I am enjoying posting here, cuz.... [Archive I]

Magus55

August 3, 2005, 04:40 PM

Everyone here has been SO very cordial and polite!
Even the atheists have been nice to me. :rolleyes:

I've taken more harsh criticism and ostracism, for my beliefs, from my own family members, and also from some Bible-Thumpers, who scratch their head and wonder about me. :eek:

I just wanted to say THANK YOU :notworthy
to everyone for being so kind, and not beating me over the head with Darwin's book - or anything else handy! :thumbs:

Even though I don't label myself a "Gentile Christian" ( I am a Messianic Believer- and if you don't know what that is, :huh: google "messianic judaism")... even though I am not Jewish... I appreciate my "right to free speech" being respected by all you kind folks- atheists, agnostics, religionists, et al!

shalom to everybody! :rolling:

TEXASAWOL
Hi there Texas. Its interesting to meet another Messianic believer. I've been the only Messianic Jew on here for awhile (I was born a Jew though). What makes you Messianic as oppose to a Gentile Christian ( since you said you aren't Jewish) out of curiosity?

Magus55

August 3, 2005, 04:43 PM

Pfft. People here are nicer than at Christian websites. That's certainly true.

And they know more about the Bible too than any of the self claimed "Bible-Thumpers."That's certaintly a debatable claim. Atheists can be just as nasty as theists. And claiming to know more about the Bible than any other conservative Christian is certaintly a strong, opinion based claim, and purely subjective. I'm sure they know more than many, but hardly all of them.

Magus55

August 3, 2005, 04:46 PM

What I meant was, I haven't been made fun of for BELIEVING IN GOD....
What I meant was, I haven't been told I'm an ignorant backwoods un-educated moron for my beliefs. Don't worry, that will come :Cheeky:

There certaintly are some nice atheists on these boards, but there are also those strong atheists who do think you're a delusional, uneducated moron for your beliefs ( of course it also depends on how conservative you are). You need a tough skin to be a theist here.

Quetzalcoatl

August 3, 2005, 04:56 PM

Does that make more sense?

Gotcha.

So I take it that you do not find this forum hostile?

Tom Sawyer

August 3, 2005, 05:05 PM

What I meant was, I haven't been made fun of for BELIEVING IN GOD....

Ha ha! You believe in God. :D

Seriously, though, it's always nice to have people with different beliefs around - it keeps the debates from getting stale. You may find us snide and belittling at times, but usually we are quite nice and happy to have you around.

Mace

August 3, 2005, 05:21 PM

jonesg

August 3, 2005, 05:28 PM

Everyone here has been SO very cordial and polite!
Even the atheists have been nice to me. :rolleyes:
TEXASAWOL

Then you probably don't threaten anyone.
Don't mistake that for politeness.
Theres sick posters galore here.

steamer

August 3, 2005, 05:43 PM

That's certaintly a debatable claim. Atheists can be just as nasty as theists. And claiming to know more about the Bible than any other conservative Christian is certaintly a strong, opinion based claim, and purely subjective. I'm sure they know more than many, but hardly all of them.

I'm a nasty sort of atheist, I think. I have a lot of trouble with the idea that all beliefs are to be respected. Many of them I do not respect. My tendancy is to mock ideas I deem worthy of mocking. Creationism and ID come to mind. My parents taught me that people's religious beliefs ought to be respected, I don't know why this should be the case. People believe all sorts of whacky stuff from invisible sky-buddies to winged hominids and pointy tailed demons. Why I ought not mock these folks anymore than an adult that still believes in Santa is rather beyond me.

Magus55

August 3, 2005, 06:09 PM

I'm a nasty sort of atheist, I think. I have a lot of trouble with the idea that all beliefs are to be respected. Many of them I do not respect. My tendancy is to mock ideas I deem worthy of mocking. Creationism and ID come to mind. My parents taught me that people's religious beliefs ought to be respected, I don't know why this should be the case. People believe all sorts of whacky stuff from invisible sky-buddies to winged hominids and pointy tailed demons. Why I ought not mock these folks anymore than an adult that still believes in Santa is rather beyond me.Treat others as you would want to be treated. Or does being a nasty atheist excuse you from following the golden rule?

Quetzalcoatl

August 3, 2005, 06:26 PM

Treat others as you would want to be treated. Or does being a nasty atheist excuse you from following the golden rule?

Would Jesus like to be sent to hell? Or is he exempt from the golden rule?

steamer

August 3, 2005, 06:47 PM

Treat others as you would want to be treated. Or does being a nasty atheist excuse you from following the golden rule?

No, it generally works for me. On the other hand, I once expressed that I thought the aquatic ape theory seemed to have some merit. Why should someone not tell me that there is no reason for me to believe this? Why should they respect my belief if I have very little in the way of a reasonable argument to support it?

People are people and they do mock each other when they do or say stupid things. It's something you come to expect from your friends but become outraged when strangers do it. Still, If I'm on this board and say I believe I'm protected by the invisible monkeys that fly out of my butt, then I guess you are saying that I ought not be mocked. I still don't quite understand that.

cajela

August 3, 2005, 08:56 PM

This board can be hard on believers. What often seems to happen is that the relatively reasonable folks get lumped in with fundies and YECs and other literalists.

As far as I'm concerned, people are entitled to irrational beliefs as long as those don't harm anyone else. Attempting to impose those beliefs as public policy or as education is wrong, and can be extremely damaging to other people. I have no sympathy for those believers and beliefs at all, and will join or watch the mockery with glee.

But I'm prepared to accept a level of irrationality. I don't think that humans are all-rational all the time. We should be allowed to get away with our harmless eccentricities. I think people who believe in an invisible loving friend called Jesus are pretty whacky, but I also think that people who watch Big Brother are nuts, and that trainspotting is a bizarre and ridiculous hobby. Yet I have friends of all three types.

TexasAWOL

August 3, 2005, 09:00 PM

Does that make more sense?

Gotcha.

So I take it that you do not find this forum hostile?

Actually, I have found nearly everyone here, despite their beliefs, ;) as being VERY cordial!
I have had only ONE person attack me- and THAT was from a "so called Christian" that blasted me for kicking at his "sacred cow"---- a preacher....
Other than that- people have been NICE!!! :thumbs:

Shalom-
TXAWOL

TexasAWOL

August 3, 2005, 09:12 PM

Hi there Texas. Its interesting to meet another Messianic believer. I've been the only Messianic Jew on here for awhile (I was born a Jew though). What makes you Messianic as oppose to a Gentile Christian ( since you said you aren't Jewish) out of curiosity?

:D Hey there yourself, fellow MJ! :D

What made me choose MJ-ism over Gentile Christianity?
Well, some distant relatives were brought up around "Hebrew Christianity"/"Messianic Judaism".... so I started doing some internet research into MJ-ism.
I researched "Church Early Fathers/Church History" so I suppose some of my "gentile" guilt built up in me- especially after reading an EXCELLENT BOOK:
"Our Hands Are Stained With Blood"- by Dr. Michael Brown.... it's MUST READING.... plus my ancestry is German Catholic- OY VEY! :rolleyes:

How the gentile Christian Church has treated the Jews, from the 3rd century C.E., through Luther, the pogroms, Crusades, Holocaust, etc... made me want to distance myself from the whole thing... the "Hellenization" of Christianity did it for me. :down:

MJ-ism seems to fit what the Apostle Paul envisioned....
Jew and Gentile, ONE IN MESSIAH.... :thumbs:

shalom!
TEXASAWOL :wave:

Magus55

August 3, 2005, 09:34 PM

Would Jesus like to be sent to hell? Or is he exempt from the golden rule?
Judgement does not apply. Is a Judge in a court being nasty and not following the golden rule just because its his job to sentence a criminal?

Godless Wonder

August 3, 2005, 10:06 PM

Judgement does not apply. Is a Judge in a court being nasty and not following the golden rule just because its his job to sentence a criminal? Who is your God's boss?

Your analogy doesn't hold up.

Besides, the judge is doing unto "others" (plural) not to "the other," in his sentencing. He is serving society in meting out a deterrent (and, ideally, not vengeance) which one hopes serves to prevent more harm than the harm caused by the punishment. It is crude, (and arguably, sometimes the deterrent does more harm that the crime it seeks to deter, but that is beside the point.)

The punishment (allegedly) meted out by Hank, or God, as the case may be, seems a bit extreme, seeing as how the "crime" which is being deterred is not a crime which causes harm, but is merely the non-action of failing to believe in a being, and in the contents of a book, which (supposing for the sake of argument that this being actually exists) appears to be indistinguishable from mythology, and which (again supposing it exists) appears to be trying very very hard to make it appear as though he does not exist, but is only made up.

If an omniscient, all-powerful god wishes to trick me into thinking that it does not exist, how is it my fault that I am so tricked?

Magus55

August 3, 2005, 10:12 PM

Who is your God's boss?

Your analogy doesn't hold up.
God still have to follow His nature. Judgement is part of righteousness. Judging humanity doesn't mean He isn't following the golden rule.

Godless Wonder

August 3, 2005, 10:19 PM

God still have to follow His nature. Judgement is part of righteousness. Judging humanity doesn't mean He isn't following the golden rule.
So you say. So an old book says. Why should I believe you, or an old book?.

(Sorry about the cross post, I edited my post above, adding more stuff while you were replying to what I posted originally.)

TexasAWOL

August 3, 2005, 10:56 PM

Oh well........
I'm STILL glad to be here! LOL!!!!!

TEXASAWOL

Queen of Swords

August 3, 2005, 11:29 PM

Everyone here has been SO very cordial and polite!
Even the atheists have been nice to me.

The only theists whom I wouldn't be nice to are the ones who try to insult us - you know, the ones who don't follow their own golden rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Other than those, I've met many decent and cordial theists here, and I've enjoyed conversing with them (I've also enjoyed the verbal sparring with the nasty ones, but that's another story).

