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

[YoursTrue]

No, that is not how one uses hypotheticals. Why didn't you tell us that you don't understand how to use that too?

Considering that some of us do not understand, can you explain why you say that is not how one uses hypotheticals?

 

[YoursTrue]

Projection. I am the one without religious beliefs.

Understandable to a degree. But now evolution is surely a factor in both atheists' views as you and others claim they are and those who connected with a religion who say that god whoever they think it is uses evolution or that evolution is not part of a god concept. Have you ever wondered about that?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I merely reason rationally. Just because you are wrong is no excuse to name call.

Speaking of things, we can choose what we accept as true, can't we? For instance, the Israelites going into Israel were told to choose what they will do. You probably know that. Some of them chose to do what they were not supposed to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Considering that some of us do not understand, can you explain why you say that is not how one uses hypotheticals?

One can use hypotheticals, limited models, to test to see if one's personal versions of god are reasonable or not. Refuting one claim about god does not refute god. It can only refute false claims about God. Unfortunately some believers have such set beliefs to the point where they are afraid to test any aspect of their beliefs. They make the mistake of thinking that if any part of their ideas are shown to be wrong that means that there is no God at all. You might have seen me debating with someone that seems to think that I am trying to refute God.

A clear example for most are Flat Earthers. There are many Flat Earthers that base a lot of their belief upon the Bible. Does refuting their version of God refute your version of God?

 

[dybmh]

One can use hypotheticals, limited models, to test to see if one's personal versions of god are reasonable or not.

And here is where the problem began. Because as soon as I tried to explain what that personal version was. Then the bait and switch occured which was, "but god doesn't exist... gotcha"

So if your hypothetical is: "God cannot be moral if... " or "Freewill cannot exist because God is....." and I reply with my argument. If your rebuttal to my argument is "there is no creation" or "there is no time" "prove that god exists" "prove that time exists" then your hypothetical.. "God cannot be moral if... " and "Freewill cannot exist because God is....." both fail.

If you make a claim about creation, then flip-flop to saying "prove creation exists" then your original claim fails
If you make a claim about god, then flip-flop to saying "prove god exists" then you original claim fails

You cannot make a hypothetical claim about something, then deny that the hypothetical something in your original hypothetical exists.

And that's what you did. Typical bait and switch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And here is where the problem began. Because as soon as I tried to explain what that personal version was. Then the bait and switch occured which was, "but god doesn't exist... gotcha"

Really? Where? All that was refuted were some of your claims about God. No one said that God does not exist.

So if your hypothetical is: "God cannot be moral if... " or "Freewill cannot exist because God is....." and I reply with my argument. If your rebuttal to my argument is "there is no creation" or "there is no time" "prove that god exists" "prove that time exists" then your hypothetical.. "God cannot be moral if... " and "Freewill cannot exist because God is....." both fail.

Your arguments have all been nonsense to date. And no, the discussion that started it was about the existence of free will. It was a purely logical problem. You were not able to reason logically. To state the conclusion, God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. What was your solution? You had to make God no longer omnipotent.

If you make a claim about creation, then flip-flop to saying "prove creation exists" then your original claim fails
If you make a claim about god, then flip-flop to saying "prove god exists" then you original claim fails

LOL! That is not a "flip fop". Don't blame others when you use terms that you cannot define and cannot justify. You do not get to assume a creation. That was outside of the range of the simple hypothetical that was aimed at only one aspect of God.

You cannot make a hypothetical claim about something, then deny that the hypothetical something in your original hypothetical exists.

What? Once again, your silly "creation" clam was outside of the realm of the hypothetical. You just keep confirming that you do not understand how one uses hypotheticals. They are very focused models. You want a theory and I was not forming one of those.

And that's what you did. Typical bait and switch.

No, there was no baith and switch. Merely an inability to understand on your part and too much arrogance to ask questions. It was your failure brought on by your arrogance and refusal to stay on topic.

 

[YoursTrue]

Adam and Eve put sugar in their porridge. ;-)

While I don't consider myself "Christian," the Christian mythology I still find inspiration in I read symbolically.

The Fall of Man represents humans beginning to differentiate between the Self and the rest of the Universe. Christ, hanging on the Cross, is the Fruit of the Tree of Life and Death (and produces some bittersweet wine and decadent but hearty meat!) and represents the death of the Self being reborn as one with the Father (the Universe as a personified Whole).

I wonder what you mean here. Such as when you say the fall of man represents humans beginning to differentiate the self and the rest of the universe. Can you explain what that means?

