James 3:15 For jealousy and selfishness are not god's kind of wisdom. Such things are earthly, unspiritual, and motivated by the devil.

Exodus 34:14 Do not worship any other god, for the lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god.

How would you, (the religious man), reconcile this? On the one hand god happily declaring that he is jealous, (so much so that he states his name is Jealous), and on the other hand we clearly see the bible stating that jealousy is earthly, unspritual and motivated by the devil.

Has god been motivated by the devil as the text would imply?

I'm just interested to see you all defend something so vehemently if your god does it, but claim it as evil if any human does the same.

I think the differing contexts point plainly to differing meanings SnakeLord. And what version are you using for James 3:15? I looked it up but I see differently.

Not that I am religious, but I think we can agree that there can be no discrepancy if the texts differ contextually. If you don't agree, tell us what you think the contexts of the respective verses are. Secondly, I think any remaining problem is simply one of anthropomorphism.

***

Who said jealousy was evil? That is an absurd notion.

Why are we disturbed by the contradictions of jealousy? I am more concerned with the statement on selfishness.

§outh§tar: Not that I am religious, but I think we can agree that there can be no discrepancy if the texts differ contextually. If you don't agree, tell us what you think the contexts of the respective verses are. Secondly, I think any remaining problem is simply one of anthropomorphism.
*************
M*W: SS, I've been meaning to ask you what the turning point was for you. This post jogged my memory. I now believe that Atheism is a process, at least it was for me. It happened gradually over many years. Only recently I believed that Jesus existed, but now I can see that it was all myth. I am currently researching the existence of Abraham and his clan, Moses and David. I'm beginning to think that none of them existed and the stories that were told were simply older myths with new names.

I'd really like to hear from you. If you would rather PM me, that's fine. You are truly an inspiration.

I am going to through the natives a M16 assault rifle to see if they can figure out how to use it.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b08.html

and page two: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b08aa.html

I think the differing contexts point plainly to differing meanings SnakeLord.

How do you figure that? The context is that jealousy is earthly, unspiritual and motivated by the devil. That is the biblical stance on jealousy as spoken by James. As a result to that, god stating he is jealous brings James' statements into play.

Unless you're telling me he's referring to a different "version" of jealousy?

And what version are you using for James 3:15? I looked it up but I see differently.

Why would that matter? The bible is the bible.. no?

Who said jealousy was evil? That is an absurd notion.


isnt envy one of the seven deadly sins?

I would be interested to know what "translation" you are getting that quote from snakelord

James 3NKJV
13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. 15 This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. 16 For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there.

All Praise The Ancient of Days

I would be interested to know what "translation" you are getting that quote from snakelord

As I said earlier, I don't see what difference it would make. The bible is the bible.

However as it's merely out of interest, These come from the NJV and the new believers bible.

I would be interested to know what "translation" you are getting that quote from snakelord why not try answering the original post, instead of diverting the attention away, with this inane rubbish.
"which version".
does it matter thay all say basically the same thing.

NJV James 3:15 For jealousy and selfishness are not god's kind of wisdom. Such things are earthly, unspiritual, and motivated by the devil.

NKJV James 3:14 But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. 15 This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic.

RSV James 3:14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth.
15 This wisdom is not such as comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish.

KJV James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

HCSV James 3:14 But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition in your heart, don't brag and lie in defiance of the truth. 15 Such wisdom does not come down from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic.

NASV James 3:14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. 15 This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic.

why not just admit you cant find the answer.

What I've been getting at is the typical religious response to emotions such as jealousy. They have often told me, (yes even several christian on this forum), that jealousy is that bad - and cite the case where Cain, through jealousy, killed his brother Abel. They cite it as evil, as sin. I backed that stance up by showing James - who mentions how abhorrent jealousy actually is.

The thing is, these very same people will justify it if god does the exact same thing. In Exodus he mentions how jealous he is concerning people worshipping idols and other gods, and then exterminates a whole heap of jews just to show the level to which his jealousy burns.

Cain kills one person and get's scalded by the religious masses, god does the very same thing on a mass scale and gets praised.

What I'm looking for is the all-clear:

"Jealousy is fine and harmless [regardless to whether it leads to loss of life]" or an understanding that jealousy is serious evil as James states - and then that god is also a victim of this evil - which he is more than happy to tell the world.

Or we could just skip the whole thing and you can just continue worrying about what specific versions use what specific word - as if it makes a difference.

How do you figure that? The context is that jealousy is earthly, unspiritual and motivated by the devil. That is the biblical stance on jealousy as spoken by James. As a result to that, god stating he is jealous brings James' statements into play.

Unless you're telling me he's referring to a different "version" of jealousy?

Do you know what anthropomorphism is?

You are not talking to a Christian so I don't need to adhere to any fundy rules (ie. James and Exodus are both literal in nature etc). The context tells me that a God is being referred to in human terms.

Why would that matter? The bible is the bible.. no?

We both know it's not so just be kind and tell me.

Do you know what anthropomorphism is?

Yes. Thank you for asking.

You are not talking to a Christian so I don't need to adhere to any fundy rules

But my post was directed to a christian.

The context tells me that a God is being referred to in human terms.

Which is pointless to the question. I'm an atheist - in my view there is no way it could be in anything other than 'human terms', because there is no god. That is not the point or purpose of my post.

We both know it's not so just be kind and tell me.

A) Once again - it doesn't make a difference

B) I already have.

Once you've finished talking down to me like I'm a three year old, take some time to actually work out the reason behind my post, and who it's directed at. Understood?

Sorry, I didn't mean to patronize you. Regardless of whether or not we look at it from a theist's POV, I think we can still agree that one refers to a supernatural being in human terms and one refers to natural beings in human terms. I initially thought it might be of some use if you didn't understand why there appeared to be a discrepancy but I see differently now.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

What I've been getting at is the typical religious response to emotions such as jealousy. They have often told me, (yes even several christian on this forum), that jealousy is that bad - and cite the case where Cain, through jealousy, killed his brother Abel. They cite it as evil, as sin. I backed that stance up by showing James - who mentions how abhorrent jealousy actually is.

The thing is, these very same people will justify it if god does the exact same thing. In Exodus he mentions how jealous he is concerning people worshipping idols and other gods, and then exterminates a whole heap of jews just to show the level to which his jealousy burns.

Cain kills one person and get's scalded by the religious masses, god does the very same thing on a mass scale and gets praised.

What I'm looking for is the all-clear:

"Jealousy is fine and harmless [regardless to whether it leads to loss of life]" or an understanding that jealousy is serious evil as James states - and then that god is also a victim of this evil - which he is more than happy to tell the world.

Or we could just skip the whole thing and you can just continue worrying about what specific versions use what specific word - as if it makes a difference.

The problem is you are looking at God as if he is a man like you. God is, well God he is not human, Its not like He is an increadably advanced being and where just not as advanced as Him. No He is God.

Now God can be Jealous without a problem, He can Kill without a problem, Because He is God. The restrictions He places on us come from the fact that we are not Gods. We are just sabotaged humans who have more knowledge than we can justly handle. We where not originally designed to have this knowledge we have.

So God is not a man and Men are not Gods therefore God can justly handle the knowledge of Good and evil, we cannot. Therefore we need to follow His guidance to limit our damaging impact on others and ourselves.

That’s about the best way i can explain it in simple terms.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Ohh I just read the remaining posts in this thread and this came up:

Which is pointless to the question. I'm an atheist - in my view there is no way it could be in anything other than 'human terms', because there is no god. That is not the point or purpose of my post.

Exactly, you see God in "human terms" your understanding is trapped. Because you do not believe in God.

1 Corrinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I've posted this quite a few times before, but here it is again: a deconstruction of the Hebrew word, "Creator"
Pronunciation: "QaNeH"
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19;

"God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth".

The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.

Pronunciation: "QaNA"
Comments: This child root is to guard (often translated as Jealous). A bird watches over the eggs and young with jealousy and will defend them from the enemy and prevent any other bird from entering the nest. This is the picture that the Hebrews had of God as in Exodus 34.14;

"Do not worship any other god, for yhwh (the Lord), whose name is jealous (qana), is a jealous (qana) God".

Just as a bird watches over her eggs from predetors, God also watches over his children in his nest protecting them from predetors - other gods.

source: Ancient Hebrew word studies: Creator (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/3_creator.html)

Now God can be Jealous without a problem, He can Kill without a problem, Because He is God


How is this not a problem? Please do not answer saying "because he's god". What I'm hearing from you is because God is God he can rape, kill, steal, do anything on the face of this earth and it will be correct just because of who he is. Doesn't seem to set a very good example. Of course "do as I say not as I do" never really does.

This does not set well with me - I simply cannot understand that type of reasoning. So if you could dummy it down for me and further explain how it is not a problem, I'd appreciate it.



Exactly, you see God in "human terms" your understanding is trapped. Because you do not believe in God.

1 Corrinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


Then how is one ever converted to christianity? If they are an atheist and therefore cannot know the things of "god" how do they ever??? I know some atheists turned christian... According to this..I just don't see how it's possible.

Regardless of whether or not we look at it from a theist's POV, I think we can still agree that one refers to a supernatural being in human terms and one refers to natural beings in human terms.

Well, it's certainly dependant upon the notion that the bible is god's word, dictated by god, from god.

If it is, and I was a believer, then I would trust that god's ancient Hebrew was fluent enough for him to be able to convey exactly what he intended to convey. A religious man does not dismiss "thou shalt not kill", because it's just 'human terms'. Who knows, maybe god meant something completely different, like "thou should kill frequently", but we just couldn't understand what he was saying.

If he wants to say: "I am jealous", a believer should trust that he is competent enough to realise that what he is saying is for the 'benefit' of the humans and thus needs to be readily understood by their understanding.

It's like reading a Shakespeare novel to a dog. It would be meaningless. As a result you talk to it on a level that it can understand. The smart and appropriate method with which to dictate to a 'lesser' being is by communicating on it's level of understanding.

If he had have meant to confuse humans he would have just used "god words" like: akbnkbnriobeirbibrkebkrjbkjb instead of talking to them in their human language.

