Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote: You've [MAGSolo] been given a rational explanation. Whether or not you accept it is on you.

You don't seem able to understand what we write, Mag. Or, you are just obtuse. I give you a plain explanation on Uzzah and you come back to me with a question about stoning women. I can tell from reading your answers to others here that you wouldn't understand - or accept - my answer...so what's the point?

Why are you continuing to post nonsense?

FL

MAGSolo wrote:This is not how it works. If you claim the bible has authority ordained by God, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that. Do you really believe that anyone can make a spectacular claim and that people should just believe them unless they can disprove that claim? If I told you that humans evolved from apes and the burden of proof lies with you to prove that they didn’t, I doubt you would agree that it was your responsibility to disprove my affirmative claim.

The tenet of your argument is this:

Human beings wrote the bible, therefore it is untrue…

That is you logical stance isn’t it?

Did not human beings write that human beings evolved for primates? Then how can that be trusted?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:This is not how it works. If you claim the bible has authority ordained by God, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that. Do you really believe that anyone can make a spectacular claim and that people should just believe them unless they can disprove that claim? If I told you that humans evolved from apes and the burden of proof lies with you to prove that they didn’t, I doubt you would agree that it was your responsibility to disprove my affirmative claim.

The tenet of your argument is this:

Human beings wrote the bible, therefore it is untrue…

That is you logical stance isn’t it?

Did not human beings write that human beings evolved for primates? Then how can that be trusted?
-
-
-

Empirical evidence, repeatable experiments, falsifiable predictions and conclusions, etc. Man's word alone is not sufficient. I don't trust anything without proper adherence to the scientific method (or at least empirical support - this is all proportional to the gravity of the claim before that objection comes up) and practice what I consider to be a healthy amount of skepticism.

I'd say his position of disbelieving the Bible by default is a pretty rational one - it needs to justify itself as valid before it can be believed. This is why blind faith is necessary for religion. You must trust the scriptures to be true without proof. People may claim otherwise, but I simply doubt they were skeptical enough.

Beanybag wrote:I'd say [MAGSolo's] position of disbelieving the Bible by default is a pretty rational one - it needs to justify itself as valid before it can be believed. This is why blind faith is necessary for religion. You must trust the scriptures to be true without proof. People may claim otherwise, but I simply doubt they were skeptical enough.

I doubt that most people disbelieve the Bible rationally, as in they've thought it through. Most people I've met just don't care about the Bible, and so disbelieve it from a sense that it is unimportant. As for MAGSolo, I can tell from reading his posts that his disbelief is motivated by anger/hate. Strong emotions and rationality don't mix. You'll also notice that MAGSolo doesn't focus on one subject: he's all over the place with ****-and-bull stories that have no relation one to the other. His mind isn't disciplined and he doesn't seem to understand what is written to him in response to his questions. So...''rational'' and MAGSolo do not go together.

Secondly, you've got it wrong! blind faith is toxic for religion. False religions insist on blind faith but God repeatedly entreats the faithful to use their minds. (If you have a concordance, you can verify this yourself by looking up the words think, consider.)

FL

But here you are judging people for what you think it is likely they will do in the future. To me you spare the child and then let them pay the price for whatever choices they make when they are accountable. You are saying itit was reasonable to kill these children because they most likely would have grown up to adhere to the teaching they were indoctrinated with as a child. You dont kill children because they were taught certain things and they might adhere to those teachings when they get older. Again, this probably seems obvious now but if biblical morals can only be properly interpreted in the time frame in which it was written, then what good is it to anyone else. If the bible cannot transcend time and and make just as much sense now as it did 2000 years ago, and make just as much sense 2000 years from now, then what good is it? If the bible says that you should put homosexuals to death, then this should be a notion that would make sense to people yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I would expect a book that was supposedly divinely inspired by a God not constrained by time to itself be able to transcend time and be logical to all people. Do you think this is an unreasonable expectation? It is said that God is wise, infinitely wise even, so what sense does it make for someone with infinite wisdom and outside of the boundaries of time to make laws that will only make sense in a relatively very small time frame?

Mag, I would appreciate if you would calculate your answers before replying. Try to understand, if not agree. See around you, do you see Christians taking out guns and killing small babies, stoning people on streets, flogging the prostitutes etc etc. why do you think is so, have we simply turned a blind eye or there may be good reason spiritually why we do not do this? I think this is going to just muddy waters rather than help us to an understanding. I do not know what to say but for being an ex-christian you have zero knowledge about it. I am baffled actually, here. Where and how did you come to the conclusion that Israelite killing those pagan nations is what Biblical morals are? You seriously here do not know what you are talking about.

