How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[Subduction Zone]

Ability does not imply responsibility. Seriously, can't you do any better than this?

In almost all cases it does. And that line does not work with such a weak weak response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Translation: You are not willing or capable of connecting deep theological ideas.

So be it. You're not in the club. You're invited. You're always welcome. But you would need to accept that it's not ever going to meet your expectations and you would need to be OK with that. Honestly, it's a good skill for anyone to cultivate.

Wrong again. If you can make a rational argument make one. Please do not blame others when your own ideas are shown to be irrational time and time again.

 

[Trailblazer]

Translation: I have no reliable evidence for God.

Translation: You have no evidence that YOU consider reliable.

Because they realize that if a God exists there is no point in trying to convict him of anything. It would be a waste of time.

No, that is not the reason they don't try to convict God. It is because they are logical so they know that God cannot ever be guilty of anything.

But it seems that most realize that those particular versions of God do not exist. So many theists make the mistake of thinking that refuting their personal version of god is "Refuting God".

The only version of God that does not exist is the version that atheists make up.
The only version of God that does exist is the version that is revealed in the Bible and other scriptures, such as the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

The only personal version of God is the version of God that atheists make up.
Believers have no personal version of God. We believe the version of God that is revealed BY GOD in scriptures.

So many more errors. Whether or not a version of god can be held to human standards is just a red herring on your part at best. You usually use it for strawman arguments. Once again, we can judge different versions of God. Most can be shown to be nonexistent since they contradict the qualities of a God claimed the the person proposing that God. Once again, that does not "refute God" It can only refute mistaken versions of God.

You sure can judge different versions of God, but they are only your made up versions so you are not judging the Real God.

The only mistaken version of God is the one that atheists make up.
The only correct version of God is the God who is revealed in scriptures.

 

[dybmh]

That is totally incorrect. What makes you think that you have the correct version of God? That is incredibly arrogant. I am talking about testing your ideas, not testing your God. If your ideas fail then that version of God does not exist. Does that mean that no Gods exist? Of course not.

What are you blathering about? This is a theoretical discussion in the form of "Can God be...?" That means 1 God concept, any God concept which statisfies the conditins without contradiction or violating the defintions is correct.

ANY. That's not me saying I have the correct version. It means I have A correct version. So step down off your pulpit, sit down at the table if you want to talk. You made the claim. It's false. It can be refuted simply, or we can dive into the details for weeks. Your choice.

It just so happens that I've worked it out, and no other god concepts work. If there is one, great. But I know there isn't one because otherwise, the PoE would be known to be solved.

As long as you keep making this extremely basic mistake you will not be able to advance in your beliefs.

If you would apply some patient reading comprehension, and stop with this jack-rabbit behavior, we could actually have a nice chat. You remind me teaching my daughter to drive stick.

I wish that you would

I gave you the simple answer. You have yet to refute it. The limitation is on the material world not god. Your turn. I was very open and happy to discuss briefly or in detail however you wanted at the beginning. But your behavior, attitude, and reputation ALL consistently are telling me that only single sentence responses are appropriate for you.

That you cannot recognize a hypothetical is rather odd. And there are cases where we do not need to know everything. Take the flood myth. That God was an immoral version of God, he killed countless innocent people for no good reason. The flood solved nothing. The same problems existed afterwards as before. All sorts of innocents died to no purpose. And you cannot even claim that God knew that things all of those people would have been evil since your argument is that they had a choice in their future acts. By limiting the omniscience of God as you want to do you take away the claim that "God knew that they would be evil".

blah-blah-blah ignored. I already told you repeatedly this is a hypothetical. That's why there is no difference between the words "God" and "God concept in this context. If you pay attention, you're not typing "God-concept" in the quote above. I'm not fretting over it.

Again you still do not how one can use a hypothetical.

OK. Hypothetically it's a limitation on the material world and people not God. Now what? Pretty stupid right?

Once again, we are putting concepts on trial. You do not have the power to decide what God is by definition.

Wrong! Modal logic. Didn't you make some kind assumption about me and logic. Your claim is in the form, "It is not possible in any possible world for Any God to be Moral and Omnipotent and Omniscient."

If you drop the "Any" before "God" then you are choosing to omit god-concepts to force a conclusion. That means all I need to do it bring 1 God concept which statisfies the conditions without violating the other defintions or producing a contradition. Naturally I'm bringing the biggest baddest most powerfu god concept that exists to the party.

Your idea of God can be put on trial. That is not putting God on trial.

I Know. Dude. What is your malfunction?

You keep making the error of assuming that your God is the right God. That is a whole different argument and it puts an almost infinite burden of proof upon you.