When god says: "I am jealous", a believer should trust that he wants to convey a feeling that he has that can be understood by humans, appreciated by humans, and indeed, (if we are made in his likeness), shared by humans [although perhaps to a lesser degree].

When people say "love", you could state that humans have love, and god has love. Believers would state that god's love is far above ours, so would not the same be true of every other kind of emotion? When a man loves, god loves more, to a higher degree, when a man has wrath it cannot in any way compete with the god version of wrath, and as a logical addition to that: man's jealousy is only a fraction of what god's jealousy is. It doesn't make the emotion different, just greater.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

It's all good, forget about it :)

The problem is you are looking at God as if he is a man like you. God is, well God he is not human, Its not like He is an increadably advanced being and where just not as advanced as Him. No He is God.

Tell me something, am I permitted to use this quote any time you say god is loving, or that god cares, or that god 'wants' man to love him?

What you've broken this down to is that none of us have the slightest clue, and that any mention of god, (in any manner), is utterly worthless.

I mean c'mon, god is not a man, love is bloody meaningless. It's just a bunch of chemical reactions that man "suffers" from. No godly being would suffer from such petty emotions.. right?

But of course not, you'll happily describe god down to a T, but the minute someone describes something that you don't personally like or agree with, we fall back on the lame argument of: "god is above you, he's not human, you can't talk about him in human terms".

As a result: god is meaningless. You might aswell just say woojooboojoo, because it means just as much from a human point of view.

However, as a believer you should trust in your god's ability to communicate on a human level whereby humans can fully understand what he's getting at. (I don't see you complaining about the ten commandments - oh no, he said that in perfectly understandable ancient Hebrew).

From now on don't even bother claiming god is loving or caring, or wants this or that.. You're just giving me 'human term' gibberish.

Now God can be Jealous without a problem, He can Kill without a problem, Because He is God.

While you can use that excuse, it is quite sickening to hear. Heart has pointed this out, but all you're saying is that you have the right to squash a worm because you're above him. While some would happily agree with that statement - and proceed to squash some worms, it is indeed very very sickening - and shows the level of god to be far below that of man, (most men).

We where not originally designed to have this knowledge we have.

Well of course we were, unless you're happy to claim that god fucked up? He planted the tree, (knowing man would eat), he planted the snake, (knowing man would listen to it) - he must have designed man to do it, and thus gain the knowledge he supposedly didn't want us to have. I know, you'll say "free will", but then who planted that free will, (to act as it does), in humanity?

Besides which, I consider it a very worthwhile thing to have.. I can't speak for you, but I'm very happy to understand that murder is wrong. I'm very happy to understand that homosexuality is wrong, (etc etc). Without that knowledge we would have no morals whatsoever. We could fart in god's face without understandable consequence and so on.

You guys would have no reason to listen to jesus - because it simply wouldn't mean anything. You guys wouldn't appreciate that you're sinners - because you wouldn't understand sin.

Without that knowledge you would be an animal. There would be no difference between you and a lion, you and a frog, you and a tyrannosaurus rex.

It's strange to see a person who most likely considers man as "important", wanting to be on the same level as a hedgehog or pubic louse.

So God is not a man and Men are not Gods therefore God can justly handle the knowledge of Good and evil, we cannot.

So what you're saying is you would rather be back in the position of not understanding good and evil? A position whereby murder has no consequence, where theft doesn't mean anything, where love has no value?

Therefore we need to follow His guidance to limit our damaging impact on others and ourselves.

What guidance would that be exactly? I mean, are we free to just choose what guidance to follow and what to ignore? If yes - the laws become meaningless, if no - we should all be stoning our naughty sons, prostitutes and Sunday workers to death. Tell me, in that instance how does gods guidance limit our damage to others?

Exactly, you see God in "human terms" your understanding is trapped. Because you do not believe in God.

Everyone would have to see god in 'human terms', because we're all humans - regardless to religious or non-religious views. As such all our understanding is 'trapped'. Loving, caring, wanting, all go out the window aswell as anything else man has ever inferred about a god being.

Just as a bird watches over her eggs from predetors, God also watches over his children in his nest protecting them from predetors - other gods.

Let's look at your quote: A bird watches over her eggs, (young), from predators. By the same token you would have to state that, (if "god" works to this analogy), that god watches over his children from those against his children. Instead, our analogy would turn out thus:

A bird kills its own young when they don't do exactly what he says. If the young bird flaps it's wings incorrectly, the father bird swiftly decapitates it.

Jenyar, I won't speak for you personally, but in general a persons offspring are not his predators. The predators are the ones trying to harm your offspring.

Take a look at the ten plagues issue. The Egyptians had the jews as slaves. God killed them all, (even though purposely keeping his children as slaves for longer just to inflict pain). That is parenting: Protect your children from enemies, (although it would stand to reason that Egyptians were as much his children as the jews were). Not kill your own children when there aren't any enemies.

Here's a reality for you Jenyar whether you accept it or not: The christian/jewish god has killed more humans than any other being in the history of mankind. Nothing else even comes close. This you cannot debate against.

Does that sound like: "a bird protecting it's eggs" to you?

If so you must know very little about birds.

Further to which, your last sentence is kind of meaningless. You state that god is protecting us from non-existant beings, (by killing us). That equates to you slaughtering your child because he has an imaginary friend.

You know the 'friend' is not real, and to protect him from what is not real, you give him plague and kill him.

Dude, your analogy sucks.

"Now God can be Jealous without a problem, He can Kill without a problem, Because He is God
”


How is this not a problem? Please do not answer saying "because he's god". What I'm hearing from you is because God is God he can rape, kill, steal, do anything on the face of this earth and it will be correct just because of who he is. Doesn't seem to set a very good example. Of course "do as I say not as I do" never really does.

This does not set well with me - I simply cannot understand that type of reasoning. So if you could dummy it down for me and further explain how it is not a problem, I'd appreciate it.


Ok lets try to dumb it down a bit. Many people campaign against the death penalty because they know that human judges, juries and police get things wrong sometimes, The thought of an innocent person being executed offends them. They would prefer the death sentence to be changed to a life sentence. Even though a life sentence for an innocent person is not a good thing where there is life there is hope that justice may eventually be done and the innocent person could be released. Now the difference between the Human Law system and God is that God is Perfect in His judgements. He never makes a mistake. Therefore there is no longer the fear of injustice when God decides to kill, for He cannot make a mistake.




“ Exactly, you see God in "human terms" your understanding is trapped. Because you do not believe in God.

1 Corrinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
”


Then how is one ever converted to christianity? If they are an atheist and therefore cannot know the things of "god" how do they ever??? I know some atheists turned christian... According to this..I just don't see how it's possible.


Accepting the possibility of God and genuinely seeking Him does not take spiritual discernment. Once one Believes God it is then that Spiritual discernment is added in portions while the seeker looks for the will of God. Spiritual discernment is a process that occurs after salvation is accepted. One does not need to know everything to believe something. No one knows everything about God. But God can reveal deeper truths to whom He wills through The Holy Spirit.

So basic knowledge does not need Spiritual discernment but deeper understanding does.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Take a look at the ten plagues issue. The Egyptians had the jews as slaves. God killed them all, (even though purposely keeping his children as slaves for longer just to inflict pain). That is parenting: Protect your children from enemies, (although it would stand to reason that Egyptians were as much his children as the jews were). Not kill your own children when there aren't any enemies.
He did not kill them all, only the firstborn - and after that only those who pursued Israel through the Red Sea. And only after 9 chances to avoid it. That does not mean Egypt are simply excluded from God's favour:
Isaiah 19:24-25 In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. The LORD Almighty will bless them, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance."
Israel could not expect preferential treatment because they were counted as God's children, in fact, that made them more accountable in God's eyes. They had to live up to higher standards because they were chosen by him. If they were special, it was because they were chosen to be put through the "furnace of Egypt" to be refined. Not because they were better or more powerful than any other race. They would be protected if they followed Him, not otherwise. This is where the jealousy of God comes in: He would not tolerate them having other gods besides Him.
Amos 9:7 "Are not you Israelites
the same to me as the Cushites?"
declares the LORD.
"Did I not bring Israel up from Egypt,
the Philistines from Caphtor
and the Arameans from Kir?
Here's a reality for you Jenyar whether you accept it or not: The christian/jewish god has killed more humans than any other being in the history of mankind. Nothing else even comes close. This you cannot debate against.
Why should I debate it? God kills every single person on the planet, eventually. Nobody does not die. But He also gives life - twice over. The first birth you have no choice in, the second birth is yours to choose.
Further to which, your last sentence is kind of meaningless. You state that god is protecting us from non-existant beings, (by killing us). That equates to you slaughtering your child because he has an imaginary friend.

You know the 'friend' is not real, and to protect him from what is not real, you give him plague and kill him.
I did not say "us" - God protects those who belong to Him by choice - and certainly not by "killing us". You put that clause in. He protects us so that we can have a life beyond the nest, as adults; and not by letting us have our cherished gods. Our false gods - money, power, success, luck; you name them - keep us complacent and unwilling to accept God's life. It is against them that God warns us. For Israel, other gods simply referred to the deities of other religions (who thought they were real, no doubt) - today we give gods different names, and although they may be more abstract, more complicated, more "civilized", they are no less real to people. They are anything that promise you what only God can give; anything that leads us away from Him. Parasites that feed off our minds and bodies are "predators" too.

Then how is one ever converted to christianity? If they are an atheist and therefore cannot know the things of "god" how do they ever??? I know some atheists turned christian... According to this..I just don't see how it's possible.

Yes, I've encountered this argument too. My answer is this: Many people believe in God, but few believe that God is like what the Bible says.
Many atheists believe in God, but they don't believe God is like what the Bible says.
But similar as one can get to know a person, one can get to know God.
Right now, you know very little or nothing about me, but reading this post, you know that I exist. You could go and ask some posters here if they know me, and what I am like. You can believe what these people tell you about me, or you don't believe what they tell you about me. Either way, it is not my existence that you wonder about -- for you already know that I exist --, but you are wondering what I am like.


* * *

It's like reading a Shakespeare novel to a dog. It would be meaningless.

