Discussion on the FSM- keep it clean/respectful

Ok even philosophy is a part of the acedemic arena. Evidence can take various forms, in science its far more objective and tangible, in philosophy logic and logical inference hold prescident, so they both require some level of evidence. Also Neitzche's argument is not baseless, this may again just be semantics to you but his premise is observable when analysing the human condition throughout our history, we want things to be so we allow ourselves to believe that, that is indeed the case.

I don't KNOW in an academic sense, but I have absolutely ZERO DOUBT that God is real and that He desires to have a relationship with me.

Ok now thats just rubbish. you just conceeded that you can not know yet propose to have no doubts? surely a sliver at least must exist. A SLIVER I SAY! hell i have a sliver of doubt that im wrong and when i die ill be met by god, now i will concede that i really want it to be odin, simply because the avengers was awesome and i want to see asguard.

As for my point pertaining to memeories etc, the key part of that quote was 'in reality'. all those things are observable traits of our existence, we can observe inate morality in the animal kingdom, while actions or motive i should say is not always tangible there is something to be said for observing what we perceive to be love and care for a lioness' cubs, to protect them and nurture them, to guide them.

Again back to one of my original contentions that you didnt really address, by what measure do you know god to exist? im reasonably sure i have asked you this and know what you will say and your answer is very pertinent to Beach;s post. i think at some level we are just wired differently, blame god i guess. We need facts, tangible, observable and verifiable evidence to assert to know or believe something, you do not. or at least what you deem verifiable and tangible is very different to what i or mano would consider to be verifiable etc.

If you want to move on to SK and beach's respones, or RR1's, im fine with that aswell.

2k

I don't KNOW in an academic sense, but I have absolutely ZERO DOUBT that God is real and that He desires to have a relationship with me.

Ok now thats just rubbish. you just conceeded that you can not know yet propose to have no doubts? surely a sliver at least must exist. A SLIVER I SAY!

No, 2k, no doubt.  Zero.  Not a sliver.  I am 100% convinced in the existence of God and the truth of the Bible.  The Bible defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".  I have that faith and there is simply no alternate reality for me.  Now, as to the Bible I will admit there are things I still don't understand - such as whether some of the things I take literally are in fact literal, or if some of the things I consider metaphor are really metaphor.  But in the purpose and essence of the Bible I have complete trust.
As for my point pertaining to memeories etc, the key part of that quote was 'in reality'. all those things are observable traits of our existence, we can observe inate morality in the animal kingdom, while actions or motive i should say is not always tangible there is something to be said for observing what we perceive to be love and care for a lioness' cubs, to protect them and nurture them, to guide them.

Just because your inference or perception of an emotional bond is based on physical observation does not make it more valid than one based on a "spiritual" sensation.  A lioness "caring" for her cubs could just as well be an ingrained instinctive response designed for the survival of the species with no emotion attached, no?  Observable traits are required for scientific validation (even if only the results of an interaction are observable using delicate instruments), but a lack of observability does not mean something does not exist.  I don't think I'm making any sense here but I'll leave it anyway and move along.  Maybe you can explain to me what I mean

Again back to one of my original contentions that you didnt really address, by what measure do you know god to exist?

I'm not sure I understand your question, "by what measure".  Do you mean the reasons I believe, or the evidence I perceive to prove His existence?

No, 2k, no doubt.  Zero.  Not a sliver.  I am 100% convinced in the existence of God and the truth of the Bible.  The Bible defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".  I have that faith and there is simply no alternate reality for me.  Now, as to the Bible I will admit there are things I still don't understand - such as whether some of the things I take literally are in fact literal, or if some of the things I consider metaphor are really metaphor.  But in the purpose and essence of the Bible I have complete trust.

Well, i dont know what to say to that. the evidence of things not seen...i guess i should just refer you to the point i made about religion advocating the stance that believing in something without evidence is superior to actually having evidence. I guess we are just wired differently, perhaps curiousity is not as big of a trait in you as it is in me or others. i cant live my life like that, i cant just be told something and go with the flow thinking it is the absolute word of god, or inspired word of god when it contains teachings that simply completely contradict what i deem to be right, and just so happen to be what i would expect from sexually repressed ignorant bronze aged men.

Just because your inference or perception of an emotional bond is based on physical observation does not make it more valid than one based on a "spiritual" sensation.  A lioness "caring" for her cubs could just as well be an ingrained instinctive response designed for the survival of the species with no emotion attached, no?  Observable traits are required for scientific validation (even if only the results of an interaction are observable using delicate instruments), but a lack of observability does not mean something does not exist.  I don't think I'm making any sense here but I'll leave it anyway and move along.  Maybe you can explain to me what I mean

Your penultimate sentence is accurate in this case. Something being observable is superior to me as a piece of evidence than simply assuming that x or y exists. while the lack of observable aspects of something dont mean that something can not or does not exist, it does however reduce the probability of such a thing existing and at the very least should lead to the statement ' i dont know this exists or i can not say that this exists therefore, for now it does not exist in my world view as i have no reason to believe it'. i could assert the flying spahghetti monster exists, i cant point to any tangible evidence, but sometimes, if you squint real hard and look at the nights sky, you can sometimes feel his tendrils, you cant see them, but it sends chills up my spine.

to speak to the lioness thing really quick. While i understand your point, you are correct to an extent in saying that we basically dont know what is going on in her mind, but the distinction i was trying to make was, you can see the lioness, regardless of the chemical processes that are taking place within her mind, you can see the product and to that extent you have a basis for evidence to begin to infer why that may be? what could such actions connote? i have not seen god do anything, i have no 'faith' if you will that he even exists, no evidence to support that claim, so when people speak of gods love and such things; im left thinking? what are you seeing that im not?