I have some points for you, I do not know if some surprise you or not, but I think they should because you are totally unaware

1. Do you realize that the law does not apply to Christians, the bible records a lot of historical accounts doesn't mean it teaches us today the same thing. This way I can very well argue that if we study the history of the civil war , then history will teach us to war more because that is why it was written? doesn't make any sense to me.

2. the Bible is not one book, it was not written at a single time, its a progressive revelation: sin, law, judgement, punishment, grace, faith, salvation, eternal life. All came one after the other, this is a progressive revelation. Turn the other cheek was simply not present in the O.T. An eye for an eye.

3. The old testament is there to show us what it was like once. The new testament is where grace started and Christ came. That is your starting line.

I would expect a book that was supposedly divinely inspired by a God not constrained by time to itself be able to transcend time and be logical to all people. Do you think this is an unreasonable expectation? It is said that God is wise, infinitely wise even, so what sense does it make for someone with infinite wisdom and outside of the boundaries of time to make laws that will only make sense in a relatively very small time frame?

I simply do not understand why would you use the Bible, when I clearly told you that if I can't use it as proof neither would you. I even have played along despite that you still did this. I would even go far as to bet that If I take away the O.T testament from you, you would have a hard time, because the O.T is more brutal without grace. Yet you are trying to prove the New testament wrong by equalizing it with the O.T. Your only objection which in this case would be that why an "eye for an eye" in the O.T and "turn the other cheek" in the N.T. And you actually say that since there is no consistency

my question

Why would you expect the Bible to be " divinely inspired by a God not constrained by time to itself be able to transcend time and be logical to all people".

By what standard do you arrive or expect this? I again think this is not something which is your or mine business, I mean if there is a God, then he decides when he reveals something. the Bible has come down through ages, it is certainly not written in one go. It makes sense to people only if they try to understand. Yes and he God exists then what he decides is wise, though to us it may not make much sense at first, but with time it does.

It is said that God is wise, infinitely wise even, so what sense does it make for someone with infinite wisdom and outside of the boundaries of time to make laws that will only make sense in a relatively very small time frame?

And it wise wise of him to impart his wisdom to us over a period of time. And about that Small time frame, well 2000 years is not a small time frame for you. you would have to live 30 times your entire life probably get around 2000 years. Unlike laws of physics which God designed eternally they never change. Humans are not dead objects. Humans learn, they progress and with their progress their intellectual reason has progressed as well. It would be simply illogical for God to impose his divine revelation in full form to cave men. they who even lacked proper language unlike us, it would have made no sense to them. I do not think it is that hard to grasp. Man has progressed and with it God's revelation has progressed too. The more man become aware the more God showed him. And this came to the point where Christ came to redeem man. I do not think you have a valid objection here.

This one is because I think you are imposing your own wisdom on God's and asking for an answer you think is just, but let me tell you, the Bible is not God, it is only a glimpse of some of the things God did. The truth of the matter is, God loves, God judges too, and he punishes too. To say that he only loves and not judge is again not a fair conclusion. In your case, it is only upon one thing "why babies".

This is of course my rationalization of the matter, there could be more to it that we are simply not aware of.
And I think its terrible that one should have to rationalize children being indiscriminately killed or that any reasonable and sane person would even try. I think its crazy that someone would rather rationalize the indiscriminate killing of children and infants rather than question their beliefs. Can I ask what objective moral standard do you follow that allows you to rationalize such things?

I told you of my rationalization of why it could have happened. I never said that I would rationalize to kill children, In fact I do not like that you are trying to attribute such a thing to me without any reason. A doctor can analyse a patients case, of how he may or may not die, would you question him too on a moral basis? Or if a historian could perhaps try to think what factors could there be that a bunch of cannibals eat others human, would you hold the professor guilty for even trying to think why someone could have done thing?

Actually, I couldn't help but notice the sarcasm in your tone. Tell me , If I am wasting my time here? because you would agree that I have been polite enough to answer you objections as much as I could. rather you have not explained to me one thing. Hell, I can even go offensive but I haven't, believe me there are a ton of issues I can start as spin-offs as well but the only reason I haven't is because I do think that if you are sincere you should at least be given some answers and you should answer some of my questions. Call me overtly-optimistic but this is the only reason why I am writing this response.