Indeed!
William, unrot yourself and get out of the grave, you need to write a novel! Dude, you wrote only tragedies, comedies and those lustful ditties -- but now you need to write a novel too! Come on! Time to get modern!


I mean c'mon, god is not a man, love is bloody meaningless. It's just a bunch of chemical reactions that man "suffers" from.

Love is meaningless? You don't love your wife and daughter, or you don't think much about the emotions you have for them -- you think those emotions are meaningless? Petty?

Oh, and the human mind is also just a bunch of chemical reactions. Why the hell talk about it?! It's meaningless!


While you can use that excuse, it is quite sickening to hear. Heart has pointed this out, but all you're saying is that you have the right to squash a worm because you're above him. While some would happily agree with that statement - and proceed to squash some worms, it is indeed very very sickening - and shows the level of god to be far below that of man, (most men).

So all you see that there could be to God is power, might is right?

I think you are talking about nature, not about God.


Well of course we were, unless you're happy to claim that god fucked up? He planted the tree, (knowing man would eat), he planted the snake, (knowing man would listen to it) - he must have designed man to do it, and thus gain the knowledge he supposedly didn't want us to have. I know, you'll say "free will", but then who planted that free will, (to act as it does), in humanity?

Free will is given by God.


What guidance would that be exactly? I mean, are we free to just choose what guidance to follow and what to ignore? If yes - the laws become meaningless, if no - we should all be stoning our naughty sons, prostitutes and Sunday workers to death. Tell me, in that instance how does gods guidance limit our damage to others?

You equate guidance with (pre)determination.
Yes, we are free to choose what guidance we follow. Whatever we do has consequences.

You are not forced to obey the law. For example, nobody is forcing you not to drive through red. But if you drive through red, you have broken the law, and if the police gets you, you have to face the consequences.

Do you think that in order to be free, to choose whatever guidance you wish, there should be no laws?

I know some atheists turned christian...what foolishness is this, this is not possible, they must have been agnostic. Many atheists believe in God. what foolishness is this, you obviously dont know what an atheist is.

Either of you.

what foolishness is this, you obviously dont know what an atheist is.

And you can't read.

snakelord,

you want God to communicate in a way humans can understand? I think God does.

1)A woman's husband cheats on her, she is has protective feelings for her relationship that is suffering, these feelings are called "jealousy" - they are not condemned by sane people. **this definition fits exodus (although as you should be intelligent enough to understand, God is not a super man, so this definition probably doesn't exactly fit, I'll just say it is close)**

2) A co-worker gets a pay bonus, you don't, you have envious feelings of their reward which you didn't get because you didn't deserve one, or the boss is better friends with the co-worker. The feelings of self-pity and envy are called "jealousy". **this definition fits James**

#1 is ok, #2 is not. Not ipse dixit, because God said it, but because it makes sense.

Your problem is that you look at the bible with the following mentality, "the way I explain the passages makes the bible appear senseless, so that must be the way the bible is meant to be understood, because the bible doesn't make sense."

And you can't read.how so, that what it says.

how so, that what it says.

Read the WHOLE sentence:

Many atheists believe in God, but they don't believe God is like what the Bible says.

Many atheists believe in God BUT they don't believe God is like what the Bible says.


You can't talk about God if you don't believe it is possible to talk about God. This implies that you believe in God in *a certain way* -- that it is possible to talk about God, even though it is just to bring a "proof" that God doesn't exist.

An atheist certainly doesn't believe that God is loving, just, that God created the universe etc. What an atheist can with surety say is that he doesn't hold the belief "God is loving", for example. At best, not holding the belief "God is loving" is a potential factual inconsistency. An inconsistency that sufficient information could resolve.


But noone can prove that God doesn't exist -- by the rules of logic, a negative cannot be proven. So holding the belief "God doesn't exist" is an unprovable statement of faith. To hold the belief "God doesn't exist" is a logical inconsistency. One should be wary of holding logically inconsistent beliefs.

Jenyar:

He did not kill them all, only the firstborn - and after that only those who pursued Israel through the Red Sea.

Funny really, I was kind of hanging onto the hope that you would get the gist of what I was saying. Still while we're here.. These Egyptians would have supposedly have been gods children aswell, (we are all the same creation), and yet he directly involved himself in human affairs. Might I ask why he doesn't now? I mean, why doesn't he come down and kill all, (or only firstborn), muslims, (for instance), when they bomb his "chosen" people? Oh wait.. they're not his chosen people anymore. They have been disowned.

That does not mean Egypt are simply excluded from God's favour:
Isaiah 19:24-25 In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth.

Damn, I don't see England in that statement.

Israel could not expect preferential treatment because they were counted as God's children, in fact, that made them more accountable in God's eyes.

Oh right.. How many other cultures slaves did god free while annihilating the enemies for them?

They would be protected if they followed Him, not otherwise. This is where the jealousy of God comes in: He would not tolerate them having other gods besides Him.

Yeah, and that is in no way likened to your bird in the nest analogy. That simply shows bad parenting.

Why should I debate it? God kills every single person on the planet, eventually. Nobody does not die. But He also gives life - twice over. The first birth you have no choice in, the second birth is yours to choose.

You know, I've always been curious about that.. When everyone's finally annihilated by god and he decides to give some of you "new life" in a new golden jersualem, (although hopefully looking nothing like Jerusalem), what will you all look like?

I mean.. will you be born from 0, all be 30, or all be the ages you were when you died? If you all come out as handsome 30 year olds, wont it be somewhat odd looking at your mother, father and grandparents who are exactly the same age as you? It would certainly freak me out.

I'm also curious to know if you would have any memories of your former life, (I assume you must otherwise you wouldn't even recognise your loved ones). Would you, for instance, have memory of the crippling and body eating plague that god gave you, or would memories like that be lost?

I did not say "us" - God protects those who belong to Him by choice - and certainly not by "killing us". You put that clause in.

No I didn't. In your very last statement, you said: "God kills every single person on the planet" and yet here you are now trying to debate against it.

We can also go back to your first statements concerning the slaughtered Egyptians, or stop on nearly any page in the OT where god goes about killing someone, (who you might claim he is "'protecting' like a bird in a nest"). You go on to say that: "He protects us so that we can have a life beyond the nest, as adults; and not by letting us have our cherished gods", which is the point - because the minute someone cherished those other gods, your gods version of protection came out as mass murder and most likely eternal damnation. Are you telling me that is a bird looking after it's young?

Our false gods - money, power, success, luck; you name them - keep us complacent and unwilling to accept God's life.

Oh I see, and as a result of that, to find god we need to be poor, unsuccessful, and unlucky? Doesn't a parent want the best for his children? Not only what's best overall, but in every instance of their life? And so if one of his children happens to have worked hard and earnt a lot of money, isn't that a good thing for him? Sure, eventually your children will "leave the nest", and find their own way. Just because they go in a direction we specifically don't understand or appreciate, does that mean we it's right to kill them and damn them forever?

The fact is that if you are loving and present, then a child will always respect you no matter if he has money, luck and success or not. If you think that's how you earn love and respect, then I sincerely hope you do not have children. If a child abandons you, does that mean you abandon him back? Only if you're a lousy parent.

today we give gods different names, and although they may be more abstract, more complicated, more "civilized", they are no less real to people. They are anything that promise you what only God can give; anything that leads us away from Him. Parasites that feed off our minds and bodies are "predators" too.

The purpose of this life is what exactly? You are seemingly promoting the idea that we all just sit here and do nothing. That we don't have fun, don't be successful, etc etc etc. That's really quite perverse. I assume you work, and earn money to put food on the table. That alone is taking you away from god. You are dependant upon that job to feed you when you should be dependant upon god to feed you. So either god expects you to be a puppet and do nothing, letting him do it all for you, (perhaps dropping food down from the sky as featured in the bible), or does god expect you to achieve, to use your own effort to work and get food and so on, (i.e succeed)? Some undoubtedly earn more than others, but how does that take them anymore away from god than anyone else? If you believe in god, it wouldn't make a difference how much you earn. Take priests for example who earn shitloads. Does it take them away from god? If so, why go and listen to them? If not, how would money be a false god and something to avoid?

----------

Water:

Indeed!
William, unrot yourself and get out of the grave, you need to write a novel! Dude, you wrote only tragedies, comedies and those lustful ditties -- but now you need to write a novel too! Come on! Time to get modern!

That's so sweet. You remind me of my 5 year old. Please, don't let me stop you acting like a child.

I'm sorry Water, did you actually have something to say or were you just trying to impress me by acting like a prick?

Love is meaningless? You don't love your wife and daughter, or you don't think much about the emotions you have for them -- you think those emotions are meaningless? Petty?

Dude, go back and read what I wrote again. Although I will admit my English can cause some confusion given that I'm a Londoner, I would have hoped you could grasp the context of what I was saying. If you're still struggling, let me know and I'll provide further details.


So all you see that there could be to God is power, might is right?

I think you are talking about nature, not about God.

Eh? I didn't use the excuse. Adstar said: "Now God can be Jealous without a problem, He can Kill without a problem, Because He is God."

I merely responded to how that is just plain wrong, (from a human perspective - because I am a human).

Am I missing something? Now you've got me confused. 1-1.

Free will is given by God.

Says who?

You equate guidance with (pre)determination.

From the quote you used, I didn't equate anything with anything. I asked three questions to the guy who told me we need to follow god's guidance to avoid damaging others. I then asked him how stoning your naughty son to death, (if you follow that guidance he says we need to follow), in any way helps avoiding damage to others.

I thought the issue was worth claryfing with him. Your personal opinion has also been noted, but I would prefer his reply.

Do you think that in order to be free, to choose whatever guidance you wish, there should be no laws?

Humans have created human laws to deal with humans, (from a human perspective). In general they help man get along with each other. However, if tomorrow a new law was put in place that told me I need to stone my son to death if he was naughty, I would certainly have issue with it. Any consequence of not obeying that I would happily put up with. I guess everyone pretty much agrees, 'cause even the god followers ignore him on that one. They too shall face the consequences of their disobedience in due time.