.  Do you mean the reasons I believe, or the evidence I perceive to prove His existence?

Go for it, on both counts, the more data i have on the issue the better i can understand your position.


2k

Well, i dont know what to say to that. the evidence of things not seen...i guess i should just refer you to the point i made about religion advocating the stance that believing in something without evidence is superior to actually having evidence.

The quote I posted was simply the Bible's definitin of faith.  It was not meant to say anything about the superiority of one view or the other.  That passage goes on to talk about what people of faith did in the past, referencing other Biblical passages, to make the point that those people did what they did because they trusted in God, and in the promises that He made.

I guess we are just wired differently, perhaps curiousity is not as big of a trait in you as it is in me or others

I was curious about what the Bible had to say and began reading it.  Before I was finished I believed it, despite my lack of understanding about many things, and dedicated my life to Christ.

i cant live my life like that, i cant just be told something and go with the flow thinking it is the absolute word of god, or inspired word of god when it contains teachings that simply completely contradict what i deem to be right, and just so happen to be what i would expect from sexually repressed ignorant bronze aged men.

I wasn't just told anything, as I stated just now, I read the book and it struck me in such a way that I believed it.  I admit that I did have reservations or concerns about many things in the Old Testament because they were also at odds with my opinion on things.  But my conclusion was that if God is God, who am I to tell Him how to run things?
while the lack of observable aspects of something dont mean that something can not or does not exist, it does however reduce the probability of such a thing existing and at the very least should lead to the statement ' i dont know this exists or i can not say that this exists therefore, for now it does not exist in my world view as i have no reason to believe it'.

Return again to the definition of faith.  Faith makes it real, just like your earlier example that your mind gave tangible weight to an emotional response.  I can't explain it, I honestly can't.  My dad wasn't very affectionate when I was growing up, in the sense that he rarely told me "I love you" or did those things that some dads do with their kids to show affection.  But I never doubted that he loved me, and it had nothing to do with the fact that he provided food, shelter, and clothing - those thoughts never entered my mind until I became an adult.  I just always knew my dad loved me, even after a spanking.  Some things just don't require external evidence in my opinion.

The quote I posted was simply the Bible's definitin of faith.  It was not meant to say anything about the superiority of one view or the other.  That passage goes on to talk about what people of faith did in the past, referencing other Biblical passages, to make the point that those people did what they did because they trusted in God, and in the promises that He made.

Well by quoting it i assume you somewhat agree with its message? what is your definition of faith, what do you deem faith to be?

It may not speak directly to the superiority of one view over the other, or more so, that may not be its prime motive, but that is exactly what it does. The message you take away as a child or student is one that i outlined, and i dont think that is a good thing for society, the self or academic study.

was curious about what the Bible had to say and began reading it.  Before I was finished I believed it, despite my lack of understanding about many things, and dedicated my life to Christ.

So my point holds true to some degree at least. When i was referring to the level of curiousity one person has, i quite literally meant to say that curiousity is ambigious in that it seen to be a trait that all homosapiens share yet i think while that is true to a very small degree, it does not do justice to those of us that are truly curious, that is what i was getting at. For you reading the bible was sufficient to sate your curiousity, ( ill use the quran as its more pertinent to me) but for me, i had to not only read the quran, but then i had to go and find out what other scholars had said, what was sciences opinion on the creation of our universe, or humans, or embreology and other things that may have been mentioned. Do i agree with the morale code that is outlined? the more i read, the more debates i watched, the more i came to realise that it was a pile of horse excrement and very hazardous horse excrement at that.

The thing that really gets me is your final sentence, you admit to not even understanding what you had read, hell, you didnt even read it all before you believed it, but yet you believed what it said...WHY? thats what im trying to understand. What part of it connected with you as a person, because no rational applicationof critque or reason that i can think of will allow a person to do what you did. It has to be emotion, something you took from it that you deemed pertinent to your life. If you step away and look at it from a purely objective stance, devoid of emotion and analyse it for what it is; a book with the message of god ( simplified i know but im trying to save time here) you have to start applying what it says with what we know about reality and when you do that LTS, you find it wanting. Metaphors or not, it is not clear. and more so than that, look at its teachings, they are incredibily outdated, women are still seen as the submissive sex. The key to the freedom for this world and the abolishment of poverty will begin with the empowerment of women; the church and religions in general have done a breathtaking job and stifiling the role of women in society. This is just one topic which does not allow me to reconcile what is being put forth in scripture and teachings of prophets and such. I could keep going on and on but lets leave this part here for now, and see where this conversation goes.

But my conclusion was that if God is God, who am I to tell Him how to run things?

If is the key word in that sentence. IF god is god then i would concur with your conclusion, we would be in no position to question a mind that we can not possibily understand but that is not the case. the mind or ideas that are put forth are far to familiar, they are far too human, imperfect, sadistic,ignorant and immoral for me to sit there and think that this is the creator of our universe. this is what it comes down to, what makes you think that god is god? not just that he exists but what makes you think such a being that is discribed in those texts, and commits the acts that he does, is WORTHY of reverence? power should not be all it takes to bend the knee.