TexasAWOL

August 3, 2005, 11:40 PM

The only theists whom I wouldn't be nice to are the ones who try to insult us - you know, the ones who don't follow their own golden rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Other than those, I've met many decent and cordial theists here, and I've enjoyed conversing with them (I've also enjoyed the verbal sparring with the nasty ones, but that's another story).

Oh, you betcha!
I'm a "Believer" - ok, call me a "christian" if I must have a label hanging from my neck.
But you make an excellent point.
I've been attacked- not here- (except for one person- on another thread)... but on another forum... a "Christian" forum!
Man- you get ahold of those "dogmatic" types.... they can be downright RABID!!!!! GGGGGRRRRRRR :angry:

I just try to be cordial to all...
I have met so many nice people here- atheists/agnostics/ etc...
I am NOT one of those "fundies" who thinks they are "superior" and have the corner on God.
I can't stand "religionists"- either.... :Cheeky:

I believe in free speech, and being kind to old folks, kids and animals! LOL :thumbs:

Good to meet you-
Kind regards-
TEXASAWOL

Quetzalcoatl

August 3, 2005, 11:44 PM

God still have to follow His nature. Judgement is part of righteousness. Judging humanity doesn't mean He isn't following the golden rule.
Gotcha part of Jesus nature is to send people to be tormented for all eternity in hell. He just can’t help it so he is exempt from the golden rule. It’s like how we don’t punish the insane for their crimes.

CowboyHeretic

August 3, 2005, 11:55 PM

I had a person following me to every post I went to the other night like a stalker. On one post I had 3 atheists deconstructing everything I wrote, the stalker was part of that trio too. I finally had to shake the dust of em off my feet and walk on.
You gotta watch how you put things though, even some of the rational posters here can be a bit touchy if you word something a little off. I did it ONCE.
But overall, I agree with you, this is the most stimulating site I've ever seen. A gentleman like yourself shouldn't have many problems here but If you get jammed up; "Shoot low boys, they're riding shetland ponies. YeeHawwww!" ;)

KingLouie

August 3, 2005, 11:56 PM

I am enjoying posting here, too.

From the Jungles of Enjoyment,

Kang Louie

TexasAWOL

August 4, 2005, 12:14 AM

I am enjoying posting here, too.

From the Jungles of Enjoyment,

Kang Louie

Is that cus yer in Alabammer?

Just kiddin' ya-

Texas talk WAY worse.... They're always "fixin' ta" --- fixin' ta do- whatever???

LOL!

TEXASAWOL :wave:

Jenn6162

August 4, 2005, 12:27 AM

Everyone here has been SO very cordial and polite!
Even the atheists have been nice to me. :rolleyes:

I've taken more harsh criticism and ostracism, for my beliefs, from my own family members, and also from some Bible-Thumpers, who scratch their head and wonder about me. :eek:

I just wanted to say THANK YOU :notworthy
to everyone for being so kind, and not beating me over the head with Darwin's book - or anything else handy! :thumbs:

Even though I don't label myself a "Gentile Christian" ( I am a Messianic Believer- and if you don't know what that is, :huh: google "messianic judaism")... even though I am not Jewish... I appreciate my "right to free speech" being respected by all you kind folks- atheists, agnostics, religionists, et al!

shalom to everybody! :rolling:

TEXASAWOL

Yeah well, don't expect that too last long. Speaking from someone who learned the hard way, not everyone here is all that nice.

Godless Wonder

August 4, 2005, 12:37 AM

Yeah well, don't expect that too last long. Speaking from someone who learned the hard way, not everyone here is all that nice. Pointing out that supporting the notion of genocide on the mere say-so of an old book with an "excuse," that the book claims that its alleged author/inspirer (who nobody's ever seen) knows things that you don't know, but fails to ever say what those things are, nor demonstrate any of the claimed powers seems pretty obviously inconsistent and wrong, does not constitute not being nice. It's merely being rational.

Supporting the notion of genocide on the mere say-so of an old book does however constitute not being nice (and being gullible too.)

TexasAWOL

August 4, 2005, 12:41 AM

Yeah well, don't expect that too last long. Speaking from someone who learned the hard way, not everyone here is all that nice.

Hey- I haven't found a board yet- where everyone is nice!
Everybody has a grumpy day- MOI first and foremost....

I'm just saying it's refreshing to be able to post- and not have a bunch of robotic, dogmatic, religionsists JUMP on you, for not agreeing with every "jot and tittle" that THEY hold to.... know what I mean?

I'm merely saying- I think if a new person, such as myself, comes to a board where MY beliefs are probably in the "minority".... and I am warmly received- I say- COOL! :thumbs:

But you will not find me being confrontational with anyone- it's just going against my nature.
Yeh, I'll state my beliefs. I just don't DEMAND that others DO- nor do I make rude comments to those that beleive different than I do.

Anyway- as they say here in the Lone Star State-
YEE HAW! Nice ta meet ya!

TEXASAWOL :wave:
PS: I'm not "Awol" from the military! LOL :p

Jenn6162

August 4, 2005, 12:44 AM

Pointing out that supporting the notion of genocide on the mere say-so of an old book with an "excuse," that the book claims that its alleged author/inspirer (who nobody's ever seen) knows things that you don't know, but fails to ever say what those things are, nor demonstrate any of the claimed powers seems pretty obviously inconsistent and wrong, does not constitute not being nice. It's merely being rational.

Supporting the notion of genocide on the mere say-so of an old book does however constitute not being nice (and being gullible too.)

Well GW, I have answered yours and others claims of genocide, and I am satisfied with God's reason. He says they were all evil, then that is good enough for me. Questioning my morals is not nice.

Jenn6162

August 4, 2005, 12:47 AM

Hey- I haven't found a board yet- where everyone is nice!
Everybody has a grumpy day- MOI first and foremost....

I'm just saying it's refreshing to be able to post- and not have a bunch of robotic, dogmatic, religionsists JUMP on you, for not agreeing with every "jot and tittle" that THEY hold to.... know what I mean?

I'm merely saying- I think if a new person, such as myself, comes to a board where MY beliefs are probably in the "minority".... and I am warmly received- I say- COOL! :thumbs:

But you will not find me being confrontational with anyone- it's just going against my nature.
Yeh, I'll state my beliefs. I just don't DEMAND that others DO- nor do I make rude comments to those that beleive different than I do.

Anyway- as they say here in the Lone Star State-
YEE HAW! Nice ta meet ya!

TEXASAWOL :wave:
PS: I'm not "Awol" from the military! LOL :p

Good Luck. You may not get angry I don't either, but it may hurt your feelings. If you are that type, which I am.
Nice to meet you Texasawol. As another Christian on this forum said to me, Welcome to the Lions Den. :)

JGL53

August 4, 2005, 12:54 AM

Yeah well, don't expect that too last long. Speaking from someone who learned the hard way, not everyone here is all that nice.

I think the main reason for atheists here not appearing "nice" enough for many theists's taste much of the time is due to situations like christians posting apologetics for the god of the bible committing and commanding atrocities of the type that would get a human labeled as a "monster" - e.g., Hitler, Pol Pot, child-molesting priests, various popes and witch-burners, etc.

That sort of thing really seems to put atheists off and gets us in a real ornery mood in a real hurry.

Ya know - if "believers" suddenly just decided to tell the three western monotheist organized religions to take their 'holy' books and fuck off, and subsequently just become independent believers in some personal god and life after death, that would solve about 90 per cent of the potential animosity - not only on this forum but in the entire world.

If such were to happen, I would personally be so happy I'd be glad to kiss all the world's new independent theists on the lips, each and every one.

(Addendum - I cross-posted with Godless Wonder, who made the same point.)

Godless Wonder

August 4, 2005, 12:56 AM

Well GW, I have answered yours and others claims of genocide, and I am satisfied with God's reason. He says they were all evil, then that is good enough for me. Questioning my morals is not nice.
Questioning your morals is not only nice, it is imperative, when your answer is equivalent to "genocide is ok since this old book says it's ok." Good grief. If Hitler said he was doing God's work, that makes it ok to you? Questioning Hitler's morals is "not nice?" {Edited}

Jenn6162

August 4, 2005, 12:59 AM

I think the main reason for atheists here not appearing "nice" enough for many theists's taste much of the time is due to situations like christians posting apologetics for the god of the bible committing and commanding atrocities of the type that would get a human labeled as a "monster" - e.g., Hitler, Pol Pot, child-molesting priests, various popes and witch-burners, etc.

That sort of thing really seems to put atheists off and gets us in a real ornery mood in a real hurry.

Ya know - if "believers" suddenly just decided to tell the three western monotheist organized religions to take their 'holy' books and fuck off, and subsequently just become independent believers in some personal god and life after death, that would solve about 90 per cent of the potential animosity - not only on this forum but in the entire world.

If such were to happen, I would personally be so happy I'd be glad to kiss all the world's new independent theists on the lips, each and every one.

(Addendum - I cross-posted with Godless Wonder, who made the same point.)

Well if the rapture does indeed happen you may get your wish, or then again it could be worse. Hey at least you might like America better.

dancer_rnb

August 4, 2005, 01:00 AM

JGL53

August 4, 2005, 01:02 AM

Well GW, I have answered yours and others claims of genocide, and I am satisfied with God's reason. He says they were all evil, then that is good enough for me. Questioning my morals is not nice.

- Ditto Godless Wonder's post. I'll just add this - I understand that, by being a 'christian' you are in a bind - you wish to appear to be morally superior to others (non-christians, and especially atheists) and yet you must defend the bible, which is full of god committing atrocities that would get a human condemned by most of the rest of the human race. And your only answer is "god is god - he is not to be questioned - he knows what he is doing" and so forth - answers that appear to me as utterly and irredeemably embarrassing to anyone and everyone involved who cares one whet about morality.

Jenn6162

August 4, 2005, 01:03 AM

Questioning your morals is not only nice, it is imperative, when your answer is equivalent to "genocide is ok since this old book says it's ok." Good grief. If Hitler said he was doing God's work, that makes it ok to you? Questioning Hitler's morals is "not nice?" {Edited}

This makes no sense to me. Was Hitler capable of knowing all that God knows? Did Hitler create the earth? Your opinion, just like I told Biff, I am done caring about what you think of me as a person. I can't change your mind and I won't even try. Genocide is only okay if you happen to be the one controlling the universe and you have a damn good reason.