----------

Cole Grey:

1)A woman's husband cheats on her, she is has protective feelings for her relationship that is suffering, these feelings are called "jealousy" - they are not condemned by sane people. **this definition fits exodus (although as you should be intelligent enough to understand, God is not a super man, so this definition probably doesn't exactly fit, I'll just say it is close)**

Would it be condemned if she then went and killed him and everyone else in the vicinity?

2) A co-worker gets a pay bonus, you don't, you have envious feelings of their reward which you didn't get because you didn't deserve one, or the boss is better friends with the co-worker. The feelings of self-pity and envy are called "jealousy". **this definition fits James**

Would it be condemned if you then went and killed your co-worker and everyone else in the vicinity?

#1 is ok, #2 is not. Not ipse dixit, because God said it, but because it makes sense.

What's wrong about being envious that someone else earns more than you do? (as long as it doesn't lead to the slaughter of everyone in the vicinity).

Your problem is that you look at the bible with the following mentality, "the way I explain the passages makes the bible appear senseless, so that must be the way the bible is meant to be understood, because the bible doesn't make sense."

What dark orifice did you extract this statement from? Nowhere have I said, or even implied, that it doesn't make sense. god says he's jealous and then kills everyone because they wont worship him. I point this out, and have all the religious people tell me that:

1) god can do whatever he wants because he's god and

2) I'm not allowed to be a human if I want to understand god, because he isn't a human, (although then giving that very same being all the other human qualities such as love etc)

Basically they've turned sense into nonsense.

Many atheists believe in God BUT they don't believe God is like what the Bible says.

Lol. If an atheist believes in a god, he's no longer an atheist. Extraordinary..

You can't talk about God if you don't believe it is possible to talk about God. This implies that you believe in God in *a certain way*

A capital LOL! I guess you can't talk about fairies, minotaurs, leprechauns or mermaids without believing in them too.

Lol dude, you're such a joker.

SnakeLord,


Shakespeare didn't write novels. When you said "It's like reading a Shakespeare novel to a dog. It would be meaningless.", I'm afraid the meaninglessness you were referring to was not the one that Shakespeare actually didn't write any novels. Had you said "It's like reading a Shakespeare tragedy to a dog. It would be meaningless." you had a point. But now you only showed an embarrassing lack of literature knowledge. A Shakespeare novel! I mean really.


As for a God-given free will:
If we talk about Christianity, the Christian discourse, then we say that free will is given by God. It's pointless to talk about a discourse and yet doubt what it says.
It's like doubting that Hamlet's name was Hamlet.
Or that the words "table" or "book" are not English words.
If we talk about a discourse, we don't doubt that it posits the concepts that it posits.


Also, read WHOLE sentences and WHOLE paragraphs.


Oh, and I can't be a prick or a dude.

Would it be condemned if she then went and killed him and everyone else in the vicinity?
yes. and this is your ONLY argument - God is not fair, God kills people and then says it is bad for us to kill people. Ok, that is not an easy issue to brush aside with a happy christian platitude, like many people do (I admit). Don't confuse your argument with an empty accusation that these verses must be describing the same emotion, since the english translation uses "jealous" for both. (how does God have an emotion? the same way we do? with chemical processes?)
The greek word, can be, and is in other passages, translated as zeal as well.



Would it be condemned if you then went and killed your co-worker and everyone else in the vicinity? Yes. (See above response)



What's wrong about being envious that someone else earns more than you do? (as long as it doesn't lead to the slaughter of everyone in the vicinity).
It depends. If you are self-pitying, and see everything as something that happens to you, not due to your own choices, there is no way to say that you are experiencing something God does. My point - there is a difference between the way you can describe how God would be "jealous", and how a human would be. NOT because of any see-sawing in the bible, but due to common logic. There are ways we think which God does not.

EDIT- if it is simply a feeling that you would like a bonus too, while you understand the situation, and perhaps try to do something positive to effect a change so that you get a bonus, perhaps asking for one and asking how that can be done, then the "envy" is ok. Cain could have said, "oh, this sacrifice isn't ok for you, let me fix that," but instead was lost in self-hate, an "emotion" God cannot have.


Basically they've turned sense into nonsense.
Or perhaps their "sense" doesn't agree with yours and so it is nonsense. So you say "this is crap", and interpret everything you see in the bible as feeding that idea. Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating when I say everything you read, maybe not, but your bias is a formidable opponent to you using your common sense sometimes, I think. In the same way, a fundamentalist christian bias that everything makes sense in the bible, ipse dixit, God said it, I read it, and that's good enough, is an opponent to the use of common sense and logic. Maybe one bias or another leads more easily to the truth, but either way arrives there with a lot of mis-representation.

Shakespeare didn't write novels. When you said "It's like reading a Shakespeare novel to a dog. It would be meaningless.", I'm afraid the meaninglessness you were referring to was not the one that Shakespeare actually didn't write any novels. Had you said "It's like reading a Shakespeare tragedy to a dog. It would be meaningless." you had a point. But now you only showed an embarrassing lack of literature knowledge. A Shakespeare novel! I mean really

That's it Water, keep being a pedantic nitwit if it gives you some comfort and allows you to miss the rest of my post. You know damn well what I was talking about, and must be aware that humans are not perfect by any means, but sometimes, (just occasionally), we use the wrong wording. If it really means that much to you, then sue me. And even implying that the usage of one wrong word shows "an embarrassing lack of literature knowledge", is almost as retarded as saying if a person mentions a god it must mean they believe in it. I mean really..

Now, if you don't mind.. Kindly get out of my thread and leave it to people who actually have something worthwhile to say.

As for a God-given free will:
If we talk about Christianity, the Christian discourse, then we say that free will is given by God. It's pointless to talk about a discourse and yet doubt what it says.
It's like doubting that Hamlet's name was Hamlet.
Or that the words "table" or "book" are not English words.
If we talk about a discourse, we don't doubt that it posits the concepts that it posits.


The point being that you can't in any way confirm such a thing as 'free will'. It is openly and happily debated. As such you are stating god made something that you still cannot show as reality. Of course that's all down to personal opinion - some believe everything has all been planned down to the last letter, (often mentioned as "god master plan") etc. If that is the case then nobody has a choice in anything. The people that killed jesus, had to kill jesus in order for jesus to die for our sins and so on.

That's why I asked: "Says who?".

You starting to understand yet?

Also, read WHOLE sentences and WHOLE paragraphs.

To you I say the opposite. Don't read whole sentences or paragraphs. It seems you're getting lost with too much information for your brain to decipher.


Oh, and I can't be a prick or a dude.

It would seem you're intepreting the words too literally. Either that or you're just continuing along with your habit of being predantic.

yes. and this is your ONLY argument - God is not fair, God kills people and then says it is bad for us to kill people. Ok, that is not an easy issue to brush aside with a happy christian platitude, like many people do (I admit).

Well, then I guess it's lucky that that's the ONLY argument I was actually making. If the bible is considered as god's word, (I appreciate that it quite often isn't), then informing the world that jealousy is evil, motivated by the devil and so on, while happily espousing your own level of jealousy, shows some serious hypocricy - regardless to who or what you are, (especially if you are considered to be "intelligent"). As the bibles dictator, god must be aware that the wording he uses is all important in order for humans to understand what he is communicating. When he says he is jealous, there is no cause to believe that his meaning of jealousy is closer to our meaning of love or sympathy, or respect for his children. The actions from both forms come out the same: jealousy then the death of humans. god has done it to humans, and humans have done it to humans.. so who here can honestly judge one without judging the other?

Don't confuse your argument with an empty accusation that these verses must be describing the same emotion, since the english translation uses "jealous" for both.

That's like saying also that one cannot argue that verses depicting god's love are describing the same emotion that we have. This is attested to given that with the human emotion of love a person would never doom his child to an eternity of fire. Clearly god's love is on it's own level, and entirely incompatible with our own. Thus when someone says god is loving, they're actually talking nonsense - and just using an English translation of something that we don't understand.

What we are left to argue with are the actions caused by those emotions. We then relate those actions to our own understanding of the word and see if they match up. So you would look at the times when the verses use love and see if god's actions of love are similar to our own. In that way we can make an educated guess at what god love is like. The same is true of other emotions such as jealousy, wrath etc.

If we look at god wrath vs human wrath we see a great deal of similarity. The same goes for jealousy. Do you think the same goes for love? Does human love kill it's own children and doom them to an eternity of hellfire? (It's quite interesting to note that we acknowledge that sometimes someone can love someone else too much, which generally leads to disastrous consequences).

(how does God have an emotion? the same way we do? with chemical processes?)

Who would know? From what I've gathered here, we cannot make any estimation concerning god because he is simply unknowable in these issues. As a result, you would have no justifiable position to deny jealousy or promote love. They would both be meaningless to a human who cannot know god.

My point - there is a difference between the way you can describe how God would be "jealous", and how a human would be.

What difference is that? So because he's invisible and lives in the sky it instantly means he doesn't have emotions, or if he does that they are completely unlike our own, (even though we're made in his image/likeness)?

You have no justifiable position with which to say that. It's a leap of faith - one aimed at completely excusing an entity under the premise that for some unexplained reason it can't have the same kind of emotions that we do, and indeed act on them as we would.

There are ways we think which God does not.

How do you know?

EDIT- if it is simply a feeling that you would like a bonus too, while you understand the situation, and perhaps try to do something positive to effect a change so that you get a bonus, perhaps asking for one and asking how that can be done, then the "envy" is ok. Cain could have said, "oh, this sacrifice isn't ok for you, let me fix that," but instead was lost in self-hate, an "emotion" God cannot have.

But god did have that very same emotion. He didn't just obliterate the other false gods, he obliterated the humans who worshipped something other than he. As the only real god he could have easily zapped the golden calf into nothingness and showed that if that's what they wanted to worship, then they could.. but that the golden calf could not compete. Instead he just obliterated the humans, just as Cain swiftly dismissed of his brother.

It's also odd to see "god cannot have", from a man whom I assume believes god can do anything and have anything he wants to.

Or perhaps their "sense" doesn't agree with yours and so it is nonsense. So you say "this is crap", and interpret everything you see in the bible as feeding that idea. Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating when I say everything you read, maybe not, but your bias is a formidable opponent to you using your common sense sometimes, I think. In the same way, a fundamentalist christian bias that everything makes sense in the bible, ipse dixit, God said it, I read it, and that's good enough, is an opponent to the use of common sense and logic. Maybe one bias or another leads more easily to the truth, but either way arrives there with a lot of mis-representation.