Faith makes it real,

You see here again i disagree. Faith at best, makes it a possibility, and the levels of evidence you have determine the likelyhood of the probability of that possibility being true or occuring. Ill go with my recent mushy self and put this forth. I do not know that i am loved for sure,  but i have faith that i am cared for, and that i hold meaning to this other person because of conversations we have had, and actions taken by both of us, but i do not know. Faith is not an inherently bad thing in all cases, all im saying is; is that there should be some GOOD evidence, not juts any old piece of evidence, and more than that, the greater the claim the greater the evidence should be. I mean you could hypothetically forge a letter with the words i love you, signed with the name of this other person and i wouldnt take it to be good evidence as i have no idea about this persons hand writing etc, i would simply have to assume that is the case, and it would go against some of the things we have outlined. Faith in god does not make him real sir. I dont mean to be aburpt, faith is not enough to hold on to something in the face of poor evidence. Trust me when i say, i wish some things were clear and required no faith, i wish sometimes we could just talk and get the answers our minds and hearts yearned for, but wanting something bad enough will not make it real or true, for that we need evidence, for that we need time and effort, leading to proof; the premise of the abrahmic god does not have these things.

2k

2k,

Regarding the definition of faith:

It may not speak directly to the superiority of one view over the other, or more so, that may not be its prime motive, but that is exactly what it does. The message you take away as a child or student is one that i outlined, and i dont think that is a good thing for society, the self or academic study.

I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that believing without seeing is viewed as superior; I guess it doesn't really matter because the requirement of faith is implicit in Scripture.  "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1) "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." (Heb. 11:6).  If you see something you no longer have (or need) faith, because "hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?" (Rom. 8:24)

When i was referring to the level of curiousity one person has, i quite literally meant to say that curiousity is ambigious in that it seen to be a trait that all homosapiens share yet i think while that is true to a very small degree, it does not do justice to those of us that are truly curious, that is what i was getting at.

Not to stir up trouble but is "truly curious" superior to "curious"?  

For you reading the bible was sufficient to sate your curiousity, ( ill use the quran as its more pertinent to me) but for me, i had to not only read the quran, but then i had to go and find out what other scholars had said, what was sciences opinion on the creation of our universe, or humans, or embreology and other things that may have been mentioned. Do i agree with the morale code that is outlined? the more i read, the more debates i watched, the more i came to realise that it was a pile of horse excrement and very hazardous horse excrement at that.

Maybe the big difference here is that when I read things that bothered me or gave me a moment of pause, I went beyond it to take in the entire message of the Bible.  I ignored the details, so to speak, to gain understanding of the big picture.  The things I didn't understand after my first reading did not affect my conviction that the overall story was something I believed.  In much the same way the frequent back-and-forth about literal vs. non-literal, or contradiction vs. non-contradiction, is basically an argument I had within myself as I was reading.  To me it seemed clear that hyperbole, simile, metaphor, symbolism, and bias were all elements used throughout the Bible so I had no issue with being turned off by any one concept or passage or idea.  If anything, it is non-believers who insist that the Bible be interpreted literally; if the Bible is literally literal then it is a ridiculous literary work.  However, the Bible is not literal from cover to cover though there are things within it that are meant to be literal.  You must study it to know the difference.  Unfortunately even if you, 2k, did study it at that level your questions would not be answered because your burden of proof is beyond what the Bible itself offers.  Only an overt act of God would satisfy you, and only then as long as you could not rationalize the event to some naturalistic occurrence.

Have you ever watched Bones?  Typing that I was reminded of Bones as she talked about love and romance and always described them as a combination of chemical releases in the brain eliciting a perception and physical response.  She didn't believe in love at all despite the evidence in front of her, which were her own feelings. 

The thing that really gets me is your final sentence, you admit to not even understanding what you had read, hell, you didnt even read it all before you believed it, but yet you believed what it said...WHY? thats what im trying to understand. What part of it connected with you as a person, because no rational applicationof critque or reason that i can think of will allow a person to do what you did.

It has to be emotion, something you took from it that you deemed pertinent to your life. If you step away and look at it from a purely objective stance, devoid of emotion and analyse it for what it is; a book with the message of god ( simplified i know but im trying to save time here) you have to start applying what it says with what we know about reality and when you do that LTS, you find it wanting.

You have formed your own conclusion on this 2k.  No matter what explanation I offer - if I can even do so - you have decided that I have not "look(ed) at it from a purely objective stance, devoid of emotion" and that I will probably never do so, because if I did I would agree with you!  Your problems with the Bible (as I percieve them) are 1)that it makes statements not backed up by science when it comes to matters of the physical universe, and 2) it attributes to God a personality and set of laws with which you do not agree.  I don't have a problem with either because even though I accept much of the Bible at face value, I don't take everything in it literally.  It will not disprove my faith (or the Bible) if aliens appear in their space ships, or if in fact the universe is 10-15 billion years old because the Bible does not speak to those things.  As for judgement and laws, as I wrote before "if God is God, who am I to tell Him how to run things?"

Metaphors or not, it is not clear. and more so than that, look at its teachings, they are incredibily outdated, women are still seen as the submissive sex. The key to the freedom for this world and the abolishment of poverty will begin with the empowerment of women; the church and religions in general have done a breathtaking job and stifiling the role of women in society. This is just one topic which does not allow me to reconcile what is being put forth in scripture and teachings of prophets and such. I could keep going on and on but lets leave this part here for now, and see where this conversation goes.