Vinnie

August 4, 2005, 01:04 AM

""""""""""Theres sick posters galore here."""""""""

Must be a virus going around or something :D

Quetzalcoatl

August 4, 2005, 01:04 AM

Well if the rapture does indeed happen you may get your wish, or then again it could be worse. Hey at least you might like America better.

Please clear up this statement. Are you saying that Muslims will be raptured also? Thanks

JGL53

August 4, 2005, 01:05 AM

Well if the rapture does indeed happen you may get your wish, or then again it could be worse. Hey at least you might like America better.

Well, if monkeys fly out of my butt, then up will become down. And, well if frogs had pockets then they could carry guns to shoot snakes with. And, well if.......

I've got a bucket of "Well ifs" I will sell to you real cheap.

Vinnie

August 4, 2005, 01:05 AM

Even the atheists have been nice to me.

Please explain. Thanks

Well, even though I understood what he meant and it didn't appear negative, good catch:

:notworthy :notworthy

Godless Wonder

August 4, 2005, 01:06 AM

This makes no sense to me. Was Hitler capable of knowing all that God knows? Did Hitler create the earth? Your opinion, just like I told Biff, I am done caring about what you think of me as a person. I can't change your mind and I won't even try. Genocide is only okay if you happen to be the one controlling the universe and you have a damn good reason.

Remind me again how it is that you know that the Bible is the word of not just a god but The God and not just some old book that's just written by a bunch of very confused people (much, as it appears to me, like you) who didn't really know what the hell they were talking about.

Or I'm just supposed to take the book's word for it? Or your word for it? Or Hitler's word for it?

Jenn6162

August 4, 2005, 01:06 AM

- Ditto Godless Wonder's post. I'll just add this - I understand that, by being a 'christian' you are in a bind - you wish to appear to be morally superior to others (non-christians, and especially atheists) and yet you must defend the bible, which is full of god committing atrocities that would get a human condemned by most of the rest of the human race. And your only answer is "god is god - he is not to be questioned - he knows what he is doing" and so forth - answers that appear to me as utterly and irredeemable embarrassing to anyone and everyone involved who cares one whet about morality.

I do not think or wish to appear to be morally superior to others. I am a sinner. You are making assumptions about me. My answer was not ONLY God is good. My answer in my thread in GRD explains why God flooded the earth.

screwtape

August 4, 2005, 01:07 AM

Genocide is only okay if you happen to be the one controlling the universe and you have a damn good reason.

wow....speechless...

Jenn6162

August 4, 2005, 01:09 AM

Please clear up this statement. Are you saying that Muslims will be raptured also? Thanks

No, I should have stated that to only pertain to the situation in America as being mostly Christian. That was a mistake on my part.

My apologies for derailing this thread Tex.

JGL53

August 4, 2005, 01:09 AM

...Genocide is only okay if you happen to be the one controlling the universe and you have a damn good reason.

This, in a nutshell, is precisely why christians just can't get any respect from your average atheist. I am under the opinion that genocide CAN NOT be justified under ANY circumstance.

I wonder about you, Jenn6162. I wonder.

CowboyHeretic

August 4, 2005, 01:12 AM

Wow, the Atheists caught a Christian alone and beat her up. Manly.

Jenn6162

August 4, 2005, 01:12 AM

Or I'm just supposed to take the book's word for it? Or your word for it? Or Hitler's word for it?

I don't expect you to take any of it. I take the Bible's word for it, for me I believe it is true. I don't expect you to.

Quetzalcoatl

August 4, 2005, 01:13 AM

Well, even though I understood what he meant and it didn't appear negative, good catch:

:notworthy :notworthy

I knew it was not meant to be negative but I could not let it stand. These kinds of statements are pervasive in our society. It’s the same as saying I went to university and everyone was smart even the whites.

I did give him a chance to explain before I showed him the wrath of Quetzalcoatl.

Vinnie

August 4, 2005, 01:14 AM

Genocide is only okay if you happen to be the one controlling the universe and you have a damn good reason.

Hi Jenn, maybe we can take this another way. It doesn't seem feasible for an omnipotent God to perform genocide in such a manner. Obviously if a group of humans is bad God has his right to purge the evil from among his creation. The problem is when we see things like "entire groups" being punished for the sins of the few. An omnipotent and omniscient God is certainly capable of punishing just the evildoers. The problem is what is "a good reason for killing people not directly responsible for the crime warranting death"?

We have two choices here. If my friend steals something is it just to lock me in jail for it if I had nothing to do with it//didn't support it//know about it? Of course not. So take these two choices:

Belief that these nationalistic-mass genocides are the word and action of God.

or

Belief that an all-good God wouldn't punish so many innocent people with mass extinction due to the sins of others which they are not guilty of.

Is there more evidence to support that these accounts are the literal word of God than their is reason to reject the notion of God punishing someone due to someone elses sin?

The Bible is the word of God and God punishes people for other's sins. Which one of these is the greater miracle?

So rather than saying God has no right to purge evil--genocidally if he so desires, I will say that these stories make me skeptical that they are accurate portrayals of an all-Good, omnipotent and omniscient Father as a Father just doesn't punish his children like that.

Vinnie

JGL53

August 4, 2005, 01:14 AM

I do not think or wish to appear to be morally superior to others. I am a sinner. You are making assumptions about me. My answer was not ONLY God is good. My answer in my thread in GRD explains why God flooded the earth.

I don't think you are a sinner. I think you are just a human being - who is having quite the challenge in making 2+2=5. You will never be able to do this. Maybe you should think about giving up the impossible.

Godless Wonder

August 4, 2005, 01:17 AM

I don't expect you to take any of it. I take the Bible's word for it, for me I believe it is true. I don't expect you to. Oh, but you expect me to respect your notion that taking this book's word for it, not just for no apparent reason, but in actuality for no reason at all, (or so we must surmise, since you refuse to give any reason when asked directly for a reason)?

Sorry. No free pass. You get no such respect. Believing things for no reason, in spite of evidence to the contrary, is unethical, in my estimation. It is a form of negligence, a shirking of the responsibility to think things through.

Quetzalcoatl

August 4, 2005, 01:17 AM

No, I should have stated that to only pertain to the situation in America as being mostly Christian. That was a mistake on my part.

.

This was in response to

Ya know - if "believers" suddenly just decided to tell the three western monotheist organized religions to take their 'holy' books and fuck off, and subsequently just become independent believers in some personal god and life after death, that would solve about 90 per cent of the potential animosity - not only on this forum but in the entire world.

How will the rapture make people become “independent believers in some personal god�??

My apologies for derailing this thread Tex

I don’t think this is much of a derail. There is an ongoing debate as to why this forum appears hostile and some posters do not like posting here. I think this goes to the heart of it.

JGL53

August 4, 2005, 01:21 AM

Wow, the Atheists caught a Christian alone and beat her up. Manly.

Oh, don't get the wrong idea - atheists are generally equal opportunity beater-uppers - individuals, large groups of men, women, hermaphrodites, children - whoever comes here to tell us that genocide can sometimes be justified, we will be happy to hand them their heads (morally and metaphorically speaking). This also includes you.

TexasAWOL

August 4, 2005, 01:22 AM

This was in response to

How will the rapture make people become “independent believers in some personal god�??

My apologies for derailing this thread Tex

I don’t think this is much of a derail. There is an ongoing debate as to why this forum appears hostile and some posters do not like posting here. I think this goes to the heart of it.

No de-railment here....
No problem!
Good night all-
I feel privileged to have met some quality ( and colorful) people in the last few days!!!

Gotta get some sleep!
YEE HAW!

TEXASAWOL :wave:

Quetzalcoatl

August 4, 2005, 01:23 AM

Do you understand what it means to drown to death Jenn? Did you see the pictures of the Christmas Tsunami? Instead of defending an ancient story isn’t it more rational to notice that the actions are not consistent with the behavior expected form an omnibenevolent god. Just maybe the story can be seen in another way. Just maybe..

Jenn6162

August 4, 2005, 01:23 AM

Hi Jenn, maybe we can take this another way. It doesn't seem feasible for an omnipotent God to perform genocide in such a manner. Obviously if a group of humans is bad God has his right to purge the evil from among his creation. The problem is when we see things like "entire groups" being punished for the sins of the few. An omnipotent and omniscient God is certainly capable of punishing just the evildoers. The problem is that "a good reason for killing people not directly responsible for the crime warranting death"?

We have two choices here. If my friend steals something is it just to lock me in jail for it if I had nothing to do with it//didn't support it//know about it? So take these two choices:

Belief that these nationalistic-mass genocides are the word and action of God.

or

Belief that an all-good God wouldn't punish so many innocent people with mass extinction due to the sins of others which they are not guilty of.

Is there more evidence to support that these accounts are the literal word of God than their is reason to reject the notion of God punishing someone due to someone elses sin?

The Bible is the word of God and God punishes people for other's sins. Which one of these is the greater miracle?

Vinnie

I appreciate your kind tone here. I was gonna go to bed, but I will stay up to answer since you did not personally attack me. In Genesis the Bible says...

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

He wanted to kill us all off and be done with us. Babies and children are cute and cuddly and sweet, but they grow up. God knew their future. What were all those babies and kids gonna do with no parents if He did spare them? Thanks to Noah being such a good guy we are still here on this wonderful journey we call life.

Also that is not even touching the subject of the sons of God mating with people, and creating half breed demons

Jenn6162

August 4, 2005, 01:27 AM

Quetzalcoatl

August 4, 2005, 01:35 AM

So now God sent the Tsunami? Make up your mind either the earth is natural or God is sending His wrath. You can't have both.

I never said god sent the tsunami Jenn. I know you are responding to a lot of people but please reread my post again. I am not blaming god for anything. I was giving you an example of what it means to drown to death. This was a small version of the flood.

