bible...that's a faith-based statement and you know it.


I can prove it very easily in a number of ways. It's not based on blind faith, but it is based on true faith, a faith fonded on extremely sound evidence.

God's 'revelation' is one of rampant confusion, despite (a) the fact that his own SON prayed for unity and oneness...hell, if Christ can't get his prayers answered, why bother?;


What on earth are you talking about? You don't know what you are talking about.

and (b) Paul states that God is NOT the author of confusion. So, the myriad of faiths based on Christ which exist today proves, according to Paul, that God had nothing to do with their creation. Hmmm...and let's not forget the RAMPANT confusion among the first century blokes, all who swore Jesus was returning in theri lifetimes. Gee...wonder HOW they could have downloaded such a silly file? OH YEAH...Paul, Peter, Jesus, John...


You are just continuing to show your complete ignorance. People are only confused because they don't humble themselves to actually read the Bible and let it instruct them.

The best way to dismiss God as 'author' or 'inspiration' of the scriptures is to start with Genesis. The first 11 verses is enough for me, but I'm happy to proceed to how Koalas made it aboard the Ark if you wish.

Respond with respect, and you'll get it in return.


How can I treat with respect someone who is coming onto this web site with an obvious antagonism based on personal opinion and absolute ignorance about the Bible?

I see you're a both a child and a XXXXX.

You state your rebuttals without so much as an ounce of proof, and continually ridicule me in the process. Well, oh pious one, I'll put my two degrees in theology and 15 years in ministry against whatever you want to toss my way.

It's always the Christians who lambast and yell, "stupid", when they don't have a XXXXXXXCLUE on how to respond.

Let's just take ONE of your absurdities for now—the claim that "God never did that to his children." There was a little thing called THE FLOOD...you may not be aware of it. You see, when water rises above the mountains and people cannot breathe, it's called DROWNING. God created man, therefore his creation is HIS CHILDREN. Drowning. Children. Get it, oh judgmental one?

Now, you can defend this as "scorn and wrath" and so-forth...but then you'll have to defend the fact that GOD HIMSELF thought it was a mistake and REPENTED from his actions. EDITED OUT: PLEASE REFRAIN FROM INSULTING THE ALMIGHTY IN THIS WAY. Just let me know if you need chapter and verse. I'd rather see if you even know what I'm referring to.

Have fun rationalizing that one away. Then again, you've rationalized that I haven't a clue about the Bible, while knowing full well my background.

PLEASE AVOID TAKING GOD'S NAME IN VAIN. I'm glad I'm done with a culture like yours—one that festers and breeds disdain, rationalizing all the way to the alter. However, it's still fun to toy with guys like you who think they know what they're talking about.

For Gentillian issues—I suggest "Biblical Hermenutics" or "Judean History: A Perspective." I doubt you could understand either.

EDITED: PLEASE REFRAIN FROM INSULTING THE ALMIGHTY. Paul wrote a few books on the subject...perhaps you've glanced through your Cliff Note Bible and noticed. Ever think that the REASON Paul had to explain the "grafted in" bit is because it was NOT UNDERSTOOD?? New info, perhaps? 750 years of study and they all MISSED what you say is clearly present? No, too XXXX simple...that's why I await your "all through the OT" verses, just to see how 'simple' it was.

It matters little anyway—Constantine's grubby little fingers are all over your precious Septugiant, and the obvious (to all but those burried in dogma) conclusion is that Christ, along with references to the Him and future ministries, were...updated, shall we say? You know...appease the powers that be? Ever read anything on the history of the cannon, or on Hellenization?

All nonsense...I know.

Oh, and I have to say, I love the blatant ignorance of VALUES—"what's wrong with conditional love?" Well, other than the fact it CONFLICTS with what we're commanded to do (forgive without condition..."70x7", most of I. Cor. 13, etc.) and common xxxxxxxsense, nothing at all! Really!

LAST PARAGRAPH DELETED DUE TO INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE NOT PERMITTED ON THIS BOARD.

Nutrition Guy there are two problems with this post of yours which I have now edited heavily.
1. Insulting God Almighty.
2. Inflammatory language towards other members of the forum.

You have been formally warned for this, please don't do it again.


Huldah.

Edited by Huldah, 14 February 2005 - 02:28 PM.


#40 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 07:49 AM

You appear to be more ignorant than skitsofreaky I am afraid my friend.

[...]

You have absolutely no idea whatsover what you are talking about. None. The Bible is full of references to hope for the Gentile. Absolutely full from Genesis to Malachi. Having eyes you see not.

[...]

What on earth are you talking about? You don't know what you are talking about.

[...]

You are just continuing to show your complete ignorance.

[...]

How can I treat with respect someone who is coming onto this web site with an obvious antagonism based on personal opinion and absolute ignorance about the Bible?

Adanac, these comments are offensive, inflammatory, and in breach of our guidelines. Please try to calm it down. Thisis not the way to conduct this discussion.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users