Women are the weaker sex, physically speaking.  I don't think there is any argument there.  And yes, in the Bible they are clearly directed to be submissive to their husbands.  We would get quickly sidetracked so let's leave this for later because it is a complex subject but I think your perception of women's Scriptural position is not accurate.

As for your other comment The key to the freedom for this world and the abolishment of poverty will begin with the empowerment of women, that is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time.  I love women - my mother is one, and so is my wife - but how about a little reality check here?  I think you are overstating their role and influence with that statement.  As long as our current human nature exists there will be poverty and oppression.  As long as someone has the chance to gain power or status there will be poverty and oppression.  It is one sad condition of a fallen world.

this is what it comes down to, what makes you think that god is god? not just that he exists but what makes you think such a being that is discribed in those texts, and commits the acts that he does, is WORTHY of reverence? power should not be all it takes to bend the knee.

As far as being worthy of reverence - I don't see it as God having to earn my respect.  If He is God then He has my respect.  Were you one of those troublemakers that always argued with the coach when you were given instructions, or did you do what the coach said and keep your mouth shut because he was the coach?  I was taught that even when Coach is wrong, Coach is always right.  Not by Coach, but by my father.  I have had plenty of rebellious times in my life, but when it comes to respecting the authority before me I have always done so - maybe I'm just not a revolutionary at heart?  Anyway, I know there is a difference between Coach and God, temporal and eternal, sport and life/death, but I don't argue with either.  God is sovereign and that ends the discussion on my part.

Now, I will say that if I was given instructions to kill others because they were displeasing to God, I would have a real problem with that.  I think one of the benefits of being me is that I don't have to make that decision because I'm not a Jew in ancient Israel.  That would probably have been an area where I could easily have failed God, just as I today easily fail God in many different ways daily.  But even if I was disobedient in that matter I wouldn't rail against God as unfair, mean, or cruel.  He makes the rules. 

Interpreted in the context that God's instructions were given for the benefit of Israel, I think it is easy to understand the reason behind the instruction to eliminate the Canaanites, but I can't say I would have followed through.  How much trouble came to the Jews because they did not follow those instructions?  Even though the civil code called for the execution of an adulterer, I can't say I would have taken my wife to the nearest judge to have her stoned.  She would probably have me stoned, I don't plan to find out.

Now I am grateful that God sent Jesus to pay the penalty for my sin so that I can live in His presence forever.  Believing in Christ, and in the reason behind His sacrifice, I worship God out of gratitude as well as His position as Deity.  I think that ties to an emotional response because I certainly am not trying to repay God objectively for the act of salvation - that isn't possible - and as I related to you long ago my initial acceptance of Christ was very emotional.  So returning to your earlier point the genesis of my faith was very much from that standpoint.  Since that time, having studied the Bible more deeply and experienced life devoted to God I have become more convinced regarding the truth of it all.  Those are the other answers you have asked for and I will make an attempt in another post, later, to describe these things to you.

    Faith makes it real,

You see here again i disagree. Faith at best, makes it a possibility, and the levels of evidence you have determine the likelyhood of the probability of that possibility being true or occuring.

I would say that a hunch makes it a possibility; suspicion makes it a probability; faith makes it real.

I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that believing without seeing is viewed as superior; I guess it doesn't really matter because the requirement of faith is implicit in Scripture.  "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1) "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." (Heb. 11:6).  If you see something you no longer have (or need) faith, because "hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?" (Rom. 8:24)

Ok hi there again. I may have mispoke by simply pointing towards seeing something in and off itself, but i meant something that is observable,testable, repeatable etc etc, i..e the scienfific method eluding to the premise that essentially, something without evidence to support its claim is superior to something that has evidence i.e. i dont know...evolution, creationism etc

Yeh that quote doesnt jive with me, its just drenched in synthetic control methods ' you must believe this, even without evidence' which is essentially what its getting at. You have to believe all these things that you simply cant know at this point, or have no evidence for, i find it silly to believe in such things.

Not to stir up trouble but is "truly curious" superior to "curious"?

haha, touche. but i was eluding to the premise that humans deem themselves to be a curious species, while that is true to an extent i think there is a distinct difference between some levels of curiousity and others- some people dont like to take things on blind faith and question everything, others think they are curious because they need to know who kim kardashian banged last weekend.

Maybe the big difference here is that when I read things that bothered me or gave me a moment of pause, I went beyond it to take in the entire message of the Bible.  I ignored the details, so to speak, to gain understanding of the big picture.  The things I didn't understand after my first reading did not affect my conviction that the overall story was something I believed.  In much the same way the frequent back-and-forth about literal vs. non-literal, or contradiction vs. non-contradiction, is basically an argument I had within myself as I was reading.  To me it seemed clear that hyperbole, simile, metaphor, symbolism, and bias were all elements used throughout the Bible so I had no issue with being turned off by any one concept or passage or idea.  If anything, it is non-believers who insist that the Bible be interpreted literally; if the Bible is literally literal then it is a ridiculous literary work.  However, the Bible is not literal from cover to cover though there are things within it that are meant to be literal.  You must study it to know the difference.  Unfortunately even if you, 2k, did study it at that level your questions would not be answered because your burden of proof is beyond what the Bible itself offers.  Only an overt act of God would satisfy you, and only then as long as you could not rationalize the event to some naturalistic occurrence.

