Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You asked me the same question over and over again and I told you my answer was and is still the same. What is it that you cannot understand?

Read and understand this:

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity. He is thunderstruck at the discovery of his inbred sin, and proceeds to set it forth. This was not intended to justify himself, but it rather meant to complete the confession. It is as if he said, not only have I sinned this once, but I am in my very nature a sinner. The fountain of my life is polluted as well as its streams. My birth tendencies are out of the square of equity; I naturally lean to forbidden things. Mine is a constitutional disease, rendering my very person obnoxious to thy wrath. And in sin did my mother conceive me. He goes back to the earliest moment of his being, not to traduce his mother, but to acknowledge the deep tap roots of his sin. It is a wicked wresting of Scripture to deny that original sin and natural depravity are here taught. Surely men who cavil at this doctrine have need to be taught of the Holy Spirit what be the first principles of the faith. David's mother was the Lord's handmaid, he was born in chaste wedlock, of a good father, and he was himself, "the man after God's own heart; "and yet his nature was as fallen as that of any other son of Adam, and there only needed the occasion for the manifesting of that sad fact. In our shaping we were put out of shape, and when we were conceived our nature conceived sin. Alas, for poor humanity! Those who will may cry it up, but he is most blessed who in his own soul has learned to lament his lost estate. –Charles H. Spurgeon

David's mother was in a state of sin when he was conceived, therefore he was born in a state of sin himself.

My friend's mother was in Africa when he was conceived, therefore he was African when he was born (despite being born in England).

Makes perfect sense.

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING THE THEORY THAT NEWBORNS ARE MORALLY "DEPRAVED" OR THAT "BABIES SIN CONSTANTLY"

JM2C was asked yet again to answer the questions as to what sins a newborn commits., he replied that he had "already answered" the question.

Clear replied :

JM2C What you did was offer a few scriptures and were exposed for abusing the texts in saying they had meaning that we've already demonstrated was incorrect. Athiests and agnostics are just as intelligent and as rational and capable of the same level of logic as christians. When a Christian posits an irrational theory, especially if one lies or is disingenuous in supporting a theory, it is counterproductive to the Christian purpose.

JM2C, The fact that you and 1robin are unable to enumerate or describe a single sin that a newborn infant commits should serve as evidence that this is not a rational, or logical theory.

If you are going to create a theory where infants are morally "depraved", or that they "sin constantly" then you should have some data as to what moral "deprivations" newborns are committing. You could simply say, "I really don't know of any, but I believe the tradition that my parent or my pastor taught anyway." This does not support the theory, but it is at least honest.

If you do not WANT to answer the questions, I understand. The questions that remain unanswered are :

1) Can you describe for readers, the sin you yourself, committed as a new infant after being born?

2) Can you describe for forum readers any sin that it was possible for ME to commit as a newborn infant?

That is : WHAT SINS DOES A NEWBORN COMMIT THAT MAKES THEM "MORALLY DEPRAVED" in your theory?

Clear

JM2C offers the "answer" :

“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity. He is thunderstruck at the discovery of his inbred sin, and proceeds to set it forth. This was not intended to justify himself, but it rather meant to complete the confession. It is as if he said, not only have I sinned this once, but I am in my very nature a sinner. The fountain of my life is polluted as well as its streams. My birth tendencies are out of the square of equity; I naturally lean to forbidden things. Mine is a constitutional disease, rendering my very person obnoxious to thy wrath. And in sin did my mother conceive me.”

JM2C

It is, again, painfully obvious is that you have spent yet another post, avoiding actually answering the questions you were asked. Instead you offer us the same recycled scripture you offered before; this time, inside Charles Spurgeon comment, explaining HIS religion.

Multiple forum readers have already pointed out that this scripture in psalms 51:5 (heb) does not support your theory that infants are morally "depraved", AND they have explained why it does not support your theory, NOR does it answer the question as to what SINS you think newborns commit.



2) REGARDING PSALMS 51:5

If you are able, as you say, to use “vine” to "translate" the Greek in psalms 51:5, then, why in the world would you use a scripture that says “shapen in iniquity" other than that it sounded like it supported your theology (but only if one doesn't look too closely). There is NO greek word for “shapen” in this verse. If there is, use “vine” and find it for us.

This is simply another scripture, in an increasingly longer list of abused and mis-interpreted scriptures you have offered forum readers. It is another example of how Christians are able to be confused by a text and to say a text means whatever they want it to mean. This is simply pointing out another weakness of theists, rather than supporting their theology.

