Does God take humanity seriously?

[sojourner]

Ah, the OT... where to begin...

1. Creates humans in a magical garden with a tree of knowledge that he tells them not to eat from, but lets an evil snake in, perhaps not knowing they would be tempted. But creates them in such a way that they could be tempted. This in itself isn't insane. Its just completely stupid. The insane part comes later, when he punishes them.

2. Tests Abraham by telling him to kill his own son.

3. Hardens Pharoahs heart so that he can punish him and the egyptians further.

4. Punishes a bunch of kids for calling a prophet bald head, by having bears maul them to death.

You know what, this list could probably get well into three digits, but I'll stop there. If this isn't obvious enough as to why the god of the OT is a lunatic, I can't help you...

This is a tired old argument that has to twist the subject matter in order to make its point.

 

[beerisit]

This is a tired old argument that has to twist the subject matter in order to make its point.

Where is the twist?

 

[839311]

And a colony of bacteria could bring down the human race. Go bacteria!

I see. So, now we know which side your on

 

[839311]

This is a tired old argument that has to twist the subject matter in order to make its point.

Where is the twist?

Im wondering myself. You simply say that the arguments are tired and there is a twist. To me it just seems like an obvious attempt to run away from the points. Not that this type of response is unexpected. Its probably the best response to make, defintely better than trying to defend them. Its no wonder more and more people are rejecting such ideas and leaving the religion.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

All species known to exist in our Solar System. If we are to take the atheist point of view, then we are the most highly evolved species in the Universe because there is no evidence to the contrary.

First of all I am not an atheist so I am not posting from an atheist point of view.

Second, you are misrepresenting the atheist point of view

 

[sojourner]

So how does ''God-Revelation'' comes in the picture

Im wondering myself. You simply say that the arguments are tired and there is a twist. To me it just seems like an obvious attempt to run away from the points. Not that this type of response is unexpected. Its probably the best response to make, defintely better than trying to defend them. Its no wonder more and more people are rejecting such ideas and leaving the religion.

So glad you asked!

The garden isn't "magical." The text never claims that the garden is "magical." It's simply hyperbole on your part, and a complete dismissal of the literary tradition and value of the text. The snake isn't "evil." The snake is a literary device, used by many ancient cultures in their storytelling. It represents wisdom -- not "evil." Creating humanity in such a way that we "can be tempted" is also neither "stupid" nor "evil." To create us otherwise would make us mindless puppets.
"Consequences of one's actions is not the same thing as "punishment."
You see how you've twisted point #1?

#2:
In what way is the story about a "test?" "Test" is never mentioned. A cursory read and arbitrary assignment of meaning is irresponsible.

#3:
Again, how do you know what God's motives were? How do you know God "hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he can punish him? The text doesn't say that. And it's irresponsible to claim that as the reason, if it's not explicit in the text. There are only three times this happens: The plague of boils and the plague of locusts, and the final warning. The other times, we're told Pharaoh's heart "was hardened," but not specifically by "the Lord." And the three instances never mention that the point is to "punish Pharaoh more." In fact, an actual exegesis of the text will reveal that it's a literary device, written in to show "who's in charge of the show." That's not "a motive for punishment," it's a "motive for revelation."

#4
Surrously? Really? You're taking an ancient, mythic story and holding God responsible?

That's what your implication here is -- that the whole paradigm of salvation history is "God setting us up for failure." It's just wrong analysis, by any stretch of the imagination, spouted in order to make the Bible and the faith look foolish.

Well. You asked!

 

[Road Warrior]

First of all I am not an atheist so I am not posting from an atheist point of view.

Second, you are misrepresenting the atheist point of view

First, I didn't say you were. It was a general observation, not an accusation. Please reread it.

Second, please state what the atheist point of view is so we can all understand it better.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

First, I never said you were.

Second, please state what the atheist point of view is so we can all understand it better.

They simply don't believe in the existence of gods. Is that simple of enough for you?

 

[beerisit]

That's what your implication here is -- that the whole paradigm of salvation history is "God setting us up for failure." It's just wrong analysis, by any stretch of the imagination, spouted in order to make the Bible and the faith look foolish.