A lot of Christians do not take the flood literally. They understand it’s just a story. That’s all I am saying. I see no need to get mad with me. Can’t we all be friends?

People have emotions Jenn. If you insist on defending the slaughter of babies, kittens and puppies people are going to challenge you on it. There is really no “nice�? way to put this. A lot of people can see no justification for this. Can you understand this? We are not talking about a man with limited abilities but an omnipotent god. He could have just snapped his finger and make all the “bad�? people disappear but according to the story he did not. He chooses one of the most violent ways of dying to accomplish this.

The other point you are missing is this. You are not defending god but you are instead defending a story about god. Personally this is what I find difficult to understand. The story is false even the majority of Christians know this. So why are you insistent on defending this obviously horrible story?

Vinnie

August 4, 2005, 01:39 AM

I appreciate your kind tone here. I was gonna go to bed, but I will stay up to answer since you did not personally attack me. In Genesis the Bible says...

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

He wanted to kill us all off and be done with us. Babies and children are cute and cuddly and sweet, but they grow up. God knew their future. What were all those babies and kids gonna do with no parents if He did spare them? Thanks to Noah being such a good guy we are still here on this wonderful journey we call life.

Also that is not even touching the subject of the sons of God mating with people, and creating half breed demons

Hi Jenn, thanks for the response and kindness in return. I jumped in kind of late so I didn't even know we were discussing the Genesis Flood. In my mind I had a few instances of conquering//war type stuff found in a few spots in the OT. Thats what I get for jumping in without reading everything :o

But since we are talking about the flood, yes you are correct. One premise of the story appears to be that all men had become evil. I, of course, find it very difficult to believe every single person on the planet became evil. It just appears prima facie untrue but it is of course a fact of the story as its told so we really can't blame God here. I cannpt fault God morally, I can only say my prima facie thinking renders the story implausible--though certainly not impossible. But I agree that if there were a million "ridiculously evil people" in an area I wouldn't want them spreading or continuing on either if I were God.

The only problem I see with this is the babies and children. Suppose we grant "every single adult" was evil, we can't say the same about the children can we? You noted that "God knew their future" which is true in a theist framework. Maybe God knew they would all be just as evil. My problem is "how likely is this as an explanation"? Can it be believed that every child at the time would have turned out evil? I don't think that is true on a prima facie level.

But you also note that : "What were all those babies and kids gonna do with no parents if He did spare them? " This is good thinking for starting us off. Seekign a rational explanation for a troubling issue. I don't know if you know who Glen Miller is (of the Thinktank) but his OT apologetics usually center around the same line:

It is more ethical to destroy the children because they will die slowly and suffer more without their parents as they are incapable of surviving by themselves. But, my biggest problwm with this and with Miller's view has always been very basic:

God is omnipotent. Asking "what the children would do without parents" throws the baby out with the bathwater. Their parents are gone but God is not and God has provided food and water for people before. See, with an omnipotent God we have another option that appears more ethical then killing the children to reduce suffering:

God lets the innocent children live and provides for him out of his omnipotent power. This complaint I have is of course conditioned upon my belief that it seems prima facie untrue that every child would have turned out evil. The text at least states every man was evil so we cannot object to it there but for the children don't seem to be covered.

Vinnie

Godless Wonder

August 4, 2005, 02:02 AM

Wow, the Atheists caught a Christian alone and beat her up. Manly. First of all, nobody beat anyone up. Asking tough questions and making pointed observations is not "beating up." If a Christian (of any gender) comes here saying that genocide is ok in instances in which an old book claims that god says it's ok, they ought to expect to be challenged to defend such a claim. It's hardly "beating up" to point out that such a claim is baseless, and that the claimant admits that it's baseless. What would you have us do? Should we just say, "Hmm, you think genocide's ok, I disagree, but, live and let live, or in your case, live and kill those who don't believe as you do, if your book says to kill them, whatever, it's all good." No, it's not all good. Some of it is downright horrible, and if I think it's horrible, I'm going to say so.

Vinnie

August 4, 2005, 02:09 AM

First of all, nobody beat anyone up. Asking tough questions and making pointed observations is not "beating up." If a Christian (of any gender) comes here saying that genocide is ok in instances in which an old book claims that god says it's ok, they ought to expect to be challenged to defend such a claim. It's hardly "beating up" to point out that such a claim is baseless, and that the claimant admits that it's baseless. What would you have us do? Should we just say, "Hmm, you think genocide's ok, I disagree, but, live and let live, or in your case, live and kill those who don't believe as you do, if your book says to kill them, whatever, it's all good." No, it's not all good. Some of it is downright horrible, and if I think it's horrible, I'm going to say so.

Just so its clear, in the case of the flood, however implausible it may appear, the account does explicitly state every man was evil and all his thoughts were towards evil:

Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. Also Genesis 6:11-13 (bold my emphasis): Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.

They are all defined as being extremely evil and wicked. I really don't see what the problem is here with God wiping them out. Seems quite simple and appropriate to me. There are plenty of other examples where eveyrone is not described as uber-evil incarnate throughout the OT and I think it best for skeptics to focus on them. Unless, of course, we are going to stop punishing repeated rapists, murderers, etc (every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was evil) I don't see how God acted inappropriately given the stated conditions.

The only problem is with the children (see my post above) as presumably women are covered under "man".

Vinnie

JGL53

August 4, 2005, 02:13 AM

Vinnie

August 4, 2005, 02:17 AM

JGL53

August 4, 2005, 02:22 AM

Metallica rules :thumbs: , christianity drools :down: .

southernhybrid

August 4, 2005, 07:22 AM

All these christians heading off to beddy-bye time put me in mind of the cute little ditty for the deity my mommy used to require me to recite every night before bed:

Now I lay me down to sleep.
I pray the lord my soul to keep.
If I should die before I wake
I pray the lord my soul to take.

Reminding and emphasizing to a small child the inescapable fact of his utter mortality just before he goes to bed - after a hard day of "sinning" - is about as conducive to his sleep as a large mug of dark roast - but it is so much the point of christianity - keeping it real - at all times - especially for the children.

Although what you say certainly makes sense, I gotta tell ya as one who was encouraged to repeat that silly little ditty at bedtime, that it never bothered me. It didn't really have any impact on me at all. On the other hand the preacher ranting about sin and hell on Sunday was dreadful to my five year old mind. That prayer, not so much.

I grew up in the 50s/60s and the constant reminder of the possibility of nuclear war was much scarier that a silly childhood prayer. That duck and cover thing we went through in school was really scary. It was actually much scarier than all the religious indoctrination I ever received. I think that we atheists don't always put things in perspective. Still, children are far more resilient than we give them credit for being, and most of us make it to adulthood without severe emotional damage despite all the mistakes that the adults that raise us make.

Oh Jesus! Now I've forgotten what this thread was about. :D Sure there are many nice atheists here, but like any group of people, you will find some that don't seem that nice. I think part of this is due to the nature of posting on Internet discussion boards. It's hard to communicate without the benefit of body language, facial expressions and tone of voice. If we were all sitting around in my living room sipping tea or wine, we'd probably all have a good time. We'd exchange some heated words, share some laughs and still be friends at the end of the day.

steamer

August 4, 2005, 12:30 PM

Oh, you betcha!
I'm a "Believer" - ok, call me a "christian" if I must have a label hanging from my neck.
But you make an excellent point.
I've been attacked- not here- (except for one person- on another thread)... but on another forum... a "Christian" forum!
Man- you get ahold of those "dogmatic" types.... they can be downright RABID!!!!! GGGGGRRRRRRR :angry:

A rabid dogmatic :rolling: I'm gonna have to steal that :)

JGL53

August 4, 2005, 01:45 PM

Although what you say certainly makes sense, I gotta tell ya as one who was encouraged to repeat that silly little ditty at bedtime, that it never bothered me. It didn't really have any impact on me at all. On the other hand the preacher ranting about sin and hell on Sunday was dreadful to my five year old mind. That prayer, not so much...

I got a good dose of hellfire preaching every Sunday, not to mention the concept of "the all-seeing eye of god that one can never escape" - so, that in combination with the little prayer did bother me - up until I was about nine or ten or so. It was about this age that it finally dawned on me that adults, in consensus, can be just as full of shit as a christmas turkey. I guess that was my "age of reason". :D

...I grew up in the 50s/60s and the constant reminder of the possibility of nuclear war was much scarier that a silly childhood prayer. That duck and cover thing we went through in school was really scary. It was actually much scarier than all the religious indoctrination I ever received...

I grew up in the same era, but the nuclear death thing was less scary to me then all the hell bullshit. The former was just death - the latter by definition lasts for eternity.

...I think that we atheists don't always put things in perspective. Still, children are far more resilient than we give them credit for being, and most of us make it to adulthood without severe emotional damage despite all the mistakes that the adults that raise us make...

Define "severe emotional damage". I think any and all adults who believe in a literal hell have some sort of "problem". I'm not a psychiatrist or a psychologist – these professionals in the area of mental hygiene could probably give you the technical term for this "problem".

...Sure there are many nice atheists here, but like any group of people, you will find some that don't seem that nice. I think part of this is due to the nature of posting on Internet discussion boards...If we were all sitting around in my living room sipping tea or wine, we'd probably all have a good time. We'd exchange some heated words, share some laughs and still be friends at the end of the day.

- Except for dogmatic fundamentalist religionists vs. everybody else. It's hard to be "friends" with those I view as being warped. E.g., members of my family: my older brother was an Episcopalian - he had no problem with evolution and was basically a free-thinking deist. He and I could "agree to disagree". My sister is a nutcase fundamentalist independent baptist who has conversations with god. Even my southern baptist parents think she’s nuts, as does my brother. I avoid her like the plague - I only see her at funerals and weddings.

I will certainly grant you that some atheists are hidebound Marxists or Randian Objectivists or members of some similar cultish group - i.e., not people you would care to be around. I view them as sources of entertainment, mostly, and being politically powerless, not individuals to be concerned about.