Anyway back to the point.

But here you are judging people for what you think it is likely they will do in the future. To me you spare the child and then let them pay the price for whatever choices they make when they are accountable. You are saying itit was reasonable to kill these children because they most likely would have grown up to adhere to the teaching they were indoctrinated with as a child.

Aren't you doing the same by assuming that they will not follow their parents in the future? I am only saying there is a higher chance that they would follow their parents and kill more BABIES,(also I do not think teens are as easy to convert if their parents are killed by you, since you suggested that that is what you consider a child's age to be at max) I think they would despise the killers, just cause or not. Infact your answer does not impress me at all, I do not think this is as easy as you have tried putting it. I think no matter how cold or bad your parents might be, I think there are soft spots that may never be healed, in some part of us, you would love your parents or long for them or even think that you could have done something to save them, this is inevitable human emotion, some may not feel this, others will do. They may seem to be content that they were killed but it is sad at the same time. I do not think everyone will share your opinion that it will be OK if your parents had been killed for a just cause. I think human emotion is too much fragile to guarantee such responses as you have written. It is not a sure bet after all. So i do not think this is a good way to put it, you might be okay (hypothetically) with it, some one else may be not.

if they explained to me that they killed them because they were terrible people that did terrible things to people, I think i would understand.

Why? couldn't they be lying about it? see there are factors that are too vague here and you haven't even thought or defined them. You are also predicting yourself in a hypothetical, which could actually turn out very different. Its a nice scenario, but sadly this is not human emotion and life behaves, mag, lets not kid ourselves, you cant have a "happy ever after" on each story.

On a side note, If there is a God, and he told you that there was a just cause that he destroyed those six nations, why would you not believe that? nothing much different than what you are saying.

Only you do not think its just, I think man sins and he perishes, their time of judgement had come because God had given them ample time to turn and they didn't. Well, you say, don't kill the children, fine, but you draw the line as well, teenage, you say spare up till the teenagers, but at teenage they are married and are having babies, well this way God can never judge them even if they are sacrificing other humans. It becomes a loop hole, mag, I thought this was clear? See too many factors you haven't considered. Plus do not for one second think that God demands this from us. You would be wrong.

I have already told you there could be many more reasons that are simply not written for why God commanded these wars. the bible is filled with God's love, but you are simply picking up the few things here and there to make up your case. I do not think you understand divine justice. Its not about what you do, its about what you lack.

Physical death to God is only a temporary thing, because we have afterlife. And physical death is inevitable, but we can actually evade the eternal death. In that case I do think God ordered everyone to be killed, even the babies because if they were small and had not participated in such acts, they would now never have to. You can say, so God killed them, but I think God saved them eternally. Does this what the Bibles teaches? kill people to save them eternally, no. This was a one time case, God also did not want Israel to participate in this human sacrificing rituals, These practices had to be done away with. The context matters, but I do not know why you would pull this put of context and complain again. It has probably to do with that you have very little or context, or even an idea of the context at all. I said it before, your superficial understanding of these things is wide apparent. I hope you are good on your promises and read what I HAVE ASKED YOU TO, AND WHAT OTHERS HAVE.

So what about when God specifically commands to kill even babies?

I believe I have written a lot about it now, I can just say this is not what the Bible teaches, that was judgement from God. I think God's in his infinite wisdom knew the better outcome. Those children I believe joined him in heaven. God is not unjust, as this life is not the end. There are only a handful of these cases where God did something which is harsh but then again. His being just makes sense to me and his love shows as well. And please do not now say "that God's love is that he orders to kill" because that will be plain wrong and misconstrued. If you disagree with the my answers for personal reasons, you are entitled to. But I think you are over simplifying a lot in your hypotheticals to at least reach some situation where you can just say that there was no reason to kill the babies and God was wrong and therefore the Bible is a false account. But I think your hypothetical also do not address the issues completely.

I on the other hand think it was sad case and the bible also tells me that God is not happy when this happens. I have told you this over and over, and you have come again saying the same exact thing over and over. To raise this point again is to go in circles and I do not think that is a good thing. Unless we are on the same page somehow, to go further from here is difficult.

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

I guess babies who cant remember anything would somehow grow up to carry out the rituals of a people they never new; is that what it is?

Why are you being so obtuse? is it because you haven't done any research on the matter?

Did you forgot to read this

""17 “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, 18 how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God. 19 Therefore when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget.""