Dragged from that very same deep, dark orifice. All I'm waiting for is a reasonable explanation. Telling me I cannot know god because I'm a human and he's god doesn't work, given that those very same people then describe god down to a T, (while leaving all the negativity out). That is bias.

And what was your explanation? Ah yes, "god cannot have that". You expect me just to say: "well done Mr Cole, that's logical"? Get real. It's utter hypocricy. Eventually in a thread in the near future you'll probably find the time to say god is loving, cares about us etc. I will then turn round and say: "But Cole, god cannot have that". I'm certain you'll then argue against the very thing you're trying to promote right now and yet there is no difference between the two, other than one sounds nice to you while the other doesn't.

Mr Cole: I ask questions and give ideas to promote debate - to aid everyone's understanding, (mine and others). I try to remain bias free, (and am only ever called bias when I say something that a christian personally objects to). Who is really being bias? The man that will explore all angles, or the man who says: "god cannot have that/do that" the minute it entails something that sounds anti-your belief.

I have given everyone a chance to explain, and still do, but currently all I've had are answers failing to explain the issues. From Water's stupidity over a misplaced word, Adstar telling me that to know god I can't think of god in human terms, (thus leaving us all up shit creek), and you telling me that "god cannot do that", without being able to justify it.

And you dare say "common sense and logic" to me? Pfft.

James 3:15 For jealousy and selfishness are not god's kind of wisdom. Such things are earthly, unspiritual, and motivated by the devil.

Exodus 34:14 Do not worship any other god, for the lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god.

How would you, (the religious man), reconcile this? On the one hand god happily declaring that he is jealous, (so much so that he states his name is Jealous), and on the other hand we clearly see the bible stating that jealousy is earthly, unspritual and motivated by the devil.

Has god been motivated by the devil as the text would imply?

I'm just interested to see you all defend something so vehemently if your god does it, but claim it as evil if any human does the same.

Hello Snakelord,

It is good to see you posting still, I hope you are well.

My response as a Christian is as always pretty simple.

If you hire an 18 certificate video out to watch would you allow your 11 year old daughter to watch it?

Personally I would try my best not to allow my child to view it, as it has a certificate for a reason.

Now God has created evil as well as good for a reason, so He will tell you one thing and do the other, does this sound familiar?

Why does God do this? Protection for the well being of His children is my answer, just as it would be mine for not allowing my child to view material that exists but could be detrimental to their well being.

He isn’t called father for nothing.

Why did God create evil? Well in my opinion you have to counter balance good with evil to achieve perfection or else we would all be robots.

This will probably not be sufficient for you, but these days I haven’t got time to answer long posts so please just try to consider what I wrote and condense your reply if you require a response.

Take care,

Dave

Many atheists believe in God BUT they don't believe God is like what the Bible says.

Relative atheism ?

Is there any limit to your fantasy ?

It is good to see you posting still, I hope you are well.

Great as always thanks. Nice to see you again.

If you hire an 18 certificate video out to watch would you allow your 11 year old daughter to watch it?

Personally yes. Just to aid the analogy I might aswell tell you my daughter is 5 and yet she has happily sat down and watched an 18 or two.

Personally I would try my best not to allow my child to view it, as it has a certificate for a reason.

Now God has created evil as well as good for a reason, so He will tell you one thing and do the other, does this sound familiar?

Why does God do this? Protection for the well being of His children is my answer, just as it would be mine for not allowing my child to view material that exists but could be detrimental to their well being.

In the case of the analogy: You don't allow your daughter to watch 18's because in your mind you are protecting her. One day you come home and find she has sneakily watched an 18 movie so you take her outside and kill her. Then, if that isn't enough, you bring her back to life just to inform her that you're now sending her into a pit of eternal torment. You go on to say: "He isn’t called father for nothing", but if that is how you see the role of a father, there are some serious underlying issues that should be dealt with.

The thing is with my daughter: Not once in her life has she ever misbehaved, ever. I am very open with her, and find that by being so she is all the better off for it. If I sit down and say: "Don't do this", I know eventually the rebellious instinct will kick in and all hell will break loose, (this is where god is going wrong). Instead I sit here with a can of beer. I tell her she can have some if she wants, and she knows exactly what the outcome of alcohol consumption is - and even though she knows she can freely have some without me saying a word or being even remotely upset - she wont. It's the same with swearing. I have no problem with swear words, and will not shield her ears from them. She knows that swearing can upset people and cause problems, and although I tell her it's fine if she wants to swear - she wont.

It's like this all across the board.

What my wife and I have ended up with is the most perfect child in existence, who loves her parents beyond words. We don't ask for love, it comes naturally because we treat her like an equal, we don't demand that she obey and behave, she does so naturally because we treat her like an equal.

This is where parents, (including god), mess up. They treat their child as lesser beings and thus deserve everything they get in return, (although that wouldn't then justify them killing the child).

Remember, your child has her own legs. Yes, she will stumble and fall occasionally - and that is where you come in to provide love at her times of need. You can aid her along her path by informing her of the dangers, but you cannot walk the road for her, and nor can you really justify killing her/damning her to hell whenever she messes up.

Of course I am open and loving with my daughter for the same reason I treat her like an equal: I was adopted which plays a major part in it. When you go through life with the idea that your parents didn't love you, you generally find you don't want to make the mistake.

I guess it's just a shame god was never adopted.

Why did God create evil? Well in my opinion you have to counter balance good with evil to achieve perfection

Perfection heh? Is that what you call it?

Take care,

Same to you :) Nice seeing you.

Personally yes. Just to aid the analogy I might aswell tell you my daughter is 5 and yet she has happily sat down and watched an 18 or two.

Hello there,

I can continue to complete the questions you asked but firstly I must ask "Why?" to the above conclusive statement. In essence why do you allow it?

Dave

I can continue to complete the questions you asked but firstly I must ask "Why?" to the above conclusive statement. In essence why do you allow it?


She understands the difference between real and fictional. When she watches Tom and Jerry she knows they're not real animals. If she watches, for example, Lethal Weapon, she knows it's just make up and "tomato ketchup". She's not an idiot.. some people assume we should treat children as if they're simpletons, I disagree.

What I do find serious distaste with are those parents who think they're in a position to force their personal religious beliefs upon their children. This is a prime example of how people do not treat their children as equals, and do not allow their child the right to form their own opinions and beliefs. I treat my dog better than most people treat their kids.

As I mentioned earlier, you will eventually find that the child will rebel regardless to what you tell them. You can say "don't smoke", and the more you tell them not to, the more likely they are to become an addict.

There's a vast difference between telling them something is bad for them and outright denying them their choices in life.

I am fully confident in my daughters ability to make her own judgements on what is "right and wrong" or "beneficial and non-beneficial". She doesn't drink beer not because I tell her she can't through fear of pain and punishment, but because she chooses not to for her own benefit.

If she chooses to watch a movie with me, it is because she knows she can handle it. If she chooses not to watch a movie with me, it's because she knows she can't.

Just because they're small does not mean they're stupid.

It was kind of a roundabout way of doing it, but did that answer the question sufficiently?

Regards.

As a quick addon I should point out that my wifes sisters, (3 of them), who are all authoritarian style parents, have the worst bloody kids imagineable. They misbehave, they nag, they whine, they draw on the walls, etc etc etc.

Worst of all is their parents blame the child instead of pointing the finger where it rightfully belongs.

And hey, that's the common way, (round here at least). People seem to have kids simply to serve as footstools. It's quite sickening really.

Relative atheism ?

Is there any limit to your fantasy ?
In order to be an atheist, I presume you have some idea what "theos" you are "a" about. As such, you have to have some picture of what God is like in your mind, and from this picture you derive your atheism from. SnakeLord has a "bad parent" picture in his mind (vs. "good parenting"), and therefore interprets everything he hears about God in the most uncharitable sense possible. Your idea of God shapes your atheism (otherwise "atheism" might as well have referred to your stance on Ancient Egyptian ice-hockey) - it is "relative" to that idea.

Funny really, I was kind of hanging onto the hope that you would get the gist of what I was saying. Still while we're here.. These Egyptians would have supposedly have been gods children aswell, (we are all the same creation), and yet he directly involved himself in human affairs. Might I ask why he doesn't now? I mean, why doesn't he come down and kill all, (or only firstborn), muslims, (for instance), when they bomb his "chosen" people? Oh wait.. they're not his chosen people anymore. They have been disowned.
The Egyptians were not God's children in the sense it is used by God. Children do what their parents do (which is what you rely on by bringing up your daughter your way):
John 8:39-42
“Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham's children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does.” ... “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here.
When Adam rebelled against God, he became a runaway, an exile. Israel represented God's children in exile, but still under his wing. That was how God made sure man would not be eternally separated from Him - they would herald his chosen Christ to the world, who would spread God's message of reconcilition to it: the good news; the gospel. Muslims (for instance) aren't excluded from this promise. It is what God chose to do, and a decision that Christ will seal finally at his return.
Snakelord]I did not say "us" - God protects those who belong to Him by choice - and certainly not by "killing us". You put that clause in.
No I didn't. In your very last statement, you said: "God kills every single person on the planet" and yet here you are now trying to debate against it.

We can also go back to your first statements concerning the slaughtered Egyptians, or stop on nearly any page in the OT where god goes about killing someone, (who you might claim he is "'protecting' like a bird in a nest"). You go on to say that: "He protects us so that we can have a life beyond the nest, as adults; and not by letting us have our cherished gods", which is the point - because the minute someone cherished those other gods, your gods version of protection came out as mass murder and most likely eternal damnation. Are you telling me that is a bird looking after it's young?
God "kills" everyone in the sense that we all die - from whatever cause or consequence. But you maintain that the purpose of death is for our protection. I don't see how that follows. Maybe some people are spared a certain amount of suffering when death intervenes, but you fail to see what God is protecting. It isn't our material bodies or our physical lives, but our life with Him. It often does take the form of being physically spared, but that's not the final salvation that we count on or hope for. It's not the message Jesus brought.