No, dude. My God concept happens to be the only one that I know of that refutes your claim. Naturally I'm going to use it.

 

[dybmh]

Wrong again. If you can make a rational argument make one. Please do not blame others when your own ideas are shown to be irrational time and time again.

Translation: no thanks, I'm good with my atheism, and I enjoy picking on Christians anytime they show up on the forum.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are obviously many causes of this far right contempt for science, but I think this is directly tied to creationism, which is a Christian belief. Republicans have tied themselves to evangelicals starting in the 80's and have used the contempt for evolution/biology as a means to exploit contempt for other science, like climate change and vaccines. It may not be a cause and effect, but there is a correlation with those who reject evolution to those who reject climate change and even vaccines, namely the Covid vaccines (with tracking chips). Look at how they attacked Fauci and other public health officials. This belief doesn't come about without there being many who reject evolution for many decades first.

It would be an interesting poll.

They absorbed disenfranchised, Evangelical religious groups to gain mass thinking that they could control what had been absorbed. But the opposite was what seems to have happened. I've seen this happen to companies too. A big one going after a little one and swallowing it was in reality swallowed by the manipulations of the smaller.

 

[Trailblazer]

In almost all cases it does.

In the case of God ability does not imply responsibility.
Maybe you never read that part of the Bible where God gave man dominion over the earth.
Oh, I forgot.... You make up your own version of God, the one that works for you to try to win arguments.

Ability does not imply responsibility even in other cases. There is NO logical connection between ability and responsibility.
If I have the ability to do my boss's job, does that make me responsible for his job?
If I have the ability to become a physician does that make me responsible for conducting myself as a a physician?

And that line does not work with such a weak weak response.

Red herring deflection will get you nowhere.

 

[dybmh]

If God cannot do any better then why worship him?

The choice is binary. Existence requires chaos. If that chaos is disrupted... pop goes the bubble of existence.

Beyond that. God has given the tools, plural, to take any and all negative consequences of chaos and convert them into good.

As they say in Isalm, God is the very best of planners. <------- That is one reason why I worship IT not HIM. YMMV.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God cannot do any better then why worship him? You are refuting your own version of God with such arguments.

Any better than what? Any better than what you, a fallible human, expect an infallible God to do?

No, I have read it. I have also read the verses where it says that God does lie. By the way, that verse does not actually say that God cannot lie. It only says that God has no reason to lie. That is not the same thing.

But here we go. Lying by proxy is still lying:

Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. 1 Kings 22:23

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. 2 Chronicles 18:22

And these do claim that God lied:

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people. Jeremiah 4:10

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. Jeremiah 20:7

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. Ezekiel 14:9

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. 2 Thessalonians 2:11

Sorry, you will have to knock on someone else's door. As you know, I am not a Christian, so I do not believe in the anthropomorphic God of the Old Testament.

 

[Trailblazer]

The evidence she offers doesn't suggest the existence of a god to one skilled in the proper interpretation of evidence.

The evidence I offer for the existence of God is the evidence that God offered, Messengers, for anyone who is skilled in the proper interpretation of evidence.

Lets take your logic and reason a step further. Does God have free will?

'Free will makes man responsible, but not God' is a good example of special pleading. The rules for man and god are different, but no justification for that is given better than "He's a god and you're not" with no explanation why that exempts the from ethical analysis.

God has a Will but it is not like the free will of man since God does not make moral choices. God only wills what is good for mankind.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings, p. 209​

The rules for man and God are different simply because God is not a man! That is simple logic.
No justification is needed other than "He's a God and you're not"
Is the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of human free will? Can humans do whatever they choose to do?

The law disagrees if the child is a minor.

Adults are not children.

If there is evidence that a god or any other thing exists, then we detect that evidence and come to a logically sound conclusion about it.

Believers have already detected that evidence. Atheists have failed to detect it because they reject it out of hand.

The same way we get evidence that any other thing that exists provides - through the senses. If gods exist, they are detectable like everything else that exists.

No, God cannot be detected through the physical senses since God doesn't exist in the physical world.
God can only be detected through the spiritual senses.

To be real - to exist - means to interact with other existing things in space and time.

Only according to your definition of real, and even if God is interacting with other existing things in space and time, there is no reason to think that could be detected by humans.

If gods exist, they are detectible somewhere somehow. If they make no detectible impact on reality, they meet the definition of the nonexistent. I assume that you reject that. You'd pretty much have to defend the existence of something that generates no evidence.

If God exists and does not want to be detected He will not be detectable. It is as simple as that. There are reasons why God does not want to be detected the way you and other atheists want to detect Him.