The millions of brain-washed christian fundamentalists in the U.S. ? - They are of concern to me. If someone doesn't take the time to oppose them they will fucking destroy our form of government and our entire way of life.

Realistically, the only group with the numbers to effectively oppose them is liberal christians. I get along with and can "agree to disagree" with this latter group. As is said: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend�?.

thebeave

August 4, 2005, 09:50 PM

...Thanks to Noah being such a good guy we are still here on this wonderful journey we call life.

Eh? :huh: Noah was a cranky, naked drunkard! Go re-read the story in Genesis, after the ark lands.

Vinnie

August 4, 2005, 10:40 PM

Eh? :huh: Noah was a cranky, naked drunkard! Go re-read the story in Genesis, after the ark lands.

"Noah", not that such a guy actually existed, cannot be historically defined as "a cranky, naked drunkard". There is one incident in the Bible about this. Noah lived a long life and God calls him good. Defining a person on the basis of one action such as this is magical thinking. Or are we being contentious just for the sake of being contentious?

Vinnie

Godless Wonder

August 4, 2005, 11:12 PM

Just so its clear, in the case of the flood, however implausible it may appear, the account does explicitly state every man was evil and all his thoughts were towards evil:

Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. Also Genesis 6:11-13 (bold my emphasis): Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.

They are all defined as being extremely evil and wicked. I really don't see what the problem is here with God wiping them out. Seems quite simple and appropriate to me. There are plenty of other examples where eveyrone is not described as uber-evil incarnate throughout the OT and I think it best for skeptics to focus on them. Unless, of course, we are going to stop punishing repeated rapists, murderers, etc (every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was evil) I don't see how God acted inappropriately given the stated conditions.

The only problem is with the children (see my post above) as presumably women are covered under "man".

Vinnie

Almighty all powerful all merciful, all loving G fucking O D couldn't just fix the broken evil, people, but instead had to drown them? And then what, send their disembodied consciousnesses to hell forever and ever after into eternal punishment because, well, because, um well, because he's "just" and "justice" cannot be served unless, um, yuo know, like, infinite vengeance is had?

It's indefensible.

Vinnie

August 5, 2005, 01:24 AM

Almighty all powerful all merciful, all loving G fucking O D couldn't just fix the broken evil, people, but instead had to drown them? And then what, send their disembodied consciousnesses to hell forever and ever after into eternal punishment because, well, because, um well, because he's "just" and "justice" cannot be served unless, um, yuo know, like, infinite vengeance is had?

It's indefensible.

If you add in infinite punishment yeah. I was just discussing the action of destorying the evil people. I was attempting to discuss one issue at a time. No need to frighten off our theist guests with rapid fire on all manner of Christian doctrine.

As for your claim about fixing broken evil I do not think I even agree with that. Theists will claim that "fixing evil" is violating free will. That would essentially be destroying the people so that is actually what God did.

Omnipotence most always has "limits" to theists. Its not a license to do anything like "create round squares" or "force a bad person to be good out of their own free will". This is a contradiction in terms to theists as "evil" and "good" are terms which require volition and usually the concept of free will.

Evil is not a thing or being but a state of a human free will. Evil cannot be "fixed" without violating FW. Evil is defined as a "state of will in non-conformity to God's". Its not something you just "fix" because fixing it requires a person conform their will to God's (that would be a fixing of it).

Can an omnipotent God fix "evil" without violating a person's free will? What this question asks is a contradiction in terms. It may be like asking God to create a round square. While it can be immediately intelligible it is ultimately incoherent.

If you are going to critique theism it doesn't do too much good unless you either use their own terms and definitions or come up with your own and explain why they should be adopted. I'm just trying to work within that framework.

Vinnie

TexasAWOL

August 5, 2005, 01:32 AM

A rabid dogmatic :rolling: I'm gonna have to steal that :)

PLEASE DO, Steamer! LOL!

I have seen "dogmatic" Christians, who DO act like "rabid dogs"- they act as if they want to tear your to pieces.
I'm not that way..... :love:

shalom!!! :wave:
TEXASAWOL

TexasAWOL

August 5, 2005, 01:35 AM

thebeave

August 5, 2005, 02:37 PM

"Noah", not that such a guy actually existed, cannot be historically defined as "a cranky, naked drunkard". There is one incident in the Bible about this. Noah lived a long life and God calls him good. Defining a person on the basis of one action such as this is magical thinking. Or are we being contentious just for the sake of being contentious?

Vinnie

OK, perhaps you're right...it was just one incident. In fact the incident kinda reminds me of when I was in college. I went to a party, drank too much, came home and woke up naked on the bathroom floor. :huh: I wasn't cranky though...just hungover. But then again, I was a dumb, reckless 20 year old college student, who was still "growing up". Noah was at least 450 years old when he passed out drunk and naked. You'd think he'd know better at that age. Though, I can't prove it, I'm inclined to think that Noah's heavy drinking was NOT just a one time event. So sue me for libel...

Vinnie

August 5, 2005, 11:29 PM

OK, perhaps you're right...it was just one incident. In fact the incident kinda reminds me of when I was in college. I went to a party, drank too much, came home and woke up naked on the bathroom floor. :huh: I wasn't cranky though...just hungover.

Did someone get lucky? :D

Noah was at least 450 years old when he passed out drunk and naked. You'd think he'd know better at that age. Though, I can't prove it, I'm inclined to think that Noah's heavy drinking was NOT just a one time event. So sue me for libel...

I lack belief in the existence of an historical Noah and if I had to place a wager I'd certainly bet on non-historicity. So it was a none-time event ;)

Vinnie

JGL53

August 5, 2005, 11:45 PM

I am with you, on this one!
My mother made me say that stupid (and unscriptural) prayer every night.
It's a ludicrous prayer.... to make a child "fear" that he/she would die in their sleep- :down:
My mother didn't have bad intentions- she just didn't know better... :huh:

Shalom-
TEXASAWOL

This is the point that, in my golden years, I have come to accept and make peace with. My parents grew up during the depression. They were not well-educated. My father went to work as a laborer for the railroad at age 15 for fifty cents an hour. They were in an environment where questioning the reigning parading was not a real option - unless you were interested in being a pariah, or moving somewhere else.

Indeed, they did the best they could. But you know what? - This is 2005, and if we all try to do the best we can, I think almost all of us can do a great deal better than most people did just a few decades back. E.g., I read a book like The Age of Reason and I read the bible. The former makes sense; the latter is senseless drivel by comparison. Which should I go with - especially since I really have a choice? My parents read nothing much more than Sunday school literature, the daily paper, and right wing nut literature. I can do better, and I do.

So - That's the name of that tune.

Queen of Swords

August 6, 2005, 12:01 AM

Genocide is only okay if you happen to be the one controlling the universe

This sounds like a "might makes right" argument to me. Or to rephrase, "he who has the biggest gun makes the rules". I prefer that the rules be decided in a more rational and egalitarian way, rather than acquiescing to whatever a dictator says.

and you have a damn good reason.

So far I have not seen any "damn good reason", or even a "good reason". Saying that everyone was evil doesn't cut it (even if we assume this was true), because you'd still have to justify the deaths of babies and fetuses. God could always have created some new, good people to incubate or raise these children, but perhaps it was easier to drown them all instead?

JGL53

August 6, 2005, 08:29 AM

…They were in an environment where questioning the reigning parading was not a real option - unless you were interested in being a pariah, or moving somewhere else…

Of course, I meant reigning “paradigm�?. :D

This sounds like a "might makes right" argument to me. Or to rephrase, "he who has the biggest gun makes the rules". I prefer that the rules be decided in a more rational and egalitarian way, rather than acquiescing to whatever a dictator says….

Yeah, it’s weird that such people believe the entire universe is a dictatorship, yet they live in a country with a constitution that focuses on representative democratic rights, freedom of belief in religion, freedom of protest, etc. This is why so many fundamentalist christians dislike what the deistic founding fathers did and dream of creating instead a theocracy wherein everyone will be required to acknowledge that jebus is lard. Fucking assholes.

Queen of Swords

August 6, 2005, 08:43 AM

It also occurs to me that if Jenn's god is, in effect, saying, "Hey, I can commit genocide because I created the universe, but you can't", he becomes a do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do kind of god, and I cannot see anything to respect about such hypocrisy. Perhaps he should have eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge himself, then he would know the difference between good and evil.

JEST2ASK

August 6, 2005, 09:40 AM

Angrillori

August 6, 2005, 11:18 AM

He wanted to kill us all off and be done with us. Babies and children are cute and cuddly and sweet, but they grow up. God knew their future. What were all those babies and kids gonna do with no parents if He did spare them?

So he can kill them. He can flood the whole doggone earth. He can create universe. He can create pillars of fire/other random assorted miracles. But there's no possible way in all his omniscience and omnipotence he can figure out to keep the babies alive w/o their original human parents? :confused:

Something doesn't jive there, really...

As to the OP:

Good to hear!
*Puts TexasAWOL on his "good and nice theist posters" list*

TexasAWOL

August 6, 2005, 05:42 PM

Hello & Welcome TexasAWOL :wave:

I agree that the majority of posters are intelligent (you did not say that directly but it is implied) and civil. The general tone is one of honest interchange with a minimal of personal attacks ... I only wish I had discovered something like this when I was (12 - 15 ).

You said that you are not AOL from the miltary so could explain that portion of your name :confused:

I respect You and Jenn6162 for your presentaion of beliefs ...

However as Vinnie (excuse me for any error in paraphasing) and others have suggested perhaps you are reading into the "story" more than the orginal authors (culture) intended ... Note that not just people were destroyed but also animals and vegation ... and what did Noah do we he finally exited the ark -- build and altar and make sacrafices Hmmmm

Sorry for the drive by ... carry on

Hello, from Texas! Nice to meet you....

Yes, You are correct- I didn't directly say it- but yes, I DO believe most of the posters here are intelligent... hey - they know how to log on! :D
LOL :thumbs:

Anyway- thanks for the welcome.