He came into our lives, wherever we are and whatever we are doing, so that who we are and whatever we do can find meaning and purpose in Him. We can be healthy, live long and prosper, but you don't get to keep your money when you die - money and possessions can sustain you and be used in service of God, as a gift from Him, or it can enslave you and pit you against Him. That's when it becomes a false god, and it can happen with anything you do. God does not come down and "smite" you for it, but when you die they won't help you as they promised to do while you were alive.
The purpose of this life is what exactly? You are seemingly promoting the idea that we all just sit here and do nothing. That we don't have fun, don't be successful, etc etc etc. That's really quite perverse. I assume you work, and earn money to put food on the table. That alone is taking you away from god. You are dependant upon that job to feed you when you should be dependant upon god to feed you. So either god expects you to be a puppet and do nothing, letting him do it all for you, (perhaps dropping food down from the sky as featured in the bible), or does god expect you to achieve, to use your own effort to work and get food and so on, (i.e succeed)? Some undoubtedly earn more than others, but how does that take them anymore away from god than anyone else? If you believe in god, it wouldn't make a difference how much you earn. Take priests for example who earn shitloads. Does it take them away from god? If so, why go and listen to them? If not, how would money be a false god and something to avoid?
God infuses life with meaning and purpose, and it is through our lives that it can become visible to other people. Sitting there and doing nothing is the surest way to cloud His purpose for you. But when we work, play, and live, we can do so with a different perspective and attitude - we can find joy beyond its immediate merits or promises.

The ability to enjoy life is a luxury for many people, and it threatens to become a false god for many more. The ability to find meaning and joy despite our circumstances is just one hope we have in God. Or lives have meaning whether we see it or not. Because of God, our achievements and successes don't have to be measured in materialistic terms, and our lives doesn't have to serve materialistic gods. You can serve God regardless of what you have or how much you make; you can serve Him with what you have, and it will be sufficient.

In order to be an atheist, I presume you have some idea what "theos" you are "a" about. As such, you have to have some picture of what God is like in your mind, and from this picture you derive your atheism from. SnakeLord has a "bad parent" picture in his mind (vs. "good parenting"), and therefore interprets everything he hears about God in the most uncharitable sense possible. Your idea of God shapes your atheism (otherwise "atheism" might as well have referred to your stance on Ancient Egyptian ice-hockey) - it is "relative" to that idea.

Athiesm - lack of belief in any God(s).

Perhaps, the term 'relative atheists' is an exact description of christians as for as God(s) of other religions (except Judaism) are concerned.

Athiesm - lack of belief in any God(s).

Atheists should then choose a new term for themselves.

I could call myself A-German, or non-German. And it would be true. But it would only make sense as long as Germans are around and the way my identity is defined has something to do with Germans -- as opposed to them.


The terms "atheism", "atheist" makes sense only in a specific relation to "theism", "theist".

Without theism, it would be odd to speak of "atheism"; atheism depends on theism to give it meaning -- even if it is by means of opposition.

Semantics.

Atheism does not need a name if no theism is around. Every one will be non-theist. Still, it will indicate absence of belief in any God(s). What is the difference between athiest and non-theist?

Atheism does not need a name if no theism is around. Every one will be non-theist. Still, it will indicate absence of belief in any God(s). What is the difference between athiest and non-theist?
Then on what evidence does an atheist justify this lack of belief, if it has nothing to do with a particular conception of who God is?

Atheism is usually taken to be belief that god does not exist. More recently, however, some atheists have attempted to define atheism in more cautious terms, as nothing more than the absence of belief in God. This has complicated matters, introducing an ambiguity into the definition of “atheism”. One solution to this ambiguity is to distinguish between “weak atheism” and “strong atheism”.

...A weak atheist is therefore someone who both lacks belief that God does exist and lacks belief that God does not exist. Weak atheists are thus what people often refer to as “agnostics”.

-- Philosophy of religion (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/definitions.html)

Theoretical example: Say there would be some foreign civilisation that had no notions of gods. Would it be meaningful to call them "atheists"?

Jenyar,

I never met an atheist or agnostic who lacks belief in one God but belives in another God. If he/she does so, he/she is very much a theist. But water claims otherwise, you agree with that.

You two are fast transforming into nuts. :D

Let the atheists break your imaginary shell.

I never met an atheist or agnostic who lacks belief in one God but belives in another God.

Noone is saying that here.

Please answer my and Jenyar's questions. It's simply a matter of logical consistency.

I never met an atheist or agnostic who lacks belief in one God but believes in another God.
This still does not invalidate the point: there is some concept of god in mind, a concept that makes all gods seem equally unlikely - this is still a statement of belief about the nature of "gods", just a generalized and even less defensible one. A "sweeping" agnosticism/atheism doesn't make it any more reasonable than sweeping theism (believing in a philosophical god that somehow includes all concepts of god, as if there would be no contradictions and inconsistencies).

Theoretical example: Say there would be some foreign civilisation that had no notions of gods. Would it be meaningful to call them "atheists"?

Meaningful to whom?

They would be offended by your abuse with unknown term. And you pacify them, explaining God and tell them since they do not know God they are atheists. If they say that they don't want to know or show no interest in God, then you be sure that they are atheists or agnostics. - everneo 1:99

Noone is saying that here.

Please answer my and Jenyar's questions. It's simply a matter of logical consistency.


good, good, who is talking about logical consistency ?!!

This still does not invalidate the point: there is some concept of god in mind, a concept that makes all gods seem equally unlikely - this is still a statement of belief about the nature of "gods", just a generalized and even less defensible one. A "sweeping" agnosticism/atheism doesn't make it any more reasonable than sweeping theism (believing in a philosophical god that somehow includes all concepts of god, as if there would be no contradictions and inconsistencies).

If i fight against or avoid evil will you call me an evil devil since i have a concept of evil in my mind, Jenyar ?

If i fight against or avoid evil will you call me an evil devil since i have a concept of evil in my mind, Jenyar ?
Of course not. I would say you have a concept of evil in mind, and we could find out if we're talking about the same thing. If you called yourself 'amoral' and tried to avoid evil, it would also be inconsistent.

Meaningful to whom?
They would be offended by your abuse with unknown term.

Do you feel offended if someone calls you an atheist?


And you pacify them, explaining God and tell them since they do not know God they are atheists.

No, I tell them nothing anyway. It is them who come ask me questions.


If they say that they don't want to know or show no interest in God, then you be sure that they are atheists or agnostics. [/I] - everneo 1:99

So the essence of atheism and agnosticism is

1. the refusal to know God
or
2. having no interest in God

?


Why then do atheists talk about God, participate in discussions about God? When they refuse to know God, or have no interest in God??


:confused: :bugeye: :eek:

I would say you have a concept of evil in mind, and we could find out if we're talking about the same thing.
We are talking about the same thing very much. There ends the similarity.

If you called yourself 'amoral' and tried to avoid evil, it would also be inconsistent.
If i call myself 'amoral' then still i am free to avoid evil not because it is evil but it looks to me un-necessary to go with that.

Do you feel offended if someone calls you an atheist?

:eek:

Why do you think i am from a civilization that has no notion of God ??

If i call you 'xcvkj' (from my own dictionary) will you be happy ??


No, I tell them nothing anyway. It is them who come ask me questions.

Whatever.

So the essence of atheism and agnosticism is

1. the refusal to know God
or
2. having no interest in God

?


Why then do atheists talk about God, participate in discussions about God? When they refuse to know God, or have no interest in God??

Because all the time atheist are hearing about God and other things which they don't want to hear or don't want to believe in or not interest in ; but still forced to hear, they shoot back wherever they get a chance. ( Am i right, any of you atheist infidels here ??!!)

So how come an atheist is a theist ??

So how come an atheist is a theist ??
He is not, that would just be compounding the contradiction further. The point is that an atheist has a belief about God just as a theist does, but that he rejects the god of his belief, while the theist accepts his. The question is then what those concepts correspond to, and it becomes a phenomonological discussion.

Strong atheism rejects any evidence for God out of principle. That principle can only come from a previous conclusion about the universe we live in, and has very little to do with religion or the Bible.

:eek:

Why do you think i am from a civilization that has no notion of God ??

I don't think so at all.
I posited my question thus:

"Theoretical example: Say there would be some foreign civilisation that had no notions of gods. Would it be meaningful to call them "atheists"?"

I wondered how meaningful it is to apply a negating concept to someone who does not possess a positive concept.


If i call you 'xcvkj' (from my own dictionary) will you be happy ??

Since I don't understand what 'xcvkj' means, I don't know what to do with it.
But if you go at me for being 'xcvkj', then I will view you as my enemy, who is out to hurt me, and 'xcvkj' will mean somehting bad for me. But only if you go at me. Otherwise, I won't know what to do with it.


Whatever.

How little you think of humanity.


Because all the time atheist are hearing about God and other things which they don't want to hear or don't want to believe in or not interest in ; but still forced to hear, they shoot back wherever they get a chance. ( Am i right, any of you atheist infidels here ??!!)

Who is forcing you to hear about God?!?

Who is forcing you??

Who is pointing a gun to your head and a knife to your throat -- and thereby FORCING you to hear about God?


So how come an atheist is a theist ??

Jenyar has already explained this.

She understands the difference between real and fictional. When she watches Tom and Jerry she knows they're not real animals. If she watches, for example, Lethal Weapon, she knows it's just make up and "tomato ketchup". She's not an idiot.. some people assume we should treat children as if they're simpletons, I disagree.

What I do find serious distaste with are those parents who think they're in a position to force their personal religious beliefs upon their children. This is a prime example of how people do not treat their children as equals, and do not allow their child the right to form their own opinions and beliefs. I treat my dog better than most people treat their kids.

As I mentioned earlier, you will eventually find that the child will rebel regardless to what you tell them. You can say "don't smoke", and the more you tell them not to, the more likely they are to become an addict.

There's a vast difference between telling them something is bad for them and outright denying them their choices in life.

I am fully confident in my daughters ability to make her own judgements on what is "right and wrong" or "beneficial and non-beneficial". She doesn't drink beer not because I tell her she can't through fear of pain and punishment, but because she chooses not to for her own benefit.