God is detectable only by His Manifestations (Messengers) because that is how God wants to be detected. You can continue to kick and scream about that but there is no way you can overide the Will of an omnipotent God. You only have two choices, accept or reject the evidence that God has provided.

 

[F1fan]

The evidence I offer for the existence of God is the evidence that God offered, Messengers, for anyone who is skilled in the proper interpretation of evidence.

God has a Will but it is not like the free will of man since God does not make moral choices. God only wills what is good for mankind.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings, p. 209​

The rules for man and God are different simply because God is not a man! That is simple logic.
No justification is needed other than "He's a God and you're not"
Is the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of human free will? Can humans do whatever they choose to do?

Adults are not children.

Believers have already detected that evidence. Atheists have failed to detect it because they reject it out of hand.

No, God cannot be detected through the physical senses since God doesn't exist in the physical world.
God can only be detected through the spiritual senses.

Only according to your definition of real, and even if God is interacting with other existing things in space and time, there is no reason to think that could be detected by humans.

If God exists and does not want to be detected He will not be detectable. It is as simple as that.

So no different than us living in a godless universe. And those who think a god exists are completely wrong.

There are reasons why God does not want to be detected the way you and other atheists want to detect Him.

More of your guesses since you don’t have facts.

God is detectable only by His Manifestations (Messengers) because that is how God wants to be detected. You can continue to kick and scream about that but there is no way you can overide the Will of an omnipotent God. You only have two choices, accept or reject the evidence that God has provided.

Assuming Messengers are not delusional, which is more likely than them being correct. We thinkers have to go with the most likely option since there are no facts.

 

[Trailblazer]

So no different than us living in a godless universe.

Very different than living in a Godless universe, just not what you want..

And those who think a god exists are completely wrong.

That sounds like an assertion. Unless you can prove it it is a bald assertion.

More of your guesses since you don’t have facts.

I have no guesses and I have no facts. All I have are Revelations from God.

Assuming Messengers are not delusional, which is more likely than them being correct.

Not likely at all since delusional people could never do what the Messengers did.

We thinkers have to go with the most likely option since there are no facts.

What you 'believe' is most likely.

 

[Colt]

Okay, so now we are faced with the need for definitions. Define "Nothing". The odds are that atheists will point out that your version of "nothing" never existed.

Nothing is the opposite of something.

 

[exchemist]

And STILL they do not put God on trial, accusing God of the crimes that humans commit. Only atheists do that.

Eh? What has that got to do with the price of fish?

 

[Trailblazer]

Eh? What has that got to do with the price of fish?

In spite of the fact that judicial systems are non-religious, they do not blame God for what God did not do, as atheists on this forum do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Tri-omni? Why do you think that Gensis 1 was first composed by post-monolatrist Hebrews?

Are you suggesting that it was written by polytheists? Maybe, but the story features a god with the power to create universes.

It is painful for ex-Chrisitian-atheists specifically to consider they were wrong about leaving their faith.

Are you imagining that that is a common problem with no solution but live in atheistic pain? I've never encountered an ex-Christian atheist who regretted leaving Christianity. Leaving religion and faith behind was one of the best things I ever did for myself. My first wife was a zealous Christian, and that wasn't a happy or interesting life. Who if anybody would I have married instead? My wife of 33 years wouldn't have married a religious person. I think of the thousands of hours and dollars I was able to divert to activities that led to my best memories.

Not 'almost everyone', only atheists.

That was in response to, "Almost everyone that has debated against her has commented on her lack of evidence." It shouldn't surprise us that these two groups come to different conclusions about the same evidence. Those atheists are atheist because they are critically thinking empiricists skilled in evaluating evidence. Your fellow believers who claim to believe because of evidence evaluate evidence like you do. They have no consistent rule book.

An atheist would not see evidence for God if it hit them in the face, and it is hitting them in the face and they STILL cannot see it. Atheists rebel against the signs of God, which are Messengers of God.

I realize that you think others should be convinced, so if they're not, they must not have looked at it or in rebellion, but that's incorrect. I've seen what you consider evidence for a god. It doesn't support a god belief.

There are reasons for that.

“So blind hath become the human heart that neither the disruption of the city, nor the reduction of the mountain in dust, nor even the cleaving of the earth, can shake off its torpor.” Gleanings, p. 39“Say: So great is the glory of the Cause of God that even the blind can perceive it, how much more they whose sight is sharp, whose vision is pure.” Gleanings, p. 106“And yet all, except such as God was pleased to guide, are bewildered in the drunkenness of their heedlessness!” Gleanings, p. 39

I don't believe any of that, either. Why would I? It's self-serving prose from believers. There isn't much anybody has to say of value to me about gods that assumes their existence, an unshared premise. No sound conclusion is possible if a premise is false.