An eye for an eye. They waged war and killed without remorse anyone, who was falling behind, guess who, women, children , old, cattle which are slow...everyone. The war on them was a result of Israel being provoked.

poor exegesis Mag, poor indeed. Honestly, you could do better than this? or am I wrong?

"God is not out to eradicate evil" or something very close to that. So we go from God is not out to eradicate evil, to killing children because one or some of them might one day grow up to be evil.

Wrongly put, God specifically ordered 6 nations to be killed because they had fallen too much. God is not out to eradicate all evil human beings, he wants to save them too but that is not untill Christ came. Why do you keep making this error again and again.

Would I be fair to say that you have no understanding of God and Christianity? No wonder you jumped ship, you hardly know anything at all.

So considering that Jesus was/is God, why do you think he had such a complete change of heart? Why did he go from the extreme harshness of commanding stoning people to death for working on Sundays and wiping out enemies down to their babies and the sheep and donkeys they owned to the New Testament God that teaches to turn the other cheek, love your enemies and pray for those who insult you and despise you? Why do you think God changed so drastically from the old testament to the new testament?

First God did not teach them to kill babies, second this is also written and these are what Israel was to follow.

Leviticus 19:34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 19:18 "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

Deuteronomy 23:7 Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country.


Psalm 146:9 The LORD watches over the alien and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.


This is simply to show you that you haven't looked at everything, only whats supporting your argument.

Again its only necessary when you use an ancient book, written by and intended for the people of that time period, as some type of timeless objective standard. It was necessary because to the people who wrote it, that was life back then. An infinitely wise and timeless God would probably not have inspired them to write something that would seem primitive and barbaric in the near future. This I think is a strong indicator that the bible was not inspired by a timeless and infinitely wise entity but rather simply conceived and written by and for the people of that time. Just like the bible says for slaves to obey their masters most likely not because a timeless and infinitely wise being inspired them to write that but because for whoever wrote that (Paul I believe it was) slavery was very much a way of life at that time. This is what you expect for books written and conceived by men held to a particular time. You expect them to write things in the frame of reference of the world around them. This ties into the point about subjective notions of right vs wrong. If it was objective good and right to do such things, then it would be as good and right today as it was then but since these notions were written by mere men and their subjective ideas of good and bad, and right and wrong, it no longer makes sense from our perspective. If the bible was a divinely inspired objective standard of right and wrong, we would not have this issue.

I believe you are mistaken. Wars are not timeless objective standards. There are exceptions to a lot of things. For example, God says do not lie, ok. now would you agree that this is a timeless principle? so what if at night a psycho enters your home binds you, you are sure he intends to kill you, he asks you if there is anyone else in the home. lets say your 10 years daughter is sleeping upstairs. would you lie or would you say the truth. If I lie at this point, I do not think God is going to hold me to it. Do you see the problem? Timeless standards is a term you have picked up, but have you thought about it in detail? In the biblical perspective do you actually know that what you are trying to point out as a timeless standard is not a timeless standard to begin this, had I not been serious enough, I would have laughed but I think I am going to bear with you here.

I promise I will read them and give my thoughts.

Do not forget to read this and answer as well, as I think without it we can't continue this discussion.

1. Do you understand the doctrine of sin, according to the biblical perspective?
2. Do you know the punishment of sin, in its entirety (being a former Christian I dont think this should be any trouble for you)
3. The question you should have asked cuz that would have made things easier for you to understand, is "What is physical death through Godly perspective?" Paulsacromento actually pointed this out in one of his recent posts. I think it is an important point.

Do let me know what do you know of these (not what you think of these) but what you know of these? as these are doctrines in Christianity which are vital to understand the issue you are trying to understand.

A last point, do you realize that the Bible is not God, it is only revelation about him which is not complete in the sense that it can not tell you everything about God in detail, it can give you the elementary basics though. Do you know that the Bible is not essential to Christianity? if all the Bibles in the world are burned, do you think people will stop believing. Have you read history, many of God's people didn't even had a Bible. How did they know God? They know him through a personal relationship. There is more to Christianity than the Bible. Only you haven't got a clue. I think your view is simply the result of bad religion gone worse, and to add to that, you do not understand biblical scholarship in the least.