Have you ever watched Bones?  Typing that I was reminded of Bones as she talked about love and romance and always described them as a combination of chemical releases in the brain eliciting a perception and physical response.  She didn't believe in love at all despite the evidence in front of her, which were her own feelings. 

Ok you speak for me here, and i feel as though i should first address your notion that only an act of god would convince me ( which it would i guess, and many others, which makes you wonder...why the hell does he not save potentially, billions of lives and just descend or send gabe or mike or someone down for a quick angelic talk?). I would be far more convinced that your religion or X religion lets say for arguments sake, was valid if what was stated in the text that was offered was indeed factual and proveable, thus far we have found no sigh of the jews exodus across the desert ( just using this as an example) or we cant even verify the existence of jesus, or his miracles, or how noah did what he did with such a small vessel...As for this character you speak of- retarded.

Anyway i digress, the bible being literal or not doesnt really matter in my opinion, not in the grand scheme of things, i could take large parts of it and say they were simply fables or metaphors and i would still arive at the conclusion that i disagreed with the intended meaning, or that the meaning was not clear, or not clear enough when considering the gravitas of the subject being discussed.

What is the overall story that you believe in? what did not jive at first with you when you were reading through the bible at first? just curious is all. beucase it seems like my assertion was correct, you were driven by blind faith far more than the inquisitve aspect of your mind, you fellhook line and sinker before you had probably even finished the first couple accounts, which allowed you to in essence neglect or undervalue the contradictions that you saw, or things you disagreed with.

Im interested in why that happened? literalism in this sense does not matter, the core values of god are my concern, the nature of your life, the purpose of existence, his plan, his actions, are all so silly that i cant bring myself to believe that the words come from or are inspired by some all powerful deity.

You have formed your own conclusion on this 2k.  No matter what explanation I offer - if I can even do so - you have decided that I have not "look(ed) at it from a purely objective stance, devoid of emotion" and that I will probably never do so, because if I did I would agree with you!  Your problems with the Bible (as I percieve them) are 1)that it makes statements not backed up by science when it comes to matters of the physical universe, and 2) it attributes to God a personality and set of laws with which you do not agree.  I don't have a problem with either because even though I accept much of the Bible at face value, I don't take everything in it literally.  It will not disprove my faith (or the Bible) if aliens appear in their space ships, or if in fact the universe is 10-15 billion years old because the Bible does not speak to those things.  As for judgement and laws, as I wrote before "if God is God, who am I to tell Him how to run things?"

NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE :D

Well i have to address your final point here. By what evidence can you assert that he is god? by what observable virtue can you grant this being level of godhood in your eyes? You seem to have skipped too far ahead, and have convinced yourself that this being is god, where as i first decided to examine the claims and ask myself - ' does this seem godly? devine? morale? Supremely intelligent?logical?' what im getting at is; it seems like you were convinced of gods existence without even attempting to verify what was being told to you or going out and seeing if any of what is being spouted has any merit to it in the real world.

Lets take the premise that the world was not created in 6 literal days, that could be a metaphor of sorts, which you know? im somewhat fine with, i dont like not being clear on issues that are rather important but lets say that is the case for now...do you think noah's flood was real? or a metaphor? by what right or method can you assert what is and what is not to be taken literally? most of the bible is founded on psudo-science, not just one or two things, MOST of it is not verifiable thats why i have an issue with it. Its ludicrous.

Surely disproving ( or not finding any evidence for) acts discribed in the bible(that is to say things that the bible does speak to) i.e. the great flood, dead rising, existence of the son of of god, The jonah story etc etc has to at some level tarnish the validity of the text...? thats what im getting at, why are the two points you raised not enough to make you think ' hold the phone, this may be BS?'

And i do apoligise for forming my own conclusion but i wasnt trying to hide that fact that i was attempting to figure out why you think the way you do ( which is the purpose of this discussion i feel)

Women are the weaker sex, physically speaking.  I don't think there is any argument there.  And yes, in the Bible they are clearly directed to be submissive to their husbands.  We would get quickly sidetracked so let's leave this for later because it is a complex subject but I think your perception of women's Scriptural position is not accurate.

Id be interested to know how you think my perception is not accurate, i would be more than happy to learn more on the subject when you have time.

As for your other comment The key to the freedom for this world and the abolishment of poverty will begin with the empowerment of women, that is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time.  I love women - my mother is one, and so is my wife - but how about a little reality check here?  I think you are overstating their role and influence with that statement.  As long as our current human nature exists there will be poverty and oppression.  As long as someone has the chance to gain power or status there will be poverty and oppression.  It is one sad condition of a fallen world.

Im glad you find humor in what i said, wel to be honest it slightly irrates me to read that. A fallen world, allowed to fall by your supposed creator- oh my, lets all bow down before his awesome plan. Look first of all, i said it begins with, and its pivotal if you want to abolish such things, now im not saying it WILL be done, to completely obliterate slavery and such cant be done completely, but if we want to reduce levels of poverty and oppression in the world by a great amount it starts there. it starts with the womens ability to work in the middle east, to wear what she likes, TO SAY NO to culture and outdated bronze aged dogma, it starts when women can be looked at as equals- ill grant that men are clearly physically more powerful but the capicity for a woman's intellect is no less than a mans, in fact, judging by what i see at times i would say they have the edge on us males in that department.