As to David's mother.... So what if David’s mother sinned in David’s conception? (though here, I think the ancient interpretation would have differed&#8230 This doesn’t mean David, as a newborn, sinned, by being born to her. I agree with 9-10th Penguin on this specific point)



3) THE SAME QUESTIONS STILL, REMAIN UNANSWERED :

What sin did David commit as a newborn infant?
What sin did you commit as a newborn infant?
What sin could ANY of us have committed the day we were born?


JM2C. I understand the difficult situation you find yourself in. I really do. However, to offer forum readers a mis-used quote instead of answering the question does NOT improve your credibility. It DAMAGES the Christian message when you, as a Christian, do this. If you try to trick forum readers by saying you have “already answered” the question. This deception DAMAGES the Christian message when you, as a Christian, do this. If you cannot answer the question, TELL the forum members the honest truth. THIS does not hurt the Christian message when one is simply honest.

Good Journey JM2C, where ever it takes you.

Clear.





FORUM READERS

Clear said to JM2C in post # :

Your quote of the greek word μετανοεω (“Metanoeo&#8221 is a correct but superficial “dictionary” reference to the greek word for “repentance”, (the "change of mind"). You are able to “cut and paste” like a thousand others, but you remain unable to understand the deeper nuances of what such words actually mean.

Μετανοεω was MORE than “a change of mind”, but in everyday koine, it was used in the context of “a coming to ones’ senses” on a subject at hand; In Koine it referred to the use of rational and logical thought on a subject in that it was a willingness to “amend” and to “change” current thoughts (and habits). Origen said that evil was “the refusal to progress”. Often this referred to an irrational unwillingness to “let go” of prior incorrect traditions; an unwillingness to learn where one is making errors in thought and judgment and then abandoning error and accepting corrections as one is introduced to better data. It is a “persisting in folly” that much of the early Papyri refer to in the context of evil and refusing better data.

I want readers to understand that I did not simply “make up” my comments; definitions and usages, regarding the meaning and use of Μετανοια (“Metanoia” or “repentance&#8221. I thought I would offer some source documentation for my claims.

In the Tebtunis Papyri II 424.8 of the 3rd century a.d. where the profane writer is being sarcastic to another person, says “ει μεν επιμενις σου τη απονοια συνχε(αι)ρω σοι ει δε μετανοεις, συ οιδας“ “if you persist in your folly, I congratulate you. If you repent, [only] you know”.

The transition into the sacred use of the word is not that different. As a term referring to an amending of our "mental models and worldviews" I might offer the Famous Aristeas (188) where the writer uses μετανοεω in speaking of God “turning men from wickedness and leading them to amendment.”

The Church Service Calendar at the Christian enclave in Oxyrhynchus uses the same term ημερ(α) μεταν(οιας) as the term for amending the day on the calendar in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri XI. 1357.4 (535-6 a.d.).

The linguist Wrede discussed the “everyday” use of the term in the N.T. as “nicht Sinnesanderun, sondern Busse”, i.e. “Not (merely) changing sin, rather repentance&#8221 i.e. “stopping”. It is Lactantius in Divine inInstitutions vi. 24.6 who preferred resipiscentia as the words’ meaning and usage, implying a “coming to one’s senses” that results in a change in actions.

ALL of these changes associated with μετανοεω[FONT=&quot] implied a change TOWARD moral Progress and not simply a “change” (e.g. away from morality). A person who changes from good or truth to less good and less truth had “changed”, and had “amended” his thoughts or life, but this was not “repentance”.

Clear
σεσεσιφινεω
[/FONT]

 

[adi2d]

[QUOTE

My friend's mother was in Africa when he was conceived, therefore he was African when he was born (despite being born in England).

Makes perfect sense.[/QUOTE]


I hope you're wrong there friend. I was born in Minnesota but my parents honeymooned in North Dakota. I'm not sure if I can live with that. Please tell me I'm not ...no no no. I can't say it

 

[CG Didymus]

I have fought with them before about it, but their faith has too strong influence over them to accept the reality. So I gave up. And it is better to avoid those who makes you feel like tearing your hair and make your blood boil.

And as for what I have seen, I have seen a woman support sexual slavery (other words raping) of women because it is for their benefits, in another forum. Here someone condoned the raping of women as punishment for their men attacking God's chosen people. That too commanded by a holy prophet.