Christ is the center of all we do. You can bash and lash out all you want, but you are simply ill informed and misguided. I hope you at least see the other side fairly. The Bible is important because it teaches me a lot about God which I do not know, but can I live with God without the Bible, sure. Can I get to Christ without the Bible sure. Is bible a necessity to salvation? no. You only rely on the Bible because to you its a book form which you can disapprove God. I however believe that you can take that book and burn it, if God is real he exists without a Bible, my faith is not in the Bible, it is in Christ, the Bible helps me to keep that faith accurate. I do believe that the Bible is inspired word of God, but I think there is a lot more we can only experience when we come in Christ.

MAGSolo » Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:11 am

neo-x wrote:
You tell me, now that you appear to see the problem in subjectivity, tell me how do you reconcile this with what you are claiming? How do you reconcile objective value in a a subjective world-view. Do you think there is something wrong or have you just avoided the predicament this will lead too?

Also, please do not assume that you can turn theism on itself (by turning to bible pulling out a reference and then using it to prove your point, that would be foul. there are doctrines and rationalization of what we have, we may not know all but do know a much). It is a system that is very old indeed and tried as well and it offers and defends itself in a great way. The problem of evil is not new. As I said if you look up you can find plenty of good books on the subject. Of course you may disagree but at least do a fair analysis, do not assume the position you are attacking. To be fair, at least understand the position that you are attacking and how it tackles such issues in detail. That of course may require some hard work on your part, but I do believe its worth it.

No, Im seriously asking what we should use as the supreme objective moral standard of right and wrong since subjective standards are admittedly problematic?

I am also serious here, I think this is for another thread. Unless you get a better understand of theism and what are objective standards God actually gave, until then, even if I write:
Love God and love your neighbor, I don't think you will be willing enough to accept this. Because OM is not your issue, at the core, God is; who you have anger against or so I imagine. What you cited as objective moral standard in the Bible, was not objective at all, it is not even called objective in the Bible itself. This topic is huge, Mag, seriously huge. But the first step is right, subjective standards are problematic. Well I am glad we could at least agree to something.

Beanybag wrote:

B. W. wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:This is not how it works. If you claim the bible has authority ordained by God, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that. Do you really believe that anyone can make a spectacular claim and that people should just believe them unless they can disprove that claim? If I told you that humans evolved from apes and the burden of proof lies with you to prove that they didn’t, I doubt you would agree that it was your responsibility to disprove my affirmative claim.

The tenet of your argument is this:

Human beings wrote the bible, therefore it is untrue…

That is you logical stance isn’t it?

Did not human beings write that human beings evolved for primates? Then how can that be trusted?
-
-
-

Empirical evidence, repeatable experiments, falsifiable predictions and conclusions, etc. Man's word alone is not sufficient. I don't trust anything without proper adherence to the scientific method (or at least empirical support - this is all proportional to the gravity of the claim before that objection comes up) and practice what I consider to be a healthy amount of skepticism.

Please folks let's not introduce any more subjects, it is getting increasingly difficult to deal with the ones we have.

Beanybag wrote:I'd say his position of disbelieving the Bible by default is a pretty rational one - it needs to justify itself as valid before it can be believed. This is why blind faith is necessary for religion. You must trust the scriptures to be true without proof. People may claim otherwise, but I simply doubt they were skeptical enough.

Then I'd say both you and Mag missed my post on page 16. Our faith is most certainly not a blind faith but founded in reason and rationality. Atheism at its roots is most irrational as it ultimately leads to the denial of the law of non-contradiction (and by extension all reason and rationality).

okay so what were ancient people to do that didnt have knowledge of or access to such techniques? The true meaning of passages was just lost to them?

Mag, based on your response I can only deduce that you did not take the time to even look up what a grammatical historical hermeneutic employs.
When you sit down to read a current novel, newspaper, or even the US consitution, do you have to access 'technology' to grasp the basics of what the writer/s is trying to convey? No. The GH method simply says, what did this literally mean to the original audience. The ancient people were contemporaries, and since it was written to them, the language is consistent with how they thought and spoke.

Just as if I wrote, "The Heat are going to slaughter the Thunder," you don't have to go to the internet to understand that I am using hyperbole, and that I am not actually proposing mass murder. You understand this because you are part of the culture I am writing to. But, even if you werent, the rules of sound exegesis are for lack of a better word, ancient. Formal hermeneutic concepts date back to Aristotle (ancient) so your objection is just hot air. The fact that you refuse, stubbornly I might add, to employ methods that are tested since antiquity is only a further indictment that your motives here are not sincere.