When did god plan Jesus' redemption of man's sin allegedly brought into the world by Adam & Eve? Was it before the sin was brought into the world or after?

 

[beerisit]

They simply don't believe in the existence of gods. Is that simple of enough for you?

Hooray. I knew you knew, just happy to hear it.

 

[Road Warrior]

They simply don't believe in the existence of gods. Is that simple of enough for you?

You definition leaves the door open for other spiritual beliefs. If so, then I disagree that a Pantheist or Panentheist is an "atheist".

This is a better definition: "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
Atheism | American Atheists

So why did you accuse me of misrepresenting their point of view?

 

[839311]

Well. You asked!

And you've provided answers which don't interest me. I have no intention of debating the magical garden story or the baldhead story. Im confident that what little I did mention of them is enough to show how absurd and nonsensical they are. Prosecution rests.

 

[beerisit]

Woops definition=Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity,

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You definition leaves the door open for other spiritual beliefs. If so, then I disagree that a Pantheist or Panentheist is an "atheist".

This is a better definition: "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
Atheism | American Atheists

So why did you accuse me of misrepresenting their point of view?

Are these your words?

"All species known to exist in our Solar System. If we are to take the atheist point of view, then we are the most highly evolved species in the Universe because there is no evidence to the contrary."

Is that what atheist believe?

 

[sojourner]

And you've provided answers which don't interest me. I have no intention of debating the magical garden story or the baldhead story. Im confident that what little I did mention of them is enough to show how absurd and nonsensical they are. Prosecution rests.

And I'm quite confident that I've shown you haven't proven your case of their absurdity beyond a reasonable doubt. Stories are the way humanity connects with each other and -- to a great degree -- how it defines itself. The Biblical stories are, by and large, stories that have been traded back and forth across cultures for centuries and, to very great degree, have a lot to tell us about who we believe ourselves to be. They form part of the patchwork of stories that we have always told about ourselves, from modern history, to medical case studies, to legal precedents, to movies, music and other art, to psychological theories, to scientific theories. As such, they cannot simply be dismissed out of hand, because they "appear" to be "absurd" or "nonsensical." Such thinking was present when people said the earth was round for the first time, or when they said we couldn't travel over 30 MPH, or when they said we couldn't fly. All stories bear investigation.

Case not proven. Defense Rests. Case dismissed for lack of evidence.

Edit: By not taking the stories seriously, it's you, not God, who's not taking humanity seriously.

 

[Road Warrior]

Are these your words?

"All species known to exist in our Solar System. If we are to take the atheist point of view, then we are the most highly evolved species in the Universe because there is no evidence to the contrary."

Is that what atheist believe?

The atheist point of view is to only believe what is both natural and proven. Unless you know something I don't, there is no proof of life beyond our own planet.

 

[waitasec]

Does God take humanity seriously?

all evidence suggests no, not at all...and why should she?

 

[Willamena]

all evidence suggests no, not at all...and why should she?

Uh, for the same reason she should?

 

[waitasec]

And I'm quite confident that I've shown you haven't proven your case of their absurdity beyond a reasonable doubt. Stories are the way humanity connects with each other and -- to a great degree -- how it defines itself. The Biblical stories are, by and large, stories that have been traded back and forth across cultures for centuries and, to very great degree, have a lot to tell us about who we believe ourselves to be. They form part of the patchwork of stories that we have always told about ourselves, from modern history, to medical case studies, to legal precedents, to movies, music and other art, to psychological theories, to scientific theories. As such, they cannot simply be dismissed out of hand, because they "appear" to be "absurd" or "nonsensical." Such thinking was present when people said the earth was round for the first time, or when they said we couldn't travel over 30 MPH, or when they said we couldn't fly. All stories bear investigation.

Case not proven. Defense Rests. Case dismissed for lack of evidence.

Edit: By not taking the stories seriously, it's you, not God, who's not taking humanity seriously.

so what?
doesn't change the fact that religious stories is just a way for mankind to understand he doesn't fully understand.

 

[waitasec]

Uh, for the same reason she should?

all evidence suggest she doesn't though...