I understand how you must feel. No matter which religion is right, no matter which God is right, what some people have had to suffer in their lives isn't right. I'm sure you've had people from every religion in the world come to your country and try and help and also try and convert people. What kind of answers can they give you? Have faith? Don't worry things will be perfect when you get to heaven? All the religions in the world have done some good, but too many people within each religion have also exploited people. I don't know. If you ever find something to believe in, let me know. I trust you. I know you will be honest with me.

 

[Draupadi]

As you can see I am Deist. Deists believe in a God whose presence can be observed via nature and we have logical views. No dogma because we don't have particular set of rules. Deism also refers to the belief that God just created this world but not concerned about it. I still have to verify it because I find it kind of hard to believe since I had theistic background. I don't worship God which is not mandatory, but I am hoping I will find ways. Like you I believe that all religions have some good and IMHO some truth. So I try to research about different religions and their validity of beliefs. Like currently I hold the position that re-incarnation is possible after death. It is actually my personal form of faith.

 

[CG Didymus]

...Like currently I hold the position that re-incarnation is possible after death. It is actually my personal form of faith.

I hope so. To have an eternal spirit that goes through different lives and experiences things from all the different possibilities would be fine with me. To have a spirit or soul or whatever that is placed in a body, a supposedly corrupt, depraved body, that has one life to make the one right choice, wow, those are horrible odds. You're a wonderful spiritual lady, keep trusting your heart.

 

[Draupadi]

Oh thanks Didymus .

 

[JM2C]

David's mother was in a state of sin when he was conceived, therefore he was born in a state of sin himself.

My friend's mother was in Africa when he was conceived, therefore he was African when he was born (despite being born in England).

Makes perfect sense.

A British, with a British blood, went to Africa and conceived with this same British blood, and went back home to England, with this same British blood, to give birth to a child.

How is the world would a woman with British blood change to an African blood by just riding a plane to Africa?

If I go China from Manila, will my blood change also? Blood transfusion while sitting in the plane?

 

[JM2C]

So... just to cut to the chase, is this your argument?

- babies are morally depraved
- therefore, it's okay to let babies die
- therefore, God's not evil for letting babies die

Do I have it right?

- babies are morally depraved –Read and understand Psalm 58:3 and Psalm 51:5

- therefore, it's okay to let babies die –This is your logical interpretation base on your “babies are morally depraved” and not mine. All human will die physically at any age ‘cause of spiritual depravity or spiritual separation from God –read Gen 2:16-17.

- therefore, God's not evil for letting babies die – My God is not evil at all at any time. All human will die at any age so don’t blame it on God if babies die. Do you blame God if a man dies at the age of 100, 90, 80, 70, or 60?

At what age of a man do you start or stop blaming God?

You only recognize that there is a God -OMG- if bad things are happening in your surroundings or you see something in the news that you don’t like.

How about the life that God gave you, have you ever thought of thanking God for that?

“The carnal mind,” he says, it is ENMITY against God.” He uses a noun, and not an adjective. He does not say it is opposed to God merely, but it is the positive enmity. It is not black, but blackness; it is not at enmity, but enmity itself; it is not corrupt, but corruption; it is not rebellious, it is rebellion: it is not wicked, it is wickedness itself. The heart, though it be deceitful, is positively deceit; it is evil in the concrete, sin in the essence, it is the distillation, the quintessence of all things that are vile; it is not envious against God, it is envy; it is not at enmity, it is actual enmity.
C. H. Spurgeon, from sermon entitled, "The Carnal Mind Enmity Against God"

 

[1robin]

David's mother was in a state of sin when he was conceived, therefore he was born in a state of sin himself.

My friend's mother was in Africa when he was conceived, therefore he was African when he was born (despite being born in England).

Makes perfect sense.

I hope not because it has nothing to do with what it was compared to. One is a legal state or moral position with a perfect moral being, the other is either a cultural identity or a legal citizenship issue which is invented by men.

 

[1robin]

Which is the cool thing about Christianity: if one Bible doesn't say what you need it to say there's a good chance there's another Bible that does. Picking and choosing particular points so as to assemble one's personal theology is one of the strong points of Christianity. Don't like the church down the street, there's always another denomination with a different slant on it all down another street. (There are thousands* to choose from.)



*Source

All major bible versions are better than 95% identical and even the exceptions are footnoted and expanded on. I wish science had as much agreement. Even Ehrman admits no error exists in core doctrine.

 

[1robin]

JM2C

You and 1robin have offered forum readers your theory that infants are morally "depraved" and that babies "sin constantly" (respectively). Though you have both been asked multiple times to answer, you have yet to answer the questions regarding what sins a new infant commits.