It says that David was angry because the Lords wrath broke out against Uzzah, which indicates that the act was an outbreak of wrath not that Uzzah died from any properties of the ark itself. It seems that you are saying that God did not strike Uzzah down but that some inherent properties of the ark caused Uzzah to die.

My explanation was detailed, and said no such thing. It's kind of like saying Bill died because his parachute didn't open. Actually Bill died because his body hit the ground at extreme velocity. The other examples I provided are sufficient.
No quote you've provided contradicts this exegesis, following a GH method, the whole counsel of scripture, and understanding the language and cultural idioms of the time. You still have offered no method by which to defend your opinion. Perhaps you are learned in ancient Hebrew or ancient history, and you'd like to enlighten us to our error.

You have done nothing but say that in your opinion the text doesnt mean what it says.

Actually, I can read the text and come to the same conclusions you are. That is why a proper hermenuetic is so critical. My opinon is not. Do you understand the difference between eisegesis and exegesis? I would say, based on what you offered, that individuality is the method you follow. And because you do, you assume that interpretation is just one opinion versus another. (And if that's the case then you have all kinds of other problems arrise.) This is simply because you are ignorant of the methods of sound biblical interpretation. Your presuppositions are a lense that blur the way you read the text. You presuppose that God is this or that, and therefore you don't objectively analyze the text, or consider the language, idioms, or practices of that time. Now, it's certainly your right to do that, but you can't say that you haven't been shown the error of your ways. Practicing a GH hermeneutic is first saying that my lens is faulty, and I need to humbly surrender it, and put on glasses that will provide me the most objective reading, and to draw out the intended meaning of the original author.

In my opinion, you are an antagonist, and a coward who will not accept the challenge I offered earlier in the thread. Just pmail me your info, I'll spend the money, send you the book, and then we'll discuss your report on the book. In the time you've posted on this forum you could have completely read through it, and it presents answers to almost every, if not every single objection you have brought forth, with detailed and exhaustive research.

Byblos wrote:....Please folks let's not introduce any more subjects, it is getting increasingly difficult to deal with the ones we have.

Ditto

The very point I mentioned on page 15...

Hmmm,

Saul Alinsky's principle of making the opposition live up to their own standards/rules, and 'Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy', as well as principles from Cloward and Piven’s tactic' to overwhelm the system' is often employed by militant agnostic and atheist against Christian groups and website forums maybe at play here.

Kind of looks like what has been going on with all the multiple topics with no coherent line discusion one can actually follow…

With that in mind here is a quote from wiki for a bit of levity...

Alinsky died of a sudden, massive heart attack in 1972, on a street corner in Carmel, California, at the age of 63. Two months previously, he discussed life after death in his interview with playboy

ALINSKY: ... if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.
PLAYBOY: Why?
ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I've been with the have-nots. Over here, if you're a have-not, you're short of dough. If you're a have-not in hell, you're short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there.
PLAYBOY: Why them?
ALINSKY: They're my kind of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky[

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer. -- Saul Alinsky

-
-
-

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Byblos wrote: You've [MAGSolo] been given a rational explanation. Whether or not you accept it is on you.

You don't seem able to understand what we write, Mag. Or, you are just obtuse. I give you a plain explanation on Uzzah and you come back to me with a question about stoning women. I can tell from reading your answers to others here that you wouldn't understand - or accept - my answer...so what's the point?

Why are you continuing to post nonsense?

FL

I think you might be finally getting it. That I dont accept your answer does not mean I dont understand it. Would you agree that you can understand an argument and not agree with it? But Im willing to bet you dont even understand why I brought up Uzzah in the first place. You answered why God did it, but I didnt ask why God did it, the bible clearly states why God did it. I understand why God did it but the point is that no argument you could present would make me accept that it was good and just for God to strike Uzzah down for touching the ark. You cannot convince me that the act of Uzzah touching the ark to steady it from tipping over was an evil malicious act worthy of a punishment of death. That you think it was justified tells me that your moral compass is severely broken. That Neo can justify the slaughter of children and infants tells me that his moral compass is severely broken. You know what else this shows me? It shows me how the Church could justify its atrocious acts during the inquisition. It shows me the horrible things people are capable of and will condone because their moral compass is based on the ancient writings of ancient sheep herders who claimed to be inspired by God. Because this 2000 year old book says these things and the people who wrote them said that God inspired them, then it must be okay.

That Neo can justify the slaughter of children and infants tells me that his moral compass is severely broken.