 

[blü 2]

The last time we discussed this, you did not know the stories accurately and you refused to consider the actual language of the text. Has any of this changed?

If not then you simply don't have enough/any data to make the claims you're making.

No, last time I didn't bother arguing with you about them. It's true that I have no knowledge of biblical Hebrew. It's also true that I use the RSV translation because when I was checking the question, the weight of scholarly opinion thought it was the best.

In that translation, I assure you I've closely considered the language of the text so far as it relates to the claims I've made.

 

[Trailblazer]

If there was a real God and if that God behaved as set out in the Tanakh and NT, then I would unhesitatingly declare the morality of that entity appalling.

Then it's a good thing that God does not behave the way He is depicted in the Bible. In fact, God does not even have behavior, only humans have behavior, and that is how we can know that the Bible does not represent the real God. The real God has a will and wills things to happen, if He wants them to happen. He does not come down to earth to do things.

As for the suggestion that we should just suck it up because God knows what [he]'s doing, well so does Putin. To approve God's conduct is to have no personal morality, just brainless subjection ─ how could it be otherwise?

The good news is that God is not 'doing' anything so God does not have conduct or morality so there is nothing to approve of or suck up to.

 

[Trailblazer]

Since we can't know, a God isn't even relevant.

When we cannot know that God did something it is irrelevant, but when we can know God did something it is relevant.
The only thing we can know that God did is send Messengers; know not as a fact but as a belief.

Believers have non-rational reasons to believe.

The rational reason to believe is because there is evidence that God exists. It is unnecessary to know what God is causing. If we needed to know that God would have enabled us to know it.

They "see" evidence because they need to convince themselves of some reason to believe. There is no actual evidence. If there was, critical thinkers would be believers.

Sorry, but I don't want to go down that road again because it leads nowhere. You are free to believe there is no evidence if you want to just as I am free to believe there is evidence.

So not an entity at all, just something that might be possible, and we can never know. So largely irrelevant.

We can know God exists and some of God's attributes because God's reflection can be detected in His Primary Mirrors who I refer to as Messengers.

So no real evidence, and no real reason to believe. Some just want to believe for comfort.

The reason to believe is evidence, not comfort. What do you think is so comforting, all the teachings and laws we must follow?

Why assume a God would have an essence, you don't know? Might as well say it has blue eyes. You don't know. Why play with these ideas when you have no facts?

I do not assume God has an essence, that is a Baha'i teaching. There are no facts about God since nothing about God can ever be proven.
I do not need proof since I have evidence and certitude in the evidence.

No one knows of any God, or that it has an essence, or that Messengers are genuine. What rational option is there but to not believe in any of these ideas? How can a thinker be convinced these are even likely true given the lack of evidence?

I believe in Baha'u'llah and the other Messengers of God. That's why I think what I do about God, what I base my beliefs on.
If you don't believe that Messengers are genuine you'd have no basis for belief in God. Case closed.

Why assume a God would have an nature? Why even bring it up? How is any of this relevant to ponder, there is no way to know any of it?

I believe that God has a nature because Baha'u'llah wrote that. If you do not believe that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God then it is not relevant to you.

He claimed data was from God, but why believe him? Nothing in his texts suggest he couldn't have written it himself.

I believe Him because of the evidence that 'demonstrates to me' that He was a Messenger of God.
He did write it himself but His texts 'demonstrate to me' that He was speaking as the Voice of God.

You would have to verify it for yourself, and that's the case since there are no tests that otehrs have provided that can be trusted. Yet you already said you can't know directly, so you you can't really know anything. You can read your texts and believe, like any other believer.

The way I verified it for myself was by reading what Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi wrote, and by reading other information about the Baha'i Faith, all of which is what led me to believe that the religion was true.

None of this is credible. You can take his word for it, but you can't call it factual and true. If you want to believe it, that is what other believers do too.

Why do you think it would be credible to everyone? It is not credible to you, but it is credible to me and other Baha'is.
We can believe it is true even though it cannot be proven as a fact. That is the nature of religious belief.

Maybe some do, but they speculate just like you do, and none of us have any evidence one way or another. We are all agnostic because where it comes to religious ideas none of us have any facts, and the evidence, like what you claim, is so weak that it only appeals to those seeking to believe.

That is a false premise, that people only believe because they want to believe. I could just as easily say that the reason atheists don't believe is because they don't want to believe. Belief has nothing to do with wants, it is related to what we interpret as evidence for God.