Why would I use the same rules of evidence for God as are used academic pursuits such as law and science?

Because you want to think well. Your rules ought to be consistent.

how is it that nobody in the field of law expects God to intervene

I don't know what you mean. I'm sure some theistic lawyers do. The courts don't.

nor does anyone in the field of law hold God responsible for any crimes?

I don't know what you are asking here, either. It looks like you're asking why God isn't being investigated or indicted, but that can't be right.

This is not special pleading on my part, since I have justified the special exception -- God is not a man!

So? That's irrelevant. God is also not a tree, but I'll use the same criteria to evaluate claims about either. You'd need to explain why not being a man justifies a double standard. If you asked a Saudi why women shouldn't be allowed to drive or an Afghani why they shouldn't be educated, they'll give the equivalent of your answer: Because she's a woman, and you'd be justified proceeding as I did: "So? That's irrelevant."

Now if we were ask why a double standard for kids and adults regarding driving or buying, we can justify that, but not by saying they're kids. We need to add why that matters, and we can.

This is special pleading on your part since you are deliberately ignoring aspects of God (that God is not a man) because they are unfavorable to your point of view.

Special pleading argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.

No, it's you that's doing that. You haven't justified having separate rules for gods and men. - except in courtrooms. God gets the Trump-as-president treatment - a pass for his crimes - and man gets the Trump-as-ex.president treatment.

There is nothing more absurd than to say God is morally liable.

And what does that mean? That God can't be judged or that nobody can hold God accountable. I'd agree with the second, but not the first. A believer might say one shouldn't judge a deity because it's not smart or safe, but that wouldn't apply to an unbeliever who is only judging described behavior attributed to an alleged deity.

A good God gives man free will to choose between good and evil, for which they alone are responsible.

A better god doesn't permit evil. It gives its creation the free will to chose between wholesome and life-affirming options but not to harm others deliberately. That's what I would do. How about you, or is that another thing that's off limits to think about?

Allowing for malice does not make God responsible for malice since God commits no malice. Only humans commit malice

Those aren't my values. God makes malice possible and deliberately doesn't intervene, and so that last sentence is also irrelevant in humanistic ethics.

 

[Koldo]

Death occurs regardless

And that's great.

That's ok.

How is it intellectual dishonesty? For my practice, I understand mythology and spiritual symbols as something psychologically useful and not necessarily something grounded in literal time and space.

Consider Sisyphus forever rolling a boulder up a hill only to have it roll back down at the end of the day. Ever felt like that when doing weekly chores like laundry?

Myths are artifacts that can still be used as viable tools to add inspiration to life. They are like paintings, sculpture, music. They enhance our psychological responses to the challenges that life gives us.

You are willfully and intentionally distorting stories because you find it expedient, effectively putting forth a falsehood as if it represented truth.

 

[CG Didymus]

Symbolic interpretation gives the myth life. Take it away and you have a dead thing.

Then are those Christians that take the Bible and the NT as literal as possible wrong? Was Jesus born of a virgin and did he walk on water? Or are those also symbolic? For me, it's just religious myth. But I think it was written to be taken as if real and historical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing is the opposite of something.

That is not even close to being a definition.

Do you realize that you believe that life came from non-life?

 

[CG Didymus]

Not true. @Trailblazer has evidence. The manifestations of God, as defined by th Baha'i faith ARE evidence of God. The standard rules to connect evidence to conclusions requires proper defintions. The atheist chooses a shallow narrow and corrupt defintion of God in order to reinforce their delusions.

That's my argument against the Baha'i Faith... I don't believe that some of the people that the Baha'i Faith says are manifestations... are manifestations. Here's some information about who and what is a manifestation.

The Manifestations of God act as a pure mirror that reflect the attributes of God onto this material world.​

Manifestations of God are seen as Divine Educators, who are raised up by God with the purpose of uplifting mankind and expressing His will. In expressing God's intent, these Manifestations are seen to establish religion in the world and each one brings a book, and reveals teachings and laws according to the time and place which they appear.​

​

Bahá’u’lláh referred to several historical figures as Manifestations. They include Adam, Noah, Zoroaster, Krishna, Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad. The Báb, as well as Himself, were included in this definition. Thus religious history is interpreted as a series of dispensations, where each Manifestation brings a somewhat broader and more advanced revelation, suited for the time and place in which it was expressed.​

​

Does any of this fit into any of the schools of Judaism? Because I often have asked Baha'is if Adam, Noah, Abraham and even Moses are considered to be anything more than ordinary men in Judaism.