I am basing my religious beliefs on logic and reason.
Your perception of logic and reason*. As am I.
There is no kind of worldview that can convince me that life came from nonlife, order came from chaos, and intelligence came from non-intelligence.
Same goes for me with the God concept.
This has nothing to do with how I was raised and my life experiences.
Doubtful. Our life experience makes a massive contribution to who we are. We would be MASSIVELY different if instead of being raised by parents we were orphan's from the age of 2. Everything about us is affected by our life experience.
Second, you gave a house example. Im afraid thats not a good example, because you can still choose not to believe that your house surrounding you, it would just be the wrong choice.
Care to back that up with some evidence? How can I make that choice? I'm telling you right now that I can't, I'm honestly trying and it's not working. I cannot willfully control what I believe, it is not in my power to choose.
Well, if you are a naturalist, that is what you believe. Once you take away all of the fluff and feathers, that is what naturalism is. Life wasn't always here, therefore, life began. If you negate I.D, then you believe that life came from nonlife. With life comes intelligence, so intelligence began, so therefore intelligence comes from nonintelligence. The universe didnt began from orderly process, but a chaotic one, so therefore, order came from chaos. This is exactly what you believe when you take away all the fluff and feathers. You feel as if i am not presenting it correctly because you are obviously used to the fluff and feathers, the smoke screens that cover what is really being implied here.
No, you must have misread, I am saying that as you present what you think is my view, you are also degrading it, insulting it and providing your opinion with it. Don't do that, it's rude. Feel free to comment but when presenting my view, present it on it's own and then comment in a separate paragraph. It is dishonest to present my view with your opinion because it looks as if I believe it's absurd to which I hope you know that I don't. Or don't pretend like you know what I think, let me put forward my view and don't try to present it for me.
So, if you thought it was just, would you believe it is true??
Not necessarily. I certainly couldn't believe it was true while knowing it's unjust but it changing to become just doesn't mean I'll believe it because I do have many other qualms with it.
I dont understand what you are saying here. If God is the President in this analogy how is he the force killing the people??
You said that God was the president but if the analogy is taken seriously, God is both the terrorist and the president. God, in his attempt to save people from dying, is also the one that is causing the deaths, he is the one that created the system, he is the one who is executing the people he is trying to save.
This is similiar to saying "Judge Alex doesn't want people to go to jail, yet people are going to jail."
That's not a silly thing to say, it's a potentially true statement. It would be silly to call this a contradiction or illogical though.
Silly logic. Jail is the penalty for a crime, just like death is the penalty for sin. The judge can not want people to go to jail, but that doesnt stop him from serving justice.
The point I made here was not about justice, it was about God's will not being done, something that the Bible says never happens, God's will is ALWAYS done. But not here. There is a contradiction between what you are saying and what the Bible says.
You are assuming that Samuel came from Sheol, which scripture does not indicate at all. He told Saul that he would be with him the next day. This could be speaking of the "state" of death, not the exact location.
The passage explicitly says, "And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. 14And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle." He comes out of the Earth, Sheol is described as "the underworld" and is commonly recognized as being beneath the Earth's surface. Samuel was risen from Sheol.
My bad on the Lazarus tip. But this is silly. There are no "two sections by a gulf". The rich man lived the good life like all rich people do, and the begger lived the opposite. The rich man obviously offered no help to the begger. So apparently, Abraham and the begger paid a special visit to Hades so that the rich man would see how the tables had turned. There is no "other" side where the righteous are. To add anything more to the scripture is completely unjustified.
That is incorrect, " 26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." Abraham describes the gulf that exists between where he is and where the rich man is. It even explicitly states that Neither side can pass to the other which throws out your notion that Abraham paid a special visit to Hades. What can be extrapolated reasonably is that both the wicked and the righteous exist in the afterlife within talking distance separated by a gulf, they exist under the Earth. Whatever your proposing goes against scripture.
To sacrifice something is to give up something precious for a restitution. If you are a shepard (which is what the Israelites were), the animals were precious. David even explained how precious his fathers sheeps were as he was tending them (1Sam 17:34-35), where he was going to give his life for one of the sheep. The sacrifices were messages that meant "you see this animal, this could be you". Now if you still dont think that these sacrificial acts were just, then I cant help you. I guess we just disagree, but this is becoming sickening.
So were the sacrifices the giving of something precious or were they a replacement for the punishment? If they were the giving of something precious then God is unjust because he is not following the justice system, if it was a replacement for the punishment, it is unrighteous because an that which is innocent cannot be punished for a consequence owed to the one who is guilty. In fact, both are unrighteous and both are unjust.
I have explained my point thoroughly, the definitions are there, what you propose God advocates is both unrighteous and unjust. The killing of something innocent for the crimes committed by another is unrighteous and unjust. Justice is not being served by killing something else or having something else killed.
His commandments are a reflection of his character. His moral standard is not something that was made, it is something that, IS.
So is something good because God says it is good or is something good and God can always recognize good as per his righteous, just and benevolent nature? If you advocate that something is good because God says it is good then morality is arbitrary. If an absolute standard for good exists then it must exist apart from God.
This is silly. A person can own a gun and never fire it, that doesn't mean that he never will
I didn't say it did but I'm saying, the point you're trying to make makes no difference, everyone that God kills or has killed, currently remains dead. That punishment was executed and it is a punishment. Innocent animals and one apparently innocent man have died for crimes they did not commit. This is unrighteous and unjust. By definition. This goes against the very definitions of the words. There's no arguing against it, you can tell me that I just don't get it all you want, the definitions of the terms run completely opposite to the actions of God in this case.
You just happen to be a vegetarian huh? hahahahah
Your point? I'm just glad that now you have no leg to stand on, your argument went personal and failed, it doesn't matter if I'm a hypocrite or have double standards or if I truly am a vegetarian. The argument applies to your propositions all the same. Innocent living organisms are receiving the consequences owed to other guilty living organisms.
And that is why we all die eventually. God told Adam and Eve that they would die once they ate the fruit. That didnt mean that they would die instantly, it just meant that they would die eventually.
Actually the words used were, "on that day you will die."
For the third time with the Zeus example, if people decided that Zeus was the source behind lightning, and God gets angry and creates a thunderstorm full of lightning, and the people think it is Zeus, is God lying??? Absolutely not
This analogy is still not apt, it wasn't the first or second time you used it either. It says in the scripture that God sent them a delusion so that they would continue to believe the lie. He didn't do something and let them assume whatever they wanted, he specifically sent them a delusion that would MAKE THEM(Force them) to continue believing a lie.