It is not true that the evidence only appeals to those 'seeking to believe.' I was not seeking to believe at all but I was convinced by the evidence. The very last thing I wanted was a religion when I discovered it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Stoning is obviously meant as a punishment, not a restful vacation from life.

Certainly, stoning is a punishment; but what results? Hellfire? Purgatory? Heaven? No. Death results in a condition of unawareness (Ecclesiastes 9:5)….a sleep, as Jesus referred to it (John 11:11-14), from which only the Resurrection (Acts 24:15) will awaken them (those who’ve died, I mean)…

Intervening in human affairs in a constructive way would be an act of love and would promote his side if his side is that he is a loving god with great knowledge and power. And that would mitigate man's suffering in at least that one area.

But that’s not the issue; the issue that was raised is whether man will be better off by ruling himself.
How does that seem to be working out?

Satan though, speaking thru the serpent, didn’t question God’s power! But he did question the rightness of God’s way of ruling. And implied that Jehovah God was withholding good from His intelligent creatures.

The best & wisest way to settle the issue, was to allow time to pass, stay out of human affairs, and let the evidence mount that mankind can’t beneficially rule themselves.

The issues are about settled; not only can mankind not rule themselves satisfyingly, to everyone’s enjoyment; now we’re destroying the Earth. Revelation 11:18.

The fact is, though, each individual only ‘suffers’ 70 to 80+ years… if they’re really “suffering”, then much, much less. That’s really a drop in the bucket, compared to God’s promise of everlasting life.

I’m actually glad that you said, “man’s suffering”; so you do recognize that. When I try to explain to others how bad conditions really are, many try to downplay it. But the percentage of people suffering from mental ill health, emotional distress, and the effects of stress itself, are at an all-time high.

Many people are suffering (short-term: 70-80 years), and then an RIP.
When they next open their eyes, it’ll be on this Earth “under different management”; the issues involving sovereignty will have been settled, God’s kingdom will have “come” (Matthew 6:9,10), and under His rulership through His Son, all further suffering will be gone forever. — Revelation 21:3,4.

It’s amazing to me, how many people, although they’ve studied the Bible, aren’t aware of these promises!

For them as they have been taught, it’s all about “going to Heaven”; but the Bible’s hope for mankind, is to live here on Earth (Matthew 5:5)! Reminds me of Paul’s words at Romans 10:2. But it’s not the people’s fault; it’s their religious leader’s….simply a part of a bigger misinformation campaign/program, that’s been in existence for millennia. But ultimately, that has no affect the future life prospects of billions of the dead, those who had been misled in some form or another.

I think, to you & other reasoning atheists here, that would include all of those in all religions. And I would say, “almost all.”

IMO.

Have a good one, my cousin.

It’s late, and I’ve rambled on. If I said something that was unclear, IANS, please bring the subject to my attention… I’ll try to clarify it.

 

[YoursTrue]

One can use hypotheticals, limited models, to test to see if one's personal versions of god are reasonable or not. Refuting one claim about god does not refute god. It can only refute false claims about God. Unfortunately some believers have such set beliefs to the point where they are afraid to test any aspect of their beliefs. They make the mistake of thinking that if any part of their ideas are shown o be wrong that means that there is no God at all. You might have seen me debating with someone that seems to think that I am trying to refute God.

A clear example for most are Flat Earthers. There are many Flat Earthers that base a lot of their belief upon the Bible. Does refuting their version of God refute your version of God?

Ah, I really wish I could better understand your comment here, but thank you for trying to explain. So I'll try by asking how one would test to see if one's personal versions of god 9or God or gods) are reasonable. You say that refuting one claim about god (or God) does not refute god. (or God). It would be important I think for you to be specific. Insofar as "flat-earthers" go, I consider it so extreme as a viewpoint that it's almost like the earth being 6,000 years old or so. That's only one viewpoint about what some religionists believe about what the Bible says that I cannot accept. Before or after I studied the Bible. I know they have their arguments, I do not accept them as realistic. There are others and yes, I believe the Bible is the word of God.

 

[blü 2]

Then it's a good thing that God does not behave the way He is depicted in the Bible. In fact, God does not even have behavior, only humans have behavior, and that is how we can know that the Bible does not represent the real God. The real God has a will and wills things to happen, if He wants them to happen. He does not come down to earth to do things.

The good news is that God is not 'doing' anything so God does not have conduct or morality so there is nothing to approve of or suck up to.

I agree that argument works fine from this point of view.