However- I'm not "in" on the "Noah" conversation end of it. that seems to be between Jenn6162 and some other posters- I have "no comment"...

As for my screen name "AWOL".... it means" "A.way (from)"WOL" (the abbreviation of the name of a cult type church I used to attend)....
..... Hense, I am "AWAY" from "WOL"- therefore I am "AWOL"....

at any rate- very nice to meet you....

quit the "drive by" s..... join in more often!!! :wave:

Have a great weekend-
TEXASAWOL :)

TexasAWOL

August 6, 2005, 05:47 PM

Jenn6162

August 6, 2005, 06:11 PM

So he can kill them. He can flood the whole doggone earth. He can create universe. He can create pillars of fire/other random assorted miracles. But there's no possible way in all his omniscience and omnipotence he can figure out to keep the babies alive w/o their original human parents? :confused:

Something doesn't jive there, really...

Once again my apologies to Tex for derailing his thread, then continuing to do so.

If he did that would be one more hard to believe story for athiests to deny. Let's say he did a manna parent from heaven in this instance, would you believe that anymore than the manna from Exodus? Yes I believe God could have done that why He didn't I have no idea He didn't say, but it is Biblical to suggest that "evil" and sin are a generational thing. If that was the case we would have had a whole new generation to grow up and piss God off again.

Jenn6162

August 6, 2005, 06:17 PM

If you add in infinite punishment yeah. I was just discussing the action of destorying the evil people. I was attempting to discuss one issue at a time. No need to frighten off our theist guests with rapid fire on all manner of Christian doctrine.

As for your claim about fixing broken evil I do not think I even agree with that. Theists will claim that "fixing evil" is violating free will. That would essentially be destroying the people so that is actually what God did.

Omnipotence most always has "limits" to theists. Its not a license to do anything like "create round squares" or "force a bad person to be good out of their own free will". This is a contradiction in terms to theists as "evil" and "good" are terms which require volition and usually the concept of free will.

Evil is not a thing or being but a state of a human free will. Evil cannot be "fixed" without violating FW. Evil is defined as a "state of will in non-conformity to God's". Its not something you just "fix" because fixing it requires a person conform their will to God's (that would be a fixing of it).

Can an omnipotent God fix "evil" without violating a person's free will? What this question asks is a contradiction in terms. It may be like asking God to create a round square. While it can be immediately intelligible it is ultimately incoherent.

If you are going to critique theism it doesn't do too much good unless you either use their own terms and definitions or come up with your own and explain why they should be adopted. I'm just trying to work within that framework.

Vinnie

Well said Vinnie. Who's side are you on? I have not come in contact with any athiests who are willing to explain the theist's discussion topics. Thanks so much for making me feel welcome by describing theists as guests. How very sweet of you. I appreciate your debating style. Now get back on your side. lol.

Jenn6162

August 6, 2005, 06:21 PM

Eh? :huh: Noah was a cranky, naked drunkard! Go re-read the story in Genesis, after the ark lands.

I have read it. I get drunk and can be cranky, does that make me a bad person? I have even been drunk and naked. It was awful to wake up and remember what I had done, maybe Noah felt the same?

Pendaric

August 6, 2005, 06:24 PM

David B

August 6, 2005, 06:44 PM

I don't expect you to take any of it. I take the Bible's word for it, for me I believe it is true. I don't expect you to.

Hello again, Jenni. I hope I haven't been nasty to you. I wouldn't have thought so, since I generally adopt the policy 'hate the world view, not the holder of the world view'

Actually, I enjoy talking with the religious. There's always the chance that I might be able to turn a particularly able one, and get another Dan Barker. So I try not to be too abrasive with them.

In fact, I tend to be more abrasive with other atheists, particularly those who I view as being insulting to me while defending some (as I see it) POV which is completely out of touch with reality.

Hard though it may be for you for you to to believe, some atheists are not overwhelmed by my wisdom. :huh: What is more, there are other atheists with whose wisdom I am not overwhelmed, to put it both clumsily and grammatically

But to the point. It strikes me that there are different senses of believing the bible true. There are those, for example, who believe the Biblical accounts of creation to be literally true, despite the indisputable fact that they contradict each other, when interpreted literally. Then there are those (rather more in touch with reality, IMV) who say that of course the Genesis accounts aren't literally true, but there is some sort of allegorical (or whatever) truth to them. Some people who profess themselves to be Christian even dispute the literal truth of the virgin birth, and even the resurrection.

Before I can engage you in discussion as to whether the views that you hold are more sensible and/or in touch with how things actually are in the universe, than mine, it would be helpful to me to know what view I would actually be discussing.

And engaging in some introspection about this question may help you clarify your belief to yourself.

David B (hopes you stick around, and talk things over)

Pendaric

August 6, 2005, 07:03 PM

Jenn is a literal inerrantist, David.

Jenn6162

August 6, 2005, 08:09 PM

Hi Jenn

Just suppose you get to heaven and God turns round and tells you that you got it wrong and you were in the wrong sect of Christianity or whatever. He tells you that you have to spend eternity in hell in everlasting torment.

Would you still think he was the good guy then?

I would try not to think He was a bad guy in hopes that He would let me into heaven. The one thing all Christians as far as I know believe is that Jesus was the son of God, and died on the cross to pay for our sins. Wrong sect shouldn't hurt me.

Jenn6162

August 6, 2005, 08:22 PM

Hello again, Jenni. I hope I haven't been nasty to you. I wouldn't have thought so, since I generally adopt the policy 'hate the world view, not the holder of the world view'

Actually, I enjoy talking with the religious. There's always the chance that I might be able to turn a particularly able one, and get another Dan Barker. So I try not to be too abrasive with them.

In fact, I tend to be more abrasive with other atheists, particularly those who I view as being insulting to me while defending some (as I see it) POV which is completely out of touch with reality.

Hard though it may be for you for you to to believe, some atheists are not overwhelmed by my wisdom. :huh: What is more, there are other atheists with whose wisdom I am not overwhelmed, to put it both clumsily and grammatically

But to the point. It strikes me that there are different senses of believing the bible true. There are those, for example, who believe the Biblical accounts of creation to be literally true, despite the indisputable fact that they contradict each other, when interpreted literally. Then there are those (rather more in touch with reality, IMV) who say that of course the Genesis accounts aren't literally true, but there is some sort of allegorical (or whatever) truth to them. Some people who profess themselves to be Christian even dispute the literal truth of the virgin birth, and even the resurrection.

Before I can engage you in discussion as to whether the views that you hold are more sensible and/or in touch with how things actually are in the universe, than mine, it would be helpful to me to know what view I would actually be discussing.

And engaging in some introspection about this question may help you clarify your belief to yourself.

David B (hopes you stick around, and talk things over)

Hi David.
I feel like people are walking on pins and needles with me lately, I don't need that I just don't like personal insults on my morals and character. Even so thanks for being so nice. :) I am a literal inerrantist. Although inerrantist is a pretty strong statement when it has been translated in so many different ways. I am a KJV kinda girl. I hold a very strong pre-trib belief. I was raised Catholic and Methodist by parents who just went to church cause that's what they were supposed to do. My father is now an athiest. I know very few Christians who are close friends. I would consider myself a fundy Baptist, but I don't go to church. I hold a YEC view, but I am not dogmatic about it. Honestly I don't care how the earth was created. I hold a literal interpretation, because I don't see how one could interpret somethings literally and some things metaphorically(sp?). Seems inconsistent to me. Having said that I have been studying my Bible for about 5 years, but called myself a Christian most of my life. I have a lot more learning to do, and I don't claim to have all the answers.

Vinnie

August 6, 2005, 10:40 PM

My father is now an athiest.

Haven't you ever heard the expression, "Daddy knows best"? ;) :)

Well said Vinnie. Who's side are you on?

I'm on Spinoza's side: "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them." Well, the humor section of my site doesn't follow this but I'm trying to adopt it when discussing things with people.

I have not come in contact with any athiests who are willing to explain the theist's discussion topics.

I am a skeptical activists which entials correcting thinking "mistakes" wherever I see them. Besides, I think there are enough difficulties with theism already. We don't need to make any up ;)

But the truth is that some apologetics do make sense. Others don't. In the case of the flood I think my logic holds sway. All the people are evil, so God was justified in what he did but in the case of the innocent children an omnipotent God is not justified, IMO.

Thanks so much for making me feel welcome by describing theists as guests. How very sweet of you. I appreciate your debating style.

You are very much welcome!

Now get back on your side. lol.

On guard! ;)

Vinnie

Enlighten Me

August 6, 2005, 11:39 PM

I hold a literal interpretation, because I don't see how one could interpret somethings literally and some things metaphorically(sp?). Seems inconsistent to me. Having said that I have been studying my Bible for about 5 years, but called myself a Christian most of my life. I have a lot more learning to do, and I don't claim to have all the answers.

Do you have children whom you beat, as the Bible instructs, Jenn?

Godless Wonder

August 6, 2005, 11:51 PM

If you add in infinite punishment yeah. I was just discussing the action of destorying the evil people. I was attempting to discuss one issue at a time. No need to frighten off our theist guests with rapid fire on all manner of Christian doctrine.

As for your claim about fixing broken evil I do not think I even agree with that. Theists will claim that "fixing evil" is violating free will. That would essentially be destroying the people so that is actually what God did.

Omnipotence most always has "limits" to theists. Its not a license to do anything like "create round squares" or "force a bad person to be good out of their own free will". This is a contradiction in terms to theists as "evil" and "good" are terms which require volition and usually the concept of free will.

Evil is not a thing or being but a state of a human free will. Evil cannot be "fixed" without violating FW. Evil is defined as a "state of will in non-conformity to God's". Its not something you just "fix" because fixing it requires a person conform their will to God's (that would be a fixing of it).

Can an omnipotent God fix "evil" without violating a person's free will? What this question asks is a contradiction in terms. It may be like asking God to create a round square. While it can be immediately intelligible it is ultimately incoherent.