Subjectivity at its finest, thank you. People tend to assert when they do not have rationality to support their arguments. I see you're no different. Also you have not read nor got familiar with anything you were trying to attack and what people referred to you to study. You brought nothing to the table, not even a sound exegesis if nothing else. I do not think I expected agreement but at least an intelligent discussion, guess I was just wrong.

You could have just said in the beginning that you wanted to vent out your extreme sense of justice somewhere, talk about moral compass you can not even account for yours and you blame others. Wow! you could have saved us some time.

I am sorry but this is beyond ignorance, doubt in the Bible is fine, a lack of sincere discussion is no excuse to waste others time. This thread is done for me. I didn't expect when I actually asked you to read things before you talk about them that you'd back out, too much hard work? pasting from websites is a lot easier I guess.

MAGSolo wrote:I think you might be finally getting it. That I dont accept your answer does not mean I dont understand it. Would you agree that you can understand an argument and not agree with it? But Im willing to bet you dont even understand why I brought up Uzzah in the first place. You answered why God did it, but I didnt ask why God did it, the bible clearly states why God did it. I understand why God did it but the point is that no argument you could present would make me accept that it was good and just for God to strike Uzzah down for touching the ark. You cannot convince me that the act of Uzzah touching the ark to steady it from tipping over was an evil malicious act worthy of a punishment of death.

That you think it was justified tells me that your moral compass is severely broken. That Neo can justify the slaughter of children and infants tells me that his moral compass is severely broken. You know what else this shows me? It shows me how the Church could justify its atrocious acts during the inquisition. It shows me the horrible things people are capable of and will condone because their moral compass is based on the ancient writings of ancient sheep herders who claimed to be inspired by God. Because this 2000 year old book says these things and the people who wrote them said that God inspired them, then it must be okay.

So why God does something does not matter?

Your claim that you understand why God did, does not make sense in light of your point of, not asking why God did it?

In a court of law, when someone is on trial - it does matter why someone did something.

You logic is flawed…

Did you know there is a New Covenant? The Old system passed away…

You moral compass is severally broken as well as you are closed to the truth. Your mind is made up to measure things against your emotionally based moral standards. You blame God for everything evil in the world yet it is your attitude that is responsible for creating it. You do not know anything of the ancient Canaanite religion archeologist have uncovered, How depraved, those people were, burning children in fire, sex with beast, spread of VD, hate, torture these people inflicted? No you do not. Was it morally wrong for us to war with Adolf Hitler – according to what you wrote – yes it would be to your moral standards.

More people died from secular humanist ideology than the crusades and inquisition. Stalin killed more people than the inquisitions ever did and God’s unseen hand of correction stopped the inquisitions abuse. Your logical presentation actually prevents the concept of unalienable rights to human beings. So - Which is more just, respecting human unalienable rights or denying them? Even at the expense of people abusing their unalienable rights – respect that and deal with such abuse in a just and fair manner accordingly? which way is absolute?

Your truth is motivated solely on fear, bitterness, over emotionalism, and moral emotionalism, and by a superiority complex. You falsely believe God sends babies to hell, yet the bible contradicts this claim. You have no intelligence at all, only smug conceit. Many of us writing to you wrestled with the same things and points you brought up. We discovered truth, a real truth. We found freedom within God’s dealings with humanity past, present, and future. We know because of what he has done, that settles all these issues once and for all. That something – you no knowing about…

A Bear protecting its cubs and killing a human being is justified but God protecting his ancient people is not. Makes no sense. What if Uzzah went to heaven prematurely? Thought about that one?

The wages of sin is death, ruin, corruption. How would you rid the world of it? Deny unalienable rights, reason, intelligence, if so, then you would not be all powerful would you….

Christianity offers a choice thru Jesus Christ that settles all the issues you bring up. It is what you do with that choice is what God will not deny you. You make that choice – the consequences are on you. There is no way anyone would want to live next door to you for eternity, always finding fault with God, putting him of trial, mocking him, abusing his love and grace to remain sanctimonious and morally superior. You must be a misserble person...

Like Saul Alsinsky:

Alinsky... discussed life after death in his interview with playboy

ALINSKY: ... if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.
PLAYBOY: Why?
ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I've been with the have-nots. Over here, if you're a have-not, you're short of dough. If you're a have-not in hell, you're short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there.
PLAYBOY: Why them?
ALINSKY: They're my kind of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky[

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer. -- Saul Alinsky

You share the same wish…
-
-
-

But Im willing to bet you dont even understand why I brought up Uzzah in the first place. You answered why God did it, but I didnt ask why God did it, the bible clearly states why God did it. I understand why God did it but the point is that no argument you could present would make me accept that it was good and just for God to strike Uzzah down for touching the ark.