From the point of view of seeing in God anything to admire ─ or dislike, or envy, or find curious, or be pleased with, or annoyed with ─ when you can't see anything at all of God .... well, that strikes me as a chunky difficulty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, I really wish I could better understand your comment here, but thank you for trying to explain. So I'll try by asking how one would test to see if one's personal versions of god 9or God or gods) are reasonable. You say that refuting one claim about god (or God) does not refute god. (or God). It would be important I think for you to be specific. Insofar as "flat-earthers" go, I consider it so extreme as a viewpoint that it's almost like the earth being 6,000 years old or so. That's only one viewpoint about what some religionists believe about what the Bible says that I cannot accept. Before or after I studied the Bible. I know they have their arguments, I do not accept them as realistic. There are others and yes, I believe the Bible is the word of God.

Let's take the Earth's shape. Like it or not the Bible only discusses the Earth as if it were flat. Some Christians will reinterpret verses after the fact to make it look like it says the Earth is a sphere, but if one digs into those verses those reinterpretations are never justified.

But we can confirm that the Earth is round in endless ways. That refutes the "Flat Earth God". Does it refute your version of God? No. It only refutes one narrow spectra of God.

We could do the same for the YEC version of God. But no, once again we have many ways of testing the age of the Earth. So that particular version can be easily refuted. That still does not refute the Christian God.

 

[blü 2]

Paul.

Well, Paul mentioned it, unlike anyone else.

But it didn't become fashionable until Augustine of Hippo fell in love with the idea around 400 CE and started promoting it.

Joke is, if you actually read the Garden story (Genesis 2-3) it makes no mention of any kind of the fall of man, or of sin, or of death entering the world, or spiritual death, not a single one of the usual trappings ─ nothing, zip, nada, total blank.

 

[Audie]

An entire week ago you disagreed online about how a word is commonly used in real life and you are still thinking about it enough to bring it up daily in multiple unconnected threads?

Whatever floats your boat…

Nah. More like what poofs yiur souffle.You set the example of reference with @, and that I got it wrong.

And it wasn't about common usage, it was whether I used the word correctly.
I said "paul" was a, yes, charlatan. Which he was.

Tnx for the opportunity to point that out again.

 

[blü 2]

Nah. More like what poofs yiur souffle.You set the example of reference with @, and that I got it wrong.

And it wasn't about common usage, it was whether I used the word correctly.
I said "paul" was a, yes, charlatan. Which he was.

Tnx for the opportunity to point that out again.

To be a charlatan, there'd need to be a shekel in it for him somewhere, or similar desirable advantage.

I think of him more as a particular kind of psych case, perhaps suffering visions as he says, and reacting to earlier guilt, though apparently ─ but it's hard to be sure, because his letters couldn't have had more than local and parochial impact until they came to public notice around the middle of the 2nd cent, CE ─ not too bad at selling the Christian case. For instance, his apparent role in the successful abolishing of circumcision as a Christian prerequisite shows perhaps there were some things he saw clearly.

A couple of decades back there was a school of thought ─ Dutch, I seem to recall ─ that argued Paul's letters were cooked up by Marcion and friends and that's how he was able to produce them in Christianity's 2nd century debates, so there was no real Paul; but I don't think any fiction writer could have cooked up a character like Paul ─ or except for the gnostic touches that suited Marcion, would have wanted to.

 

[F1fan]

Understandable to a degree. But now evolution is surely a factor in both atheists' views as you and others claim they are and those who connected with a religion who say that god whoever they think it is uses evolution or that evolution is not part of a god concept. Have you ever wondered about that?

There are no gods known to exist, so why bring it up? We know evolution is a real phenomenon, so we use that explanation of how organisms change over time.

 

[dybmh]

Really? Where? All that was refuted were some of your claims about God. No one said that God does not exist.

I pointed it out previously. I quoted it. I think I raised the font size and bolded it. I'm not going back to get it. I don't care if you object.

Your arguments have all been nonsense to date.

Calling it "nonsense" is not a logical argument. All I can say is that the refutation to your claim is so simple that you cannot believe it. Emphasis on *cannot*.

And no, the discussion that started it was about the existence of free will. It was a purely logical problem. You were not able to reason logically. To state the conclusion, God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. What was your solution? You had to make God no longer omnipotent.

Not true. God is like an author writing multiple stories simultaneously. The characters in the stories are duplicated across multiple ( infinite ) storylines. In this model, there would be multiple versions of me. Each and every free-will choice is represented in each of these multiple storylines. When I make a choice, I am choosing which of those storylines is "real" for me.