Clear
σεσεδρνετζω

We offered up doctrinal reasons and a few empirical ones to justify the belief that babies are not sinless. "Depraved or constantly sinning" were my very hurried words and do not bind God in any way. I do not recall ever being asked what sin they had committed so you must be talking to JM2C, so I will leave that there. I will say you have much more of a burden in suggesting they are sinless than I do for stating a faulty race is always faulty. I certainly would never want to defend the perfection of mankind at any age.

 

[1robin]

Or, we needed "objective" morals and invented God. And, since many people have different definitions of who God is and what are his "objective" morals, then even if your God is the right one and the truth, all those other people did make up their own "Gods" and made their own supposed rules and morals and then attributed to their own man made God.

That is a rational explanation but not a good one. If invented we usually invent systems that justify us. The bible condemned the race who wrote it. Wishful thinking is certainty arguable but the weight of evidence is not on it's side.

Oh and your post 4335, you talked about Jesus and the gospels not being a myth. But, the problem is, things in it sound mythological. Like the virgin birth, which wasn't written about all that early. People coming out of the graves and walking around. Jesus walking on water. Those things might have happened, after all we're talking about God, but what should people do when they read other religious books and see similar things being talked about in them? We should doubt and question them shouldn't we? We should take them as mythological stories, shouldn't we? Then, why should we think any different about the NT?

Any ancient history with sound myth like 2000 years later but myth sounding is not the test for myth. There is actually quite a methodical process for determining how much myth there is in a historical source. You will never be exact but the bible passes the tests in ever category by such margins that myth is a horrible explanation. Let me give you an example. Paul's passion story alone is a reasonable basis for Christian faith. IT was based and creeds and hymns of churches that were teaching these things within decade of Christ's death, some arrogantly claim within months. They could be wrong but what they can't be is myth. BY myth are you simply meaning inaccurate? Myth is a specific type of inaccuracy so I was looking at it in that context. If you mean only inaccurate then we would have to get specific and go through one event at a time.

Plus, you accept the Hebrew Bible as the Word of God also, and there are so many things in there that sound like religious mythology. Like the world-wide flood, parting of the sea, three boys being tossed into a fiery furnace and not getting burned. They are all great spiritual stories, but how far are we supposed to take all these stories as literal events? Especially, since you yourself probably don't believe similar stories from the Holy Books of other religions.

Nothing central to my faith requires I understand with certainty what is contained in the Pentateuch. I honestly can't decide how literal or how symbolic certain claims are. Since Christianity's foundations are on Calvary not Mt. Ararat I would suggest we understand the reliability of the Gospels before going pre-historic.

We all know why you believe the Bible, but why do you pretend that it isn't worth questioning for those of us that don't believe it?

Find any thing I have ever said that suggests or even hints you should not question the bible in general. I still do as does every Christian I know. We spend every day evaluating beliefs and texts. My only complaint is when I see bias or double standards that impede correct evaluation but I encourage everyone who can to responsibly question their faith or rejection of it their whole lives. I do not know how you got that I discouraged questioning of the bible.

 

[1robin]

I was being sarcastic. That's how easy it was to find some information that makes you out be to mistaken. Why would Jews believe they are born with a clean slate, if their God knew otherwise? Why wouldn't he make it perfectly clear to them that they had a sin debt from birth that they could never pay?

Classical Judaism affirms that children sin but are not accountable. If your talking about original sin then these are very specific and detailed issues about an interfaith doctrine not a rejection of what I have defended. However at this point I am a little vague as to what you said that you refer to.

Hey, and all those things in that site about the origin of the doctrine of being born sinners, they're pretty complex. He's saying that Origin, Tertullain, and Augustine all had some pagan and Christian heretical influences that helped formulate this "depraved" doctrine thing. But you know what, I am way to busy watching reruns of the Big Bang Theory and Modern Family to get into it. So if you say article is not true that's good enough for me.

I imagine that any doctrine as shocking a original sin or some aspects of it will be complex. We will make sure it is. If you find any doctrine inconvenient then you will also find it very complex. Some of the most complicated and divisive issues are homosexuality and abortion. Even on a secular level these simplistic issues have been confused so badly that the intended inability to resolve anything is assured. I can (without faith in almost all cases) prove that homosexuality and abortion are inexcusable on even secular morality to a certainty. It is very rare that I will suggest certainty exist but these are two of them and yet we have turned them into morasses which no conclusion hostile to our views can succeed regardless of which view we hold. Complexity seems to correlate in general with inconvenience.