You must be kidding. The exegesis I offered explains that this wasn't a matter of God having some personal vendetta against Uzzah.

That you think it was justified tells me that your moral compass is severely broken

Well, why don't you just point us to north, and account for it in your worldview?

neo-x wrote:

That Neo can justify the slaughter of children and infants tells me that his moral compass is severely broken.

Subjectivity at its finest, thank you. People tend to assert when they do not have rationality to support their arguments. I see you're no different. Also you have not read nor got familiar with anything you were trying to attack and what people referred to you to study. You brought nothing to the table, not even a sound exegesis if nothing else. I do not think I expected agreement but at least an intelligent discussion, guess I was just wrong.

You could have just said in the beginning that you wanted to vent out your extreme sense of justice somewhere, talk about moral compass you can not even account for yours and you blame others. Wow! you could have saved us some time.

I am sorry but this is beyond ignorance, doubt in the Bible is fine, a lack of sincere discussion is no excuse to waste others time. This thread is done for me. I didn't expect when I actually asked you to read things before you talk about them that you'd back out, too much hard work? pasting from websites is a lot easier I guess.

None of anything you just sad means anything. Your argument basically boils down to saying that it was okay to murder children and babies because God said so. No argument from you and no amount of studying will ever make me see the light that you see that tells you that murdering children and infants is justified if God says so. Actually, maybe I was wrong to make that comment about your moral compass, so I take it back. You are probably a very nice individual and trying to justify these things doesnt really make you a bad person. Maybe its just that you have never had to actually think about it before and were unprepared, so I apologize for making a knee jerk judgement about you.

B. W. wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:This is not how it works. If you claim the bible has authority ordained by God, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that. Do you really believe that anyone can make a spectacular claim and that people should just believe them unless they can disprove that claim? If I told you that humans evolved from apes and the burden of proof lies with you to prove that they didn’t, I doubt you would agree that it was your responsibility to disprove my affirmative claim.

The tenet of your argument is this:

Human beings wrote the bible, therefore it is untrue…

That is you logical stance isn’t it?

Did not human beings write that human beings evolved for primates? Then how can that be trusted?
-
-
-

No, that is not my argument at all. Im not saying its untrue just because men wrote it. My argument is that the bible believers claim that the claims made in the bible are made under authority of God when there is no evidence that this is the case (that I know of)

MAGSolo wrote:No, that is not my argument at all. Im not saying its untrue just because men wrote it. My argument is that the bible believers claim that the claims made in the bible are made under authority of God when there is no evidence that this is the case (that I know of)

So what? Maybe we were raised in such an environment where Christianity was taught, and so it became part of us. There's no free will in naturalism. Just as our belief in God would be a delusion if naturalism were true, your belief that you're actually questioning something would be just as delusional. None of us would then know the truth, nor would it matter. By the way, you did say that the Bible is untrue because men wrote it:

MAGSolo wrote:That you think it was justified tells me that your moral compass is severely broken. That Neo can justify the slaughter of children and infants tells me that his moral compass is severely broken. You know what else this shows me? It shows me how the Church could justify its atrocious acts during the inquisition. It shows me the horrible things people are capable of and will condone because their moral compass is based on the ancient writings of ancient sheep herders who claimed to be inspired by God. Because this 2000 year old book says these things and the people who wrote them said that God inspired them, then it must be okay.

Again, you're being inconsistent. You're appealing to objective morality, while denying it at the same time. Your concern about innocent people and their fates is just an appeal to emotion. By condemning what the Church or anyone else did, you suggest that there is a right and moral way, but I'm afraid your worldview just can't account for it.

The only consistent thing you wrote is chronological snobbery. As I had expected, you didn't forget to mention that the Bible is 2000 years old. So according to you, that makes it false? If that's your standard, then how do we know that something that we consider to be true today, is actually true? Again, that beings us to confusion, an infinite confusion. You remind me of young music "fans" who say, "How can you listen you that song, it must be older than the Bible!" And it was published in 2009. Note that they used to listen to it in 2009, yet today they call it trash because newer music came out.

Try being consistent, Mag.