This is what produces what is described as freewill. God's omnipotence is not compromised in anyway. To the contrary, free-will is being produced as a result of God's omnipotence. It couldn't happen without it.

I said all of this previously. I gave multiple examples. The example I gave was about my choice of what to eat. I admited that in this model ( note, it's a hypothetical model ) there is a version of me that is eating bacon for dinner, in spite of religious ideals.

Thats what I said. Not nonsense. It doesn't make God no longer omnipotent. ( 158 words )

LOL! That is not a "flip fop". Don't blame others when you use terms that you cannot define and cannot justify. You do not get to assume a creation. That was outside of the range of the simple hypothetical that was aimed at only one aspect of God.

"You do not get to assume a creation."

Your claim that God is immoral requires an agent that is creating. I am not making the assumption, I am participating in the debate which you started that presumes it. Yes it is flip-flopping to assume that there was a creation, then object when a person assumes there is a creation.

What? Once again, your silly "creation" clam was outside of the realm of the hypothetical. You just keep confirming that you do not understand how one uses hypotheticals. They are very focused models. You want a theory and I was not forming one of those.

Your HYPOTHETICAL claim that God is immoral requires a HYPOTHETICAL agent that is HYPOTHEICALLY creating. I am not making the assumption, I am participating in the debate which you started that HYPOTHETICALLY presumes it. Yes it is flip-flopping to assume that there was a HYPOTHETICAL creation, then object when a person assumes there is a HYPOTHETICAL creation.

No, there was no baith and switch. Merely an inability to understand on your part and too much arrogance to ask questions. It was your failure brought on by your arrogance and refusal to stay on topic.

Even if you see the bait-ad-switch, I would never expect you to admit it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

You are probably aware that many people call themselves agnostic atheists. These are people who make no clams about the existence or nonexistence of gods, but don't believe in gods. That seems to be most people with no god belief.

While I can't speak for other former Christians or for those who are still Christians, I definitely "played church" and pretended to feel the presence of God for years when I was a Christian. I never felt anything remotely like it could be the presence of God, even during the years I was street preaching and the leader of an evangelism team.

I'm sure that there is plenty of that kind of "I've experienced God." I DID feel like I was experiencing God every Sunday morning thanks to a gifted, charismatic preacher.

Whenever you're ready we can talk about the paradox of "needing to help" and "needing to please" and how it is supremely dominant. But the individual will never realize it. It can destroy marriages.

Why would you think I want to discuss that? And I doubt that we can have a sustained discussion, because I will end it when you become angry, begin insulting, or stop cooperating in discussion as you just did recently. When you do that, there's nothing in the discussion for me.

whatever you say is more about sustaining this void, a shield protecting a rigid god-like self-identity.

That's in interesting take on what you've seen from me. The autonomous atheist is the supreme authority in his own life. If he is self-actualized, he is the sculptor of himself. The Abrahamic religions teach submission. I understand that Islam means submission. Christians often say that the chief characteristic of Christian doctrine is to love one another, but I disagree. It's submission, because, in the end, your eternity depends on how well you conformed to a set of commands. Your religion as well. All those Commandments.

But why would I do that? Why would I let other people run my life, especially the people who want to? Why would I let people with unfalsifiable claims about gods substitute their judgment for mine? I suspect that this is what you mean by "sustaining this void, a shield protecting a rigid god-like self-identity." Yes, I intend to sustain critical thought for as long as my mind is able, which is a shield of sorts to filter out wrong and unsupported ideas. My chamber for storing false beliefs has no god in it or anything else. We can call that a void. And yes, I am the ruler of my life. If that makes me a god in your mind, OK.

Certainly, stoning is a punishment; but what results? Hellfire? Purgatory? Heaven? No. Death results in a condition of unawareness

Mainstream Christian doctrine teaches hellfire - eternal suffering. My point was that stoning a person to death (or in the case of a deity, ordering it) is not an act of love. It's a punishment for not submitting to a Commandment, and it is intended to be a horrible, drawn out, painful death compared to hanging or beheading.

the issue that was raised is whether man will be better off by ruling himself.

Before that, the issue is, is there any other option - is there anybody else do it and do it well (beneficently and competently). As best I can tell, there is nobody to do that job. Many claim to have knowledge of gods and their wills, but I don't have any reason to believe them, but I *DO* have plenty of reason to be suspicious of their intent. Much of the world will exploit you if you let it, and the people prone to doing that often find a home in religion. Have you been following the discussion of St. Paul? The word charlatan has appeared a few times.