If she chooses to watch a movie with me, it is because she knows she can handle it. If she chooses not to watch a movie with me, it's because she knows she can't.

Just because they're small does not mean they're stupid.

It was kind of a roundabout way of doing it, but did that answer the question sufficiently?

Regards.

Hello again,

Ok. Now, it seems to me that your daughter is mature and has her head screwed on at a very early age. Think about my analogy, and let’s say you’re god and your daughter is Abraham, and all the troubled kids are the Israelites, now some if not most kids need discipline or guidelines as they are simply rule breakers(don’t blame God as free will is simply what it says on the tin), I was one when I was younger and I have great parents.

Now let’s look at another example, which is pretty realistic in today’s world (teenage pregnancies), albeit with maybe different media planting the seed of curiosity. A couple decides to let their 14 year old daughter watch a romantic movie, with steamy sex scenes in it. The young girl thinks about the movie and it makes her curious about this sex lark. She falls pregnant at 14. Now who is responsible? I personally think it is the parents in this example (today we are surrounded by sex related magazines, the internet, peer pressure etc. so the parents aren’t to blame for everything in my opinion). Do you think it is beneficial for the child of 14 to fall pregnant and have to raise a child at 14/15 in this day and age?

What I’m trying to get across is that while something’s are harmless to the well being of responsible adults, these things most likely are destructive to a child. So, while jealousy in the hands of God is safe, in the hands of us it is damaging, and I can not think of an advantage of being jealous personally. When God told us not to be jealous he was doing it for our benefit, when he told us He is a jealous God, again He was doing it for our benefit.

Time for my fishcake and chips.

Later

Dave

That's like saying also that one cannot argue that verses depicting god's love are describing the same emotion that we have.
That is what I'm saying.
This is attested to given that with the human emotion of love a person would never doom his child to an eternity of fire.
Granted.
Clearly god's love is on it's own level, and entirely incompatible with our own.
Exactly.


What we are left to argue with are the actions caused by those emotions. We then relate those actions to our own understanding of the word and see if they match up. So you would look at the times when the verses use love and see if god's actions of love are similar to our own. In that way we can make an educated guess at what god love is like. The same is true of other emotions such as jealousy, wrath etc.
Right, but for you all of this is meaningless. God doesn't exist. Therefore God can't have actions. You are saying that X type of God cannot exist, and I fully agree that X type of God cannot exist, or if it does, is nothing more than an egotistical tyrant. The X God is a bad parent, and we don't like him. But the X God you describe in your understanding of the bible, is not the God of THE WHOLE BIBLE. X God exists only in a piecemeal "understanding" of the text.
Why are you arguing about God's qualities except to show that X god can't exist? Fine, your X God does not exist. I am a fully committed "a-xgodtheist".

What difference is that? So because he's invisible and lives in the sky it instantly means he doesn't have emotions, or if he does that they are completely unlike our own, (even though we're made in his image/likeness)?
To what extent are we made in God's image? We are obviously, without a doubt, much different than God is. We don't live in the "sky". We aren't "invisible". But when we describe God's emotions, then we should be able to attribute the exact specifications of them... that is silly.

It's also odd to see "god cannot have", from a man whom I assume believes god can do anything and have anything he wants to.
An entity cannot fully love itself, and also hate itself. It has nothing to do with the entity's power, but rather with our inability to understand paradoxes.


And what was your explanation? Ah yes, "god cannot have that". You expect me just to say: "well done Mr Cole, that's logical"? Get real. It's utter hypocricy. Eventually in a thread in the near future you'll probably find the time to say god is loving, cares about us etc. I will then turn round and say: "But Cole, god cannot have that". I'm certain you'll then argue against the very thing you're trying to promote right now and yet there is no difference between the two, other than one sounds nice to you while the other doesn't.
I will never say God loves us in the way we love each other, unless I use a metaphor to approximate my understanding of God, (which is far from a definitive explantation of God.)

Mr Cole: I ask questions and give ideas to promote debate - to aid everyone's understanding, (mine and others). I try to remain bias free, (and am only ever called bias when I say something that a christian personally objects to). Who is really being bias? The man that will explore all angles, or the man who says: "god cannot have that/do that" the minute it entails something that sounds anti-your belief.
God cannot do something that entails a paradox, according to human logic, this has nothing to do with my feelings about God. I could say, for example, that "my" God can do something that entails a paradox, but that would be empty talk, "my dad can do anything", child's talk.

Since you are bias free, I demand that you bring forth some good arguments for religion, God's existence, or some other value that you have found in the opposite view from that which you hold.

I have many questions and problems with religion, and God, and God's existence, that have been brought out by my own thought processes, and by listening to others. This allows me to approach the given information from both a theist and atheist viewpoint, and analyze the information in a less biased way.

I want to hear the problems you have with your own ideological system which requires God be interpreted a certain way, OR I MUST INSIST that you are biased against an even-handed interpretation, i.e., based in common sense and logic.

To what extent are we made in God's image?

We are aware of right and wrong and we rule over nature (a little)

We don't live in the "sky".

Neither does God, he lives in himself.

We aren't "invisible".

Not our bodies, but what about the ME, am "I" not quite invisible?

SnakeLord has a "bad parent" picture in his mind (vs. "good parenting"), and therefore interprets everything he hears about God in the most uncharitable sense possible.

This is where you make the fundamental error. I am here to debate religious issues because I have an interest in the subject, while living happily knowing there is no god, (good or bad). As far as discussions go however, I will question certain aspects of the bible/religion and indeed discuss them in depth. The issues of love and care and dying for humanity etc have all been covered extensively, leaving little reason to go into them. On the other hand when it comes to me questioning the 'not so nice' issues in the bible nobody has yet even managed to provide a semi-decent answer. The best people seem to be able to manage is that god is god and can do whatever the hell he wants to do.

I am a man who knows humans exist, and having a lot of time and respect for humans in general I need to question these issue because it is extremely perverse a notion to see people believe in and worship a being that according to the text has annihilated them left, right and center.

It also comes down to the christian/jewish specific version of god because there are very few people of other religious stances on this forum.

Let's get it straight: The religious man makes the claim, (i.e "god is loving"). I then look at the 'evidence' he has provided, (the bible), and notice that this being kills mankind over and over and over. He closes innocent womens wombs for the actions of one man who was lied to, (Abimelech), and so on all the way down the line. Nearer the end we see jesus saying he has come not for peace or love but to set a man against his father, a woman against her mother.. Further on from that we see the eventual outcome where this being destroys the planet and everyone on it via some extreme methods, only to end up dooming the mass majority of mankind to an eternal fiery pit.

The evidence seen here does not point to "loving". Instead of an answer to that I just get comments like "god can do whatever he bloody well wants to", and more likely in your case: "Snake is just a hater". These do not in any way go against the evidence that is still there and still unanswered.

But it is readily apparent that christians don't really know or appreciate what "love" is. We can experiment a little here. As you will know, jesus has told you to "love thy neighbour". Would you agree that the word "love" here is actually more akin and in line with "respect"? Do you think you really love your neighbour. Tell you what, let me ask you: do you love me Jenyar, as told to by jesus? I'll get to the rest once you answer the question.

The Egyptians were not God's children in the sense it is used by God. ...

This doesn't actually answer my question, (or even pay attention to it).

But you maintain that the purpose of death is for our protection. I don't see how that follows.

No. That's what you maintain, and have shown in your responses: god kills everyone but it doesn't matter because he's protecting our "actual" selves, (our life with him). You state this a couple of sentences down. I maintain that from a biblical standpoint man was killed excessively by this entity many call "loving", and that one of the reasons for the slaughter of man by this being was as a direct result of his jealousy.

I think you've just mistaken a point in our discussion from the end of page 1/2.

To put it in an analogy for you:

My daughter gets to 23 let's say and gets married. This man then becomes the main man in her life. At this point from a biblical god standpoint, I would get jealous that her attention is focused elsewhere and kill her for it.

-------

Think about my analogy, and let’s say you’re god and your daughter is Abraham, and all the troubled kids are the Israelites, now some if not most kids need discipline or guidelines as they are simply rule breakers(don’t blame God as free will is simply what it says on the tin), I was one when I was younger and I have great parents.

So you think I should kill them? Kids will be kids right? But what rules exactly are we talking about here? Let's face it, from an OT perspective, those 'rules' you speak of include stoning bad children to death and not being homosexual, which are quite frankly unfair rules to demand obedience to, whether god agrees or not. Everyone else agrees, because we no longer do it, (and generally accept homosexuals). god is ignored when it comes to those laws. Does that make you a disobedient child aswell? Yes, it does. Wouldn't you be a little bit miffed if he came down and killed you with plague because of it?

These are the more serious laws, but let's look at the typical 'child' behaviour from the OT. The jews, (gods children), were wandering through the desert for years eating nothing but manna. They complained and nagged, (as children do), that they required something a bit more substantial than manna - namely meat. Moses, being the spokesperson, went to god and said: "you know we're sacrificing all these animals to you..", (analogy equivalent of forcing these children to give me all their food and sweets), ".. can they have some?"

To this god said ok and provided them with a mass amount of quails. From analogy standard that's me giving these children a bunch of their favourite foods - and not because I love them so do that naturally, but because they were starting to piss me off with all the nagging. However, the story gets worse. Just as the humans sat down to eat the quails god gave them all plague and killed them. That's the analogy equivalent of me giving these kids a ******** candy bar. That does not make a good parent.

Do you think it is beneficial for the child of 14 to fall pregnant and have to raise a child at 14/15 in this day and age?

No, if not only because of the bad attitudes people lump on them, making their job twice as difficult.

But let's use this analogy, it works well. What I would do at an early stage, (as is also generally done in schools), is teach my child about pregnancy and other related sexual issues. I would tell her that it is probably more beneficial to ensure a condom is always used if and when she decides to engage in sexual intercourse, (which is entirely her decision).

Thus far we have the equivalent of god informing you of something that isn't specifically beneficial for you. He gives you the lowdowns on it and tells you how to avoid it.