If you are going to critique theism it doesn't do too much good unless you either use their own terms and definitions or come up with your own and explain why they should be adopted. I'm just trying to work within that framework.

Vinnie

Hmm. Well, first off, I think "free will" is an incoherent concept, but I also am aware that most theists don't so think. I think (donning theist hat . . . ooh, it feels . . . stupid) if the argument holds that the potter is free to destroy his pots, then free will, being such a "pot' is fair game for destruction. How is drowning people any less a violation of free will than "fixing" the people not to be so "evil?" I suppose in potter's terms, it is the difference between taking a pot and making a correction and just smashing the thing and starting over. Problem is, the potter in this case is a perfect, omniscient potter, supposedly, so even his "mistakes" are perfect, right? Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Queen of Swords

August 7, 2005, 12:51 AM

If he did that would be one more hard to believe story for athiests to deny. Let's say he did a manna parent from heaven in this instance, would you believe that anymore than the manna from Exodus?

Belief and plausibility are not the point here, Jenn. Compassion is the point. Is it more compassionate to kill children or to provide parents for them?

Yes I believe God could have done that why He didn't I have no idea He didn't say, but it is Biblical to suggest that "evil" and sin are a generational thing. If that was the case we would have had a whole new generation to grow up and piss God off again.

In that case, why did god allow these children to be conceived and born, when he knew they were going to be evil, sinful little rats whose destiny was to be killed? Why allow them to exist at all, if they were only going to be one more generation that pissed him off?

I am sure you would recommend to people who do not like children and do not want to have children that they should refrain from sex or use contraceptives, rather than having abortions. Likewise, a god who cared anything about children should have prevented their conceptions, rather than killing them after they were born.

David B

August 7, 2005, 06:45 AM

Hi David.
I feel like people are walking on pins and needles with me lately, I don't need that I just don't like personal insults on my morals and character.

I wouldn't take it too personally. The posts I've seen have, I think, tried to point out to you the difficulty of holding a position whereby god is infinitely food, and also commands genocide. Sometimes quite forcefully. Even so thanks for being so nice. :)

No prob! I am a literal inerrantist. Although inerrantist is a pretty strong statement when it has been translated in so many different ways.

Yeah, that's a problem. 'Inerrantist' seems to me a pretty absolute term. Would you put the differences between the biblical accounts of creation down to translation problems? And once you start doing things like that, then where do you stop? I, on th other hand, see many errors in the Bible. I've read convincing evidence (from Christian scolars, as I recall) which put the book of Daniel hundreds of years from where it is supposed to be. And I just don't believe the supernatural claims. However, lots of self professed Christians manage to maintain their religion despite accepting that parts of the Biblee are not literally true. I believe some of it is true, especially those bits that tie in with other contemporary historical sources or with achaeological evidence, and preferably both.

I hold a very strong pre-trib belief.

I don't think that 'pre-trib' is a common expresson on my side of the pond. I've never come across it before. I could have a guess at it's meaning, but could you please explain it?

I would consider myself a fundy Baptist, but I don't go to church.

Is that not a bit unusual? Still, having the courage to seek out alternative views, and putting yourself up to be (metaphorically) shot at is also unusual, and shows a certain courage and independence of thought.

I hold a YEC view, but I am not dogmatic about it. Honestly I don't care how the earth was created.

I, OTOH, don't hold a YEC view, and I do care how the earth came to be. Different folks, different strokes, I spose. I've always been fascinated by the nature of the universe, the nature of life, of humanity, and the relationships between them. The YEC view seems to be so out of kilter with the evidence in the rocks that it seems to me that the only way it could be defended is by postulating a god who created the Earth, and also set up a lot of evidence that is completely misleading. This seems to me both remarkably far fetched, and also hard to reconcile with a god who values truth, and is Good.

I hold a literal interpretation, because I don't see how one could interpret somethings literally and some things metaphorically(sp?). Seems inconsistent to me.

Yes, I can see your problem. On one hand you have the problems of reconciling the Biblical accounts of creation (among many other things) with the findings of a modern science that is good enough to have aeroplanes and computers and space missions, and of reconciling the biblical accounts with each other. Have you looked at the two accounts of creation that I maintain are inconsistent with each other yet?

OTOH, once you start not believing the literal truth of the whole bible, you have the problem of knowing where to stop. However, as I say, many professed Christians manage to do this. My opinion is that, if you are going to be a Christian, this is the sensible line to take. It has the virtues of not forcing you to defend genocide by god, and not forcing you to defend a lot of things that really have been demonstrated wrong by science (unless, as say, you postulate a god who sets up evidence that the biblical accounts are wrong, for his own purposes)

Having said that I have been studying my Bible for about 5 years, but called myself a Christian most of my life. I have a lot more learning to do, and I don't claim to have all the answers.

We all have more learning to do, and none of us have all the answers, IMV. I would suggest that you watch the sort of documentaries made by David Attenbourgh (Sp?) and others, and read some popular science books on the origins of the Earth, of humanity, etc, and also perhaps look at the work of biblical scholars, Christian and other, to see why they think that not all the bible is literally true.

David B

Vinnie

August 7, 2005, 10:21 AM

Pre-trib is an eschatological or end time belief. Some Xians feel the rapture will occur before the tribulation and some after (post-trib). There are also some mediating positions such as mid-tribulationism, partial rapture, imminent post-trib. Then there are also dispensationalists. As far as millenial views go, there is post-mil, pre-mil and a-mil (no earthly 1,000 year ruling of Christ). Christians agree the Lord is retuning but after that they can't agree on much more.

Pre-trib's first defect is its weakness of evidence for any moment imminence. Cited scripture often does not evidence their claims. Their arguments usually do not follow (Christ's coming and imminence) and several parables would suggest a delay (the noble man who went to a far country, the wise and foolish virgins and the talents. In addition the perable of the servants teaches a delay--testing time and pre-tribers often translate 2 Thes 2:3 incorrectly (it means apostasy or departure from faith). Further the rapture is supposed to be all inconspicuous to non-believers but one of the passage where they see a description of the rapture is 1 The 4:16-17. But this passage has less than inconspicuous elements: with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, with the sound of the trumpet of God. This makes the event sound unmistakable, not inconspicuous. Post-tribers's view is more likely thta this occurs not to a "coming for" of the church but to a single, second advent of Christ.

For a guide to Christian eschatology which points out strengths and weaknesses of each perspective (from a scriptural point of view), see Erickson's A Basic Guide to Eschatology.

All these different views and there is supposed to be a Holy Spirit guiding the Church? :p

Vinnie

August 7, 2005, 10:52 AM

Hmm. Well, first off, I think "free will" is an incoherent concept,

Its hard not to embrace a mechanical bottom-up view of humans. All of science would seem to lead here. Yet I certainly do feel a holistic sense of freedom and "choice" appears to be one of the most rudimentary concepts of our existence. It covers all areas of life and I would have difficulty denying its relevance. I just don't know how "choice" is "choice" since its really something in my brain forcing me in every instance to do what I do (I don't have a choice, as the gases and parts in my brain are going to act as they are supposed to--according to chemical and physical laws-- and compel me to do what I am destined to do). So consciousness is bottom up mechanics (what else could it be?). Yet Polkinghorne's (a Christian scientist not of the Yec variety) top-down holistic causality doesn't require God of any sort and though its all tentative guesswork now and may have no bearing on how the brain works, it leaves a little tiny bit of room open for open-ness. Curious readings but I kind of admit my bias. I like to think of myself as "genuinely free" and hope springs eternal. But I feel free and choice seems real so I just live accordingly (not that I have a choice?) :D

How is drowning people any less a violation of free will than "fixing" the people not to be so "evil?" I suppose in potter's terms, it is the difference between taking a pot and making a correction and just smashing the thing and starting over.

If we keep the pot analogy maybe they look at it like this:

Destroying (drowning) the pot ends the person's ability to make choices (so their ability to express free will is terminated by death). God can't take away their ability to choose evil and have them still be "pots", they would be something entirely different.

Problem is, the potter in this case is a perfect, omniscient potter, supposedly, so even his "mistakes" are perfect, right? Yeah, right.

According to Xians, God doesn't make "mistakes" but he lamented that he made humans which means he felt he made a mistake :D Was he mistaken? I don't remember how inerrancy advocates wiggle out of this one.

Vinnie

JGL53

August 7, 2005, 12:28 PM

Hmm. Well, first off, I think "free will" is an incoherent concept, but I also am aware that most theists don't so think. I think… if the argument holds that the potter is free to destroy his pots, then free will, being such a "pot' is fair game for destruction. How is drowning people any less a violation of free will than "fixing" the people not to be so "evil?" I suppose in potter's terms, it is the difference between taking a pot and making a correction and just smashing the thing and starting over. Problem is, the potter in this case is a perfect, omniscient potter, supposedly, so even his "mistakes" are perfect, right?...

The potter/clay pots or creator/created metaphor is just plain childish, in my humble opinion, yet it is the basis of western monotheism - which is why I view western monotheism as basically just plain childish.

The Chinese Taoist metaphor is one of an utter oneness that spontaneously evolves or spontaneously flowers, like a living organism - a plant or tree is the usual metaphor. In Vedanta (Hinduism) god is all (pantheism) and purposely creates, sustains, and destroys manifestations of himself in great cycles of time, all for his own entertainment - so their metaphor for reality is a drama (a comedy/tragedy that is ultimately pure comedy).

Both of these latter traditions are based on a view of reality as being an utter oneness, ultimately, which amazingly parallels the focus of modern western science – an attempt at reductionism to find or define the ultimate unified force - The One (The Absolute, The Undifferentiated) in other words.

All three views - Vedanta (and later Buddhism), Chinese Taoism, and modern science (which assumes philosophical "materialism") are all rather sophisticated ways or attempts to understand reality in comparison to western monotheism (Islam, christianity, and Judaism) – all of which have their origins in animism, belief in sheer magic, totem and taboo, fear and selfish desire.