I am not overstating the effect an entire gender, some 3.5 billion people, have on our world. In fact i think you are understating the strife they endure and the potential good that would come if society as a whole, the world as a whole, stopped being so deeply drenched in god damn misogyny. ( pun definately intended)

As far as being worthy of reverence - I don't see it as God having to earn my respect.  If He is God then He has my respect.  Were you one of those troublemakers that always argued with the coach when you were given instructions, or did you do what the coach said and keep your mouth shut because he was the coach?  I was taught that even when Coach is wrong, Coach is always right.  Not by Coach, but by my father.  I have had plenty of rebellious times in my life, but when it comes to respecting the authority before me I have always done so - maybe I'm just not a revolutionary at heart?  Anyway, I know there is a difference between Coach and God, temporal and eternal, sport and life/death, but I don't argue with either.  God is sovereign and that ends the discussion on my part.

Again with the incorrect comparisons, your coach may have deserved your respect because he has demonstrated a career that speaks to what he is teaching you, he is able to do so because the evidence of his achievements and prowess in the whatever field you are being taught in- IS OBSERVABLE AND MORE SO PROVEABLE. GOD HAS NIETHER!!!!!!!!!!!

So you didnt answer my question, what makes you think he is god, saying 'if he is god then he has my respect' is not good enough by any measurement, THE WORD IF, stands out, you dont know do you? you simply dont, but you are attatching the lofty title to this thing you cant know, you are assuming on blind faith alone that this thing exists in the face of little to no evidence, you are essetnially making up the most important facet of your life and of reality for what?because of what?

And im one of those people that question things when i think they are stupid, but if my coach wants me to play a certain way for the good of the team ill give him the benefit of the doubt and see how it goes, if it doesnt work, ill discuss it with him after the game.

Now, I will say that if I was given instructions to kill others because they were displeasing to God, I would have a real problem with that.  I think one of the benefits of being me is that I don't have to make that decision because I'm not a Jew in ancient Israel.  That would probably have been an area where I could easily have failed God, just as I today easily fail God in many different ways daily.  But even if I was disobedient in that matter I wouldn't rail against God as unfair, mean, or cruel.  He makes the rules. 

WAIT WHAT? ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!! ok woosah woosah. he makes the rules? thats your justification for atrocities? how does it make you feel? how does it feel to know that your god will torture, or allow the torture of billions for no good reason, when he knew they would sin, HE KNEW LTS, he knew they would wrong him and yet he let them exist and sin for what?

Now I am grateful that God sent Jesus to pay the penalty for my sin so that I can live in His presence forever.  Believing in Christ, and in the reason behind His sacrifice, I worship God out of gratitude as well as His position as Deity.  I think that ties to an emotional response because I certainly am not trying to repay God objectively for the act of salvation - that isn't possible - and as I related to you long ago my initial acceptance of Christ was very emotional.  So returning to your earlier point the genesis of my faith was very much from that standpoint.  Since that time, having studied the Bible more deeply and experienced life devoted to God I have become more convinced regarding the truth of it all.  Those are the other answers you have asked for and I will make an attempt in another post, later, to describe these things to you.

Why could he not simply forgive you? how hard is that ' you are forgiven' thats all he had to do/say, but no, he set a condition upon his salvation, and then rested this condition on a mountain of clouds and asked for humanity to stand on top and beleive... you speak to him being a deity again, this seems to be a theme of sorts for us recently, but what makes you think he is? his text is riddled with inaccuracies, a child can see the error of some of his plans, teenagers can laugh at the silly fables, and we all can see the injustice in his overall punishment for people, what is just? what is right about gods plan, about his actions? what makes you skip ahead and assert that god is god, therefore everything is ok ( which by the way, i could somewhat understand that premise of letting god do what he wants if he was god, but i have a terrible cramp from fighting against this stupidity- kudos if anyone gets the reference, i wont just bend the knee because he is almighty, his actions are still his actions and i disagree with them, they make no sense to me, but i digress).

I would say that a hunch makes it a possibility; suspicion makes it a probability; faith makes it real.

Well what you say then is wrong. Im sorry but something being real would be factual evidence, proof if you will. thats real, faith is the assertion of believe in something that is not proveable, or has little to no evidence.

I like the syntax/Grammar of the sentence by the way, its quite poetic, just so happens to be wrong though.

2k

Im glad you find humor in what i said, wel to be honest it slightly irrates me to read that. A fallen world, allowed to fall by your supposed creator- oh my, lets all bow down before his awesome plan. Look first of all, i said it begins with, and its pivotal if you want to abolish such things, now im not saying it WILL be done, to completely obliterate slavery and such cant be done completely, but if we want to reduce levels of poverty and oppression in the world by a great amount it starts there. it starts with the womens ability to work in the middle east, to wear what she likes, TO SAY NO to culture and outdated bronze aged dogma, it starts when women can be looked at as equals- ill grant that men are clearly physically more powerful but the capicity for a woman's intellect is no less than a mans, in fact, judging by what i see at times i would say they have the edge on us males in that department.