Now the historical application of doctrine is complex and requires Origin, Tertullian, and Augustine, plus Maimonides at the minimum but the issue of it's truth needs only scripture.

 

[1robin]

That's why I took the trouble to enumerate my reasons. (And I wonder if you mean simple, not simplistic?)

I thought they were almost identical. How do you distinguish them?

Smuggling? I used the word mythology in plain print, for anyone to read. Do smugglers usually walk through customs with their contraband held up in plain sight? As to justification, the whole divine-impregnation-of-a mortal-woman shtick resounds through earlier pagan traditions that you would undoubtedly regard as mythologies. Why do you expect non-Christians to treat your version differently?

What you did not put in print is all the presuppositions that the word implies. Now you may have had no intent behind that but it is a tactic that I find so obnoxious that I at least suspect it at times. People are funny, they can sneak in all kinds of things by word choice and make a debate impractical. I am not saying you intentionally did but I am left with either accepting it as myth and explaining the original relevant point or engaging in a whole other issue about the reasons scholarship suggests it is not myth. It is an effective tactic but a sinister one when intentional. As for smuggling they try and hide nefarious things in a disguise as a normal and innocent thing but the facts are exactly the opposite.
They do not hide themselves many times nor what is on the surface, it is what they bury in the coffee grounds that is so deadly. Myth comes with baggage and implications even if it came with no intent. I expect anyone knowledgeable about textual criticism, testimony, and evidence to rule out myth at the start as so many scholars have. The bible passes every test for being genuine, sincere, and free from what contributes to myth. It may be wrong but what it is not is myth.

Really? You asked a poster "how many people have you offered your children's life to redeem?", thus forcing a comparison between the poster's feelings for his own kids (if any) and god's "feelings" for his "son". Your evasion is noted.

Ok, my evading the use of my comments in ways which they were never intended. You got me. The issue was God's goodness and I distinguished what he gave with what we normally do not. Now if you want some relevance between the two then consider this. If you wanted the majority of Americans to risk their children's lives to say free the slaves in 1860 you would not only have to force it but we did have to fight draft riots to do so. Only a tiny fraction will even risk their children's lives to help others. God knew very well that for the first time in eternity his perfect loving relationship with his son would be severed by evil men for the benefit of others yet did so. That act can't possibly be evidence of evil and is evidence of the exact opposite which we rarely if ever match in any way. The bible compares them this way. Only rarely would a man die for those who he loves, but God suffered what is every bit as bad for those who hated him. My conclusion God is not evil and I could give a thousand comparisons just like this.

I ask again: in what sense do Christians believe JC was god's son? Sons (and daughters) are begotten when a sperm fuses with an egg and two haploid genomes become a diploid one: presumably nothing like this happened in JC's case. In Christianity's nonsensical insistence that god begat a human son we have nothing more nor less than an expression of a Judaism-derived mythology's patriarchal roots. (Please note: the word mythology was not smuggled in: I hereby declare the item to customs.)

If customs finds undeclared baggage with what was declared you would be in trouble. Let me give probably the most relevant similarity. Both God and Christ, man and son are in a loving relationship. In the human case we may risk it on occasion but have to be forced In most even for a worthy cause. In God's case it was certain and to redeem people who did not deserve it. As an analogy I can see no applicable fault here but you are free to think in terms of anything dear to us compared to what God would hold sacred. God gave it all. That is not evidence he is evil.

Yes it is, and one that I did not raise. My questions were about comprehensibility, not relative goodness.

Do you mean to say that not only was my analogy technically inaccurate but so badly so that you just could not even get what I was aiming at. I can't see how that is possible.
Another question evaded by appeal to authority. They both were our most precious relationships.

Where did I use the word bad, or make any judgment at all about worthiness? Good / bad / indifferent, my argument with this "greatest example of sacrifice" is that the story makes no sense.

The exact same event I was discussing (the crucifixion) has been said by atheists by the ton to actually be a bad thing. I did not attribute it specifically to you or to you at all. I used we as being the fallible human race not you as being any specific or especially fallible member of it. It is a collective term meant to suggest general commonality.

Again you are posting answers to questions that were not asked, and evading those that were. Where did I say anything about a foul?

And your ignoring the context that inspired your reply. The original issue was about God being evil and I think specifically concerned the self sacrifice of Christ. Of course I ignored questions made in another context or answered them in the original context.