Jobar

August 7, 2005, 12:35 PM

Howdy, Tex. Welcome to Dodge. :)

What we try (not always successfully) to maintain here is a place where those who want to ask questions or state positions nicely, are treated nicely. However, the positions themselves- the philosophies or theologies being expressed- those are always exposed to the slings, arrows, bullets, and bombs of the opposition.

If you can grok that you are not the ideas you hold, you can do wonderfully here, no matter what you believe (or don't believe.) But if you identify too closely with your ideas, then when your ideas are attacked- and I promise you, if you put them in print here they will be attacked- you will feel that you personally are being abused.

It's been my long experience that few Christians- few people of any sort- have the dispassion to never ever mistake an attack on their beliefs as an attack on them personally. We do have some of that sort who post here. If you're one of those, we'll all find that out fairly quick.

Since you've shown yourself to be up to my own Suthun Gentleman standard of good manners so far, I'll give you my oft-repeated 'warning to theists'-

I have told this to other Christians who have come here- I want to give you fair and plain warning. Your faith is at risk here. You may scoff at me when I say this, maybe even get angry and self-righteous. But if you remain here, and actually listen to us instead of only trying to preach to us, you may, suddenly or slowly, find your faith, which you think to be solid rock, shattering beneath your feet like rotten ice.

We are worshipers of truth here. Note I don't capitalize it and call it Truth; that would imply that I consider it to be something established and absolute, unchangeable and unquestionable. No. The truth we seek is always open to new questions! We worship an admittedly approximate, but constantly improving, vision. We welcome new questions fully as much as we revere new answers.

We consider the Bible- the Truth you may consider unquestionable- to be, at the very best, a version of truth grown stale, and petrified, and proven largely untruthful long long ago. We can demonstrate that untruth- with vast numbers of things undreamt of in your theology. Bones. Telescopes. Photographs. Medicines. Computers! Philosophies and ideas so far beyond the tiny tinkertoy universe described by your holy book, that even the wisest on the Earth from that time could not understand, which even elementary school students of today can explain.

If you would keep your faith, and continue to believe your world is flat, and less than ten thousand years old- flee. Now. We will not pursue you.

But if you come here and ask, we'll try to teach you of these truths we are sure of, and we will also tell you of the things we are *not* sure of. We'll try to correct your mistakes, as gently as we (in our individual, harried, and humanly fallible ways) are able.

We will try to tell you the truth.

For believers, II is a lion's den, never doubt it. If you can stay gentle as a lamb and wise as a fox, we lions will lie down and converse with you- but we will inexorably question your deepest and fondest beliefs.

One more thing. In the more than four years I've been posting on II, there have been 2 atheists who 're-converted' to some form of theism. Both were highly unusual. Neither of those were in any way *intellectually* honest, IMO.

In that same time, there have been some dozens of committed theists who came here and became atheists or agnostics. This forum is an acid test for faith.

So, while we're happy to have you here, and we look forward to getting to know you as a person, as a theist you may find II a dangerous and unpleasant place.

Fencesitter

August 7, 2005, 01:02 PM

For believers, II is a lion's den, never doubt it. If you can stay gentle as a lamb and wise as a fox, we lions will lie down and converse with you- but we will inexorably question your deepest and fondest beliefs.

One more thing. In the more than four years I've been posting on II, there have been 2 atheists who 're-converted' to some form of theism. Both were highly unusual. Neither of those were in any way *intellectually* honest, IMO.

In that same time, there have been some dozens of committed theists who came here and became atheists or agnostics. This forum is an acid test for faith.

So, while we're happy to have you here, and we look forward to getting to know you as a person, as a theist you may find II a dangerous and unpleasant place.

While that may be true, for those who stayed and were able to stomach some of the questions around here, many had their faith strengthened.

In this recent poll, 11 out of 14 theist respondents said that their faith was strengthened by posting here. 1 said that their belief hadn't changed and only 2 claimed that their belief was weakened.

What impact has IIDB had on your religious beliefs? (revised version) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=127062)

And from other polls, there aren't a whole lot more than 14 theists that are regulars here. Lots of drive-bys, though.

Fence

Columbus

August 7, 2005, 03:01 PM

While that may be true, for those who stayed and were able to stomach some of the questions around here, many had their faith strengthened.

In this recent poll, 11 out of 14 theist respondents said that their faith was strengthened by posting here. 1 said that their belief hadn't changed and only 2 claimed that their belief was weakened.

What impact has IIDB had on your religious beliefs? (revised version) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=127062)

And from other polls, there aren't a whole lot more than 14 theists that are regulars here. Lots of drive-bys, though.

FenceI cannot claim to know why there are so many theistic drivebys. But I find the most logical explanation to be: most theists look around IIDB and realize that they are either going to have to defend their beliefs or look like idiots, if they stay. They find skeptics with solid knowledge of the Bible, solid morality, and these skeptics can't be shouted down or ignored. So most theists just leave.

My hat is off to those who can "take the heat". :notworthy You are why I find this forum interesting, not the skeptics with whom I already agree!

Tom

Jenn6162

August 7, 2005, 03:16 PM

Do you have children whom you beat, as the Bible instructs, Jenn?

I guess I am out of God's will on this subject, if I thought a beating is what my children needed I would do it. The punishment I prefer with my children is sit ups, it is the punishment that keeps on hurting the next day. My children know that if they disobey me, their stomachs will hurt. 10 for the first offense, 20 for the second or for hurting each other. For something they have been told repeatedly 40 sit ups. That being said they are pretty good kids.

Jenn6162

August 7, 2005, 03:26 PM

Belief and plausibility are not the point here, Jenn. Compassion is the point. Is it more compassionate to kill children or to provide parents for them?
To answer your question it would have been ideal in my view to provide parents for them, but then we have that problem of generational sin.

In that case, why did god allow these children to be conceived and born, when he knew they were going to be evil, sinful little rats whose destiny was to be killed? Why allow them to exist at all, if they were only going to be one more generation that pissed him off?
I cannot answer your question, I cannot possibly understand why God does the things He does. Free will created those babies, I trust that they were under the age for accountability and they went to heaven.
I am sure you would recommend to people who do not like children and do not want to have children that they should refrain from sex or use contraceptives, rather than having abortions. Likewise, a god who cared anything about children should have prevented their conceptions, rather than killing them after they were born.
People make choices. God is not going to keep everything in His perfect will all the time. I think that is a bit irrational, if that is what He wanted, He probably would have created robots. The world is a messy place with a lot of heartbreak. If we believe in God, which I know you do not, should a believer second guess every decision He makes without the knowledge of the outcome or circumstances? I don't think a Bible story could possibly cover every aspect of the questions anyone would want to know the answer to. That would be one long book, probably full of things we couldn't comprehend anyway.

CowboyHeretic

August 7, 2005, 03:47 PM

I cannot claim to know why there are so many theistic drivebys. But I find the most logical explanation to be: most theists look around IIDB and realize that they are either going to have to defend their beliefs or look like idiots, if they stay. They find skeptics with solid knowledge of the Bible, solid morality, and these skeptics can't be shouted down or ignored. So most theists just leave.

My hat is off to those who can "take the heat". :notworthy You are why I find this forum interesting, not the skeptics with whom I already agree!

Tom

Well I get frustrated at the self appointed deconstructionists. There's too much BS time spent on minutia.

Jenn6162

August 7, 2005, 04:02 PM

Yeah, that's a problem. 'Inerrantist' seems to me a pretty absolute term. Would you put the differences between the biblical accounts of creation down to translation problems? And once you start doing things like that, then where do you stop? I, on th other hand, see many errors in the Bible. I've read convincing evidence (from Christian scolars, as I recall) which put the book of Daniel hundreds of years from where it is supposed to be. And I just don't believe the supernatural claims. However, lots of self professed Christians manage to maintain their religion despite accepting that parts of the Biblee are not literally true. I believe some of it is true, especially those bits that tie in with other contemporary historical sources or with achaeological evidence, and preferably both.
I believe in a YEC, but I don't believe it was actually six days. A day to the Lord is as a thousand years to us. Evolution is something I have a hard time getting interested in. Apes to people? I don't get it, then again I just don't find it interesting. Everyone has their own interests, mine is in the human body. I find the human body to be an amazing creature, with the brain and the body communicating perfectly. I am a nurse in the field of pediatric cancer. We do a lot of amazing research at our hospital. I have hope that a cure will be found. Cancer is every parents worst nightmare, there is no perfect cure. I love the medical field, so I hope you will forgive me if I don't get interested in creation. I am just glad we were created.

I don't think that 'pre-trib' is a common expresson on my side of the pond. I've never come across it before. I could have a guess at it's meaning, but could you please explain it?

My thanks to Vinnie for stepping up to answer this. What are you doing on my side again Vinnie? Kidding. Saved me a lot of time.

Is that not a bit unusual? Still, having the courage to seek out alternative views, and putting yourself up to be (metaphorically) shot at is also unusual, and shows a certain courage and independence of thought.

I am a very independent thinker, thanks for making the observation. I am not one who feels the need to look or act smart. I am still picked on by my friends who think I am just another religious freak. Jesus freak is what they call me. They like me so I am fine with the title. I don't attend church, because I think it is more important to spend time with my family. I also work crazy shifts. I have noticed that many Christians go to church on Sunday, then don't pick up their Bibles or think about God until the next Sunday. I am not judging them, but my faith is with me all the time. Maybe one day I will make a commitment to go to church, but right now it is not on my to do list.

I, OTOH, don't hold a YEC view, and I do care how the earth came to be. Different folks, different strokes, I spose. I've always been fascinated by the nature of the universe, the nature of life, of humanity, and the relationships between them. The YEC view seems to be so out of kilter with the evidence in the rocks that it seems to me that the only way it could be defended is by postulating a god who created the Earth, and also set up a lot of evidence that is completely misleading. This seems to me both remarkably far fetched, and also hard to reconcile with a god who values truth, and is Good.

I am glad that you have that passion. The reason I don't study it is because I don't consider it to be important to my faith. I know there are many Christians who believe in evolution. I wouldn't argue with them, they belie