I am not overstating the effect an entire gender, some 3.5 billion people, have on our world. In fact i think you are understating the strife they endure and the potential good that would come if society as a whole, the world as a whole, stopped being so deeply drenched in god damn misogyny. ( pun definately intended)

I wanted to address this separately because I realize I don't think about the fact that your background is one that has direct knowledge of the suppression of women.  So I apologize for being insensitive in my response.  

My life is such that I work with professional women every day.  They are business owners, executives, high level managers, etc. so my reality is that women don't need empowering.  Despite their presence in business and government at every level, no problems have been resolved or lessened over the past 60+ years due to the contributions of women.  My opinion is that if you single out any demographic when espousing equality then you have already lost your argument.  Anyway, I do apologize for my response because we come from opposite ends of the spectrum on that topic as well.

What is the overall story that you believe in? what did not jive at first with you when you were reading through the bible at first? just curious is all. beucase it seems like my assertion was correct, you were driven by blind faith far more than the inquisitve aspect of your mind, you fellhook line and sinker before you had probably even finished the first couple accounts, which allowed you to in essence neglect or undervalue the contradictions that you saw, or things you disagreed with.

The overall story I believe in is this:  God created the world and all life; God has standards that must be met in order to attain an eternal existence in His presence, which is a paradise of sorts; because man is not able to meet those standards He allowed for substitutionary sacrifice to pay the penalty for sin; the sacrifice is God Himself who took on a physical existence to fulfill God's requirements; by trusting in God and in the sacrifice of Christ I am given that gift of eternal life.

My questions throughout the OT dealt largely with issues of time and literalism - were the 6 days of creation meant to be literal?  The lifespans of the people listed throughout the book of Genesis?  A global or regional flood in Noah's day?  Where did Cain's wife come from?  Largely things like that.  I thought about the fact that I was reading things viewed from the perspective of people who did not have the advantages of technologies we take for granted, and the corresponding scientific discoveries that led to those technologies and resulted from those technologies.  I was struck by the cultures described in the OT and was taken back by many of their practices, especially the violence with which they lived and died.  I contemplated human nature and came to the conclusion that we are exactly the same as they were - though in the western world we have been sheltered from many aspects of that kind of violence and that manner of living.  My conclusion was that the Bible was about the interplay between God's nature and human nature, and certain details faded in importance; I was no longer concerned about literalism because my opinion of Inspiration was that God would use the experiences and knowledge of the penmen to get His point across; He would not possess a person to write things unkown to the person, but would rather "inspire" the writer to record certain things using the circumstances in which the writer found himself.  I fear that is very over-simplified but that's what was going through my mind.

Im interested in why that happened? literalism in this sense does not matter, the core values of god are my concern, the nature of your life, the purpose of existence, his plan, his actions, are all so silly that i cant bring myself to believe that the words come from or are inspired by some all powerful deity.

I think in order to truly understand anything you must immerse yourself in the whole of it - if I remained detached and skimmed the surface of Scripture I would only see fables and stories that seem to contradict what I have been told about life on this planet, and the story of one specific family over a period of several thousand years.  If I began to study evolution and only skimmed the surface I think you would agree I would be left with an unsatisfactory and incomplete picture.  But if I immersed myself in evolution and accepted all of what was taught at face value, then I would have a real grasp of what evolution teaches and could make a decision based on the entire picture - not stopping halfway through when confronted with something I disagreed or had questions about.  That is how I approached reading the Bible, to accept what was written as I thought it was intended to be received based on my own thinking at the time.  After absorbing much of it, and spending a lot of time looking at Hebrew and Greek word studies to see if my King James was really an accurate translation, I came to a point where I simply accepted it.  It was definitely before I finished the entire Bible as you suspected (and have stated as much more than once on this thread), but not quite as early as you say.  I was at the end of John's gospel which is maybe 80% through the entire Bible, about halfway through the New Testament.  As I said I came to a point of acceptance and surrendered myself because I was left with no more doubts about the truth of the Bible's message.

By what evidence can you assert that he is god? by what observable virtue can you grant this being level of godhood in your eyes?

I have none to offer you, as stated somewhere about Page 3 of this thread.

You seem to have skipped too far ahead, and have convinced yourself that this being is god, where as i first decided to examine the claims and ask myself - ' does this seem godly? devine? morale? Supremely intelligent?logical?' what im getting at is; it seems like you were convinced of gods existence without even attempting to verify what was being told to you or going out and seeing if any of what is being spouted has any merit to it in the real world.

First, "Does this seem godly?" is a question based on your personal view of what godly would be if you could make your own god, or when you consider what kind of god you would think worthy of reverence.  "Does this seem moral?" is based on your view of morality.  "Does this seem intelligent, or logical?" is based on your opinion of intelligence and logic.  I don't think that is how you can make a judgment concerning God because "His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts".  Some people think it is logical and moral to kill other people because of their religion or sexual preference.  Some think it is logical and moral to take money from one group of people and give it to another group without their consent.  You may agree with one or the other, or disagree with both, but the point is your sense of morality, logic, and godliness is different than what is portrayed in the Bible.  Similar in many ways, but different.  You can certainly disagree with God's morality and judgment, even despise and ridicule them, but you cannot (or should not) disallow for His existence based on your own personal opinions.  This is why I mentioned my view that you have to immerse yourself in it and receive it as you think it was intended.