My daughter then goes out, has sex and ends up pregnant. These are the two factors:

1) She listened to my advice but an accident happened, (condom split etc). or..

2) She listened to my advice but didn't really understand or pay attention to it and ended up pregnant.

In case 1 I would say to my daughter that no matter what she decides or does I will be with her and behind her 100%. I am aware that life does not always go specifically as we might want, but that gives me no call to disown her, or more to the point: No call to punish her for the rest of eternity.

In case 2 I would say to my daughter that no matter what she decides or does I will be with her and behind her 100%. I am aware that life does not always go specifically as we might want, and humans do make mistakes, but that gives me no call to disown her, or more to the point: No call to punish her for the rest of eternity.

Tell me, has she actually done anything 'wrong'?

But let's get this straight: It's not just a threatened eternal punishment for not listening to his advice and rules, but for not accepting or loving him. The self centeredness of that is utterly sickening.

But this is not god's form of parenting, going back once again to the earlier OT comment, we can see god stating that you should kill your son by stoning him to death if he is naughty, (Deut). That is god's form of parenting. The minute they step out of line or fuck up, give them plague. Hey but don't stop there, just to rub salt into the wounds you can also expel them to an eternal pit of fire.

Actually I just happened to pick up this weeks magazines, (for the competitions :D), and have found an excerpt from a good parenting book. I don't agree specifically with all the advice in it, but I find some parts worth quoting for the sake of this discussion:

1) Ensure that the punishment fits the crime.

From a biblical standpoint: Abraham lied to Abimelech and said that Sarah was his sister. Abimelech then chatted her up to which god then came down and threatened him with death before closing the wombs of all the women in Abimelechs household. This certainly doesn't fit the crime. Abraham, (gods own), had bold faced lied, (which he later said because he was scared for his life - thus not trusting enough of god to keep him alive), and as a result to that, the "punishment" given to an innocent for an innocent mistake was the closure of the wombs of a bunch of innocent women who weren't even a part of the innocent mistake.

Then we could go to the jews in the desert. They nagged for some meat. Ok, some parents might see this as a "crime", but what punishment do you think fits? Do you honestly state that god's punishment of plague to death fit the crime of nagging?

I could give you many more examples but this shall suffice for now.

2) Be sensitive. Make it clear that it's the bad behaviour that is unacceptable, not the child.

From a biblical standpoint: They never got to find out because god just slaughtered them all. We're not even talking about the occasional person here and there but every single person on the planet save half a dozen.

3) Be brief. Apply your penalty as soon as possible after the bad behaviour and complete it quickly.

From a biblical standpoint: I really don't consider "eternity" as completed quickly.

The reason it says to complete it quickly is because: "long term punishments - such as making a child miss a favourite TV programme for three weeks - may seem reasonable at the time but delays, and time to replay the incident, allow bad feelings to set in."

So to answer your question in short format: No, I don't think it's beneficial for a person to be pregnant at 14 in this day and age. But to add to that nor do I see what punishing them for their mistakes will do to rectify the situation to any worthwhile degree, whereas absolute love and support can only help to make everyone feel better about the whole thing. Nor would I kill her for making a bad decision.

A couple decides to let their 14 year old daughter watch a romantic movie, with steamy sex scenes in it. The young girl thinks about the movie and it makes her curious about this sex lark. She falls pregnant at 14. Now who is responsible?

Let's put this in another way shall we?

A couple decides to let their 14 year old boy read the bible with murderous scenes in it. The young boy thinks about the book and it makes him curious about it. He goes out and drowns some people. Now who is responsible?

I had a debate with a reporter from the New York Times who stated that Grand Theft Auto should be banned because it contained images of graphic violence. He mentioned a case whereby 2 children went out after playing it and started shooting peoples cars.

I mentioned that as this is the case he might aswell just ask for a ban on Tom & Jerry which shows just as much violence and might cause kids to go round smacking each others teeth out with pianos and dustbin lids - or indeed getting hold of some dynamite and shoving it in people's mouths, only to laugh when they explode.

The problem is with the person, not the product or the provider of that product. If a man watches Superman and then believes he can fly, it is something within him. I've seen many films with sex scenes, and yet I don't then jump up and go bonk the nearest person to me.

As long as you explain the issues in a nice loving manner to ensure the kid pays attention to what you're saying - you shouldn't really have a problem - but then if a problem does arise, love can help fix it faster than shackles.

At the end of the day of course, sex is completely natural and generally unavoidable. Once a child gets to a certain age they will start to experiment regardless to what you tell them. Once the body starts producing eggs, it is ready to conceive children whether society looks down on it or not, (in a general respect). When they start having sex, whether they first saw it on TV or not, it is nobody's fault - it is a natural course for every single living thing on the planet, (ok some don't specifically have sex, but you get the point).

What I’m trying to get across is that while something’s are harmless to the well being of responsible adults, these things most likely are destructive to a child.

Sure, it most certainly can. It is once these destructive things happen that love is needed far above that of a fiery pit in hell.

So, while jealousy in the hands of God is safe

But is it? There's the question. The guy gets jealous and whacks people because of it. I do not consider that "safe". It is no less damaging than when we're jealous.

Time for my fishcake and chips.

Hope you enjoyed it :) Funnily enough I too had chips, (but not fishcakes, I opted for battered sausage instead).

-------

That is what I'm saying.

Right, and yet that's what the majority do. When it comes down to it of course, any statement concerning a godly being is "from a human perspective", and becomes inherently worthless. We cannot claim god as loving, evil, powerful, omnipotent or even existant. It just turns the whole thing into a farce.

Right, but for you all of this is meaningless. God doesn't exist.

Certainly, but no less reason to discuss it. I have nice debates and discussions about all sorts of things: vampires, werewolves and jason and the argonauts to name but a few other non existant ones, and yet it doesn't prevent the discussions concerning the stories of these non existant beings.

Therefore God can't have actions.

But of course he can.

Upon study we can see that vampirism is actually very sexually orientated. The bite on the neck, (one of the most sensual places on the body), never seeing a man being bitten on the neck, the head vampire always very charming - a true ladies man, etc etc etc.

Discussions do not rely on something's existence. The item of discussion can be discussed in whatever way it is seen given the material concerning it. A vampire doesn't have to exist for me to give it actions. These actions are based upon the text/video etc depicting vampires.

By that same token I can discuss god's "actions" as printed in the texts. If we were discussing a different religions texts, then the god in question would be seen to perform different actions, have different morals and ways of dealing with issues and so on. On this forum it generally comes down to the jewish/christian god and the text concerning this god.

You are saying that X type of God cannot exist, and I fully agree that X type of God cannot exist, or if it does, is nothing more than an egotistical tyrant.

No, I am not saying any type of god cannot exist. Whether it does or not is not the concern here. The discussion focuses on the actions of the supposed god in the biblical text. When discussing the biblical god, it is tyrannical by nature, (in the OT mainly), has a habit of exterminating humans on a whim, and does possess and display emotions that even humanity would often turn a nose up to. It doesn't mean he exists or doesn't, I'm just discussing what the text concerning this being states.

When it comes down to it I actually have an incredible amount to work with, (and thus my side is easy). It's not like these are isolated incidents. No, the bible is pack jammed with them. Stories of annihilation and murder, eternal damnation and plagues, closed wombs and sulphur bombed cities.

But the X God you describe in your understanding of the bible, is not the God of THE WHOLE BIBLE. X God exists only in a piecemeal "understanding" of the text.

From the christian standpoint, X god doesn't isn't possible at all. Instead they try to portray the most loving entity in existence that cares for, nurtures and supports his children. The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people just prefer to ignore it. No, I can't really blame them for that, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter.

You really have no place to go into "understanding". With all due respect to you, but I can understand English just like the next man can. Admittedly my Hebrew is limited, but it's better than some people, and my English is certainly good enough to get the job done. I am also as fully capable as every other person I've ever met of understanding context and other related issues. While I cannot deny you the right to look upon me as if I'm an absolute halfwit, if you so choose to, it basically comes across as a piss poor excuse to ignore what is written in preference of having an entire debate on who's penis is larger.

Basically: A discussion concerning certain aspects of a text does not mean or imply that you haven't read or don't understand the entire text, but that certain aspects are worth discussing in their own right. I am aware that the WHOLE BIBLE doesn't show god slaying the innocent, but that is no reason to ignore the moments when he does.

What you end up with is X god with a big portion of that X being the X I have been talking about, and another portion of that X being something else. You can't just remove my X because it's not the WHOLE X.

Why are you arguing about God's qualities except to show that X god can't exist?

No. I am discussing god because this is a discussion forum. You can believe he exists or not, I do not particularly care, and nor would I generally go out of my way to try and show or 'prove', (religious understanding of the word), that god doesn't exist. What I am doing is discussing the traits, actions and qualities of the biblical god according to the text describing that god. If we were discussing Apollo or Zeus, I would undoubtedly be discussing issue related to them. It doesn't mean they exist or don't exist, and nor would it mean that I was trying to show that they don't.

If it came down to that I would simply say: "god doesn't exist". End of story. Nobody can successfully argue that and I could just leave it there and be happy. I'm here to discuss issues found within religious texts and that's it - merely because I find it interesting to do so.

We are obviously, without a doubt, much different than God is.

Says who? Why obviously? Why without a doubt? Justify that.

We don't live in the "sky". We aren't "invisible". But when we describe God's emotions, then we should be able to attribute the exact specifications of them... that is silly.

Fine, let's look at a rabbit. We're not "small and furry", we don't have a "big pointy ears", but yet in many ways the rabbit is just like we are. He raises a family, he finds a place to live, he does poo's and eats food, he feels pain and fear etc etc.

It is in no way silly to think that just because we differ in some instances that it means we differ in every instance. Is a rabbit's fear any different to our own? Is a rabbit's anger and hostility towards enemies any different than our own? I'm sure we can debate these points, but would you go so far as to say: "obviously, without a doubt"?

An entity cannot fully love itself, and also hate itself. It has nothing to do with the entity's power, but rather with our inability to understand paradoxes.

To be honest I think the issue has become confused. You said:

"Cain could have said, "oh, this sacrifice isn't ok for you, let me fix that," but instead was lost in self-hate"

By that very same token I