Second, "attempting to verify"- you know full well there is limited evidence as to the existence of Jesus.  There are only a few references I am aware of by historians, none of whom were eyewitnesses.  There is none - except for our very existence - relating to God the Father.  My faith as it relates to the Bible is fully dependent on the actions and reliability of the apostles.  Again, I take the writing at face value and do not believe anyone fabricated the events therein.  The lives of the apostles after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ are significant to me.  I am not taken back by a sparsity of contemporary writings because they lived in a tiny corner of the Roman Empire and were seen as a tiny sect of the Jews.  So why would there be volumes of information on the early Christians?  They were so small in number and so scattered that I wouldn't expect a lot of information.  I have no problem with your accusation of blind faith - really, I admit to it.  I understand that you require observable phenomena to believe something, I don't have that burden.

Again with the incorrect comparisons, your coach may have deserved your respect because he has demonstrated a career that speaks to what he is teaching you, he is able to do so because the evidence of his achievements and prowess in the whatever field you are being taught in- IS OBSERVABLE AND MORE SO PROVEABLE. GOD HAS NIETHER!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't believe it is an incorrect comparison.  You added a great deal to my argument when you wrote the underlined part.  I was taught that Coach is always right, period.  Coach may have never coached a day in his life; he may have never played the game a day in his life and is only there to help out because the team needed a coach.  He could be Bruce Arians, but that doesn't matter because Coach Is Always Right.  Without earning anything.  The position is given respect, not the man.  My point was that God gets that respect for the simple fact that He is God (which is the assumption I was allowing for in that context).

So you didnt answer my question, what makes you think he is god, saying 'if he is god then he has my respect' is not good enough by any measurement, THE WORD IF, stands out, you dont know do you? you simply dont, but you are attatching the lofty title to this thing you cant know, you are assuming on blind faith alone that this thing exists in the face of little to no evidence, you are essetnially making up the most important facet of your life and of reality for what?because of what?

And im one of those people that question things when i think they are stupid, but if my coach wants me to play a certain way for the good of the team ill give him the benefit of the doubt and see how it goes, if it doesnt work, ill discuss it with him after the game.

You can feel free to discuss it with God after the game, I have no problem with that.  I would prefer you do it much earlier, but I believe you'll have your chance.  My evidence is all subjective, admittedly.  I accepted the teaching of Scripture as the truth, surrendered my will to it and have tried to mold myself to fit the requirements of Scripture, which are faith and service.  I have prayed for specific things in my life and the lives of others, some of which I had a hand in but much of which I had no involvement other than concern for my loved ones.  Many of those situations were resolved exactly as I asked, many were not.  Many of those that were resolved as I asked left me no doubt that God was involved; many involved other people and so although I still credit God since that is my right, I can allow for the fact that people also did their job well, or had a change of heart about something.  I have personally heard and witnessed the same things in other people's prayer lives.  Some of the things are more miraculous in nature, such as cancer disappearing from someone within a few weeks despite a complete lack of treatment, or a change in the weather that corresponds exactly to prayer offered to God.  There are stories of the death of loved ones where they sometimes mention the presence of other people in the room, people who can't be seen by anybody else.  In all these things I can allow for the possibility they may still have occurred without prayer, but my conviction is that they are God's affirmative answer to those prayers.  And for all the times when those prayers were "not answered", my opinion is that the answer was given, but in the negative.  

None of the things I listed are proof of anything.  Because I am a believer I give credit to God and for me they are affirmations of my faith, but they are in no way proof that I can use to convince anyone else.

WAIT WHAT? ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!! ok woosah woosah. he makes the rules? thats your justification for atrocities? how does it make you feel? how does it feel to know that your god will torture, or allow the torture of billions for no good reason, when he knew they would sin, HE KNEW LTS, he knew they would wrong him and yet he let them exist and sin for what?

You know what?  I trust that God is good, and just.  When it comes to eternal punishment, or the lack thereof, I throw myself on the mercy of God.  And yes, "he makes the rules" is valid to me.  You don't like it, but it is what it is.  Who will tell God no?  Who will stop God from executing judgment?  There is a reason the Bible says God will "wipe the tears from their eyes", because judgment is a horrifying thing.  

Why could he not simply forgive you? how hard is that ' you are forgiven' thats all he had to do/say, but no, he set a condition upon his salvation, and then rested this condition on a mountain of clouds and asked for humanity to stand on top and beleive...

Then why have any rules at all, about anything?  If there are no standards, if there is no law, why do any of it at all?  Yes, salvation is conditional on belief.  That is the rule, like it or not.  It is not negotiable.  I accept it, you reject it.  Again you are putting your image of what you think a god should be in place of the God described in the Bible.  That is certainly your right, but your disagreement about it does not disprove God any more than my acceptance proves God.  

Well what you say then is wrong. Im sorry but something being real would be factual evidence, proof if you will. thats real, faith is the assertion of believe in something that is not proveable, or has little to no evidence.

Faith doesn't make it real in the physical world.  Faith makes it real to me.  Depending on the specific translation you read, faith is either the conviction or the evidence of things not seen.  That's all I'm saying, is that it is real to me just as if I could put my hands on it.  In the Matrix Neo asks if you die in the matrix do you die for real, and the answer was "your mind makes it real".  In another scene the goofy guy (Cipher?) is eating a steak and he admitted that even though he knew the steak was not real, "ignorance is bliss".  I guess that's me

Laugh now 2k.....it will be difficult when you are burning in hell.

Spoken like a true man of god, cant imagine who wouldnt coming running to church without that forceful reasoning