... but not, sadly, achieved.

That is not my responsibility. At times we can only require that sound doctrine and truth as best as we know be communicated and not require how others receive it. I do not see (especially after this post) how it is possible that right or wrong my analogy at least fits the actual issue enough for it's use.

 

[CG Didymus]

- babies are morally depraved –Read and understand Psalm 58:3 and Psalm 51:5

I read the whole Psalm 58 and 51. The introduction to 58 says that it's a "Prayer for the punishment of the wicked"? Later in the Psalm, when God does punish the wicked, it says the "righteous will rejoice"? The one verse taken out of its context does not work as a "proof" for the doctrine that all people are born morally depraved.

As for Psalm 51, the introduction says that it's a Psalm of David after he had the fling with Bathsheba. He's repenting and asking God's forgiveness. He's not saying all children are morally depraved. At best, he's saying that he was, or maybe he was using hyperbole? But everything in the psalm is by David and about David, not people in general.

So please find more verses to build your case that being "born morally depraved" is a real Judeo-Christian doctrine. All the things I looked at pointed to Augustine as coming up with the doctrine of "original sin". And then in Calvinism, the doctring of "total depravity". To me, it looks like a Christian only doctrine and not a Bible doctrine, because, still, all the Jewish sites I looked at say we are born with a clean slate. Thanks.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I hope so. To have an eternal spirit that goes through different lives and experiences things from all the different possibilities would be fine with me. To have a spirit or soul or whatever that is placed in a body, a supposedly corrupt, depraved body, that has one life to make the one right choice, wow, those are horrible odds. You're a wonderful spiritual lady, keep trusting your heart.

This is pretty much what my mother believes. I've always thought it sounded pretty awesome.

 

[SkepticThinker]

- babies are morally depraved –Read and understand Psalm 58:3 and Psalm 51:5

- therefore, it's okay to let babies die –This is your logical interpretation base on your “babies are morally depraved” and not mine. All human will die physically at any age ‘cause of spiritual depravity or spiritual separation from God –read Gen 2:16-17.

- therefore, God's not evil for letting babies die – My God is not evil at all at any time. All human will die at any age so don’t blame it on God if babies die. Do you blame God if a man dies at the age of 100, 90, 80, 70, or 60?

At what age of a man do you start or stop blaming God?

You only recognize that there is a God -OMG- if bad things are happening in your surroundings or you see something in the news that you don’t like.

How about the life that God gave you, have you ever thought of thanking God for that?

“The carnal mind,” he says, it is ENMITY against God.” He uses a noun, and not an adjective. He does not say it is opposed to God merely, but it is the positive enmity. It is not black, but blackness; it is not at enmity, but enmity itself; it is not corrupt, but corruption; it is not rebellious, it is rebellion: it is not wicked, it is wickedness itself. The heart, though it be deceitful, is positively deceit; it is evil in the concrete, sin in the essence, it is the distillation, the quintessence of all things that are vile; it is not envious against God, it is envy; it is not at enmity, it is actual enmity.
C. H. Spurgeon, from sermon entitled, "The Carnal Mind Enmity Against God"

My parents gave me my life. I thank them for it all the time.

 

[1robin]

The thing I'm trying to point out to you is that even with this god you speak of, we have as many opinions as people and who knows which is true, if any.

Let me ask you this. The bible says Christ was crucified and died on the cross. The Quran says he was not crucified at all but it was made to appear that way. Now would you claim that these differences are hopeless? I can show that every method possible to weight these claims is on the bible's side. How can that be hopeless. Also even for these two extremely opposed views yet note what is common. Sin exists, salvation is necessary, God exists and is one being, he sends prophets, he does miracles, he is perfect, etc.... I can grant your hyperbolic claims and still not have any irreconcilable hurdle to reasoned faith. The bible is 750,000 long and covers human history for 5000 years and comments on the future, morals, divinity, heaven, hell and every other divisive issue that exists. I find the level of disagreement astronomically low compared to what I would have expected. You can eliminate every textually suspicious verse (as scholars would label them), remove any unreliable text whether true or not, and any mutually exclusive claims from major creeds and you still have everything and more to justify faith in Christianity. Differences alone are meaningless unless you show they are prohibitive of something necessary. Let me one more fruitless time point out the double standards here.


1. You have many times offered scientific counter views which not only are unknowable but are among the minority view in even theoretical science. Yet science is supposed to have the higher burden here.
2. You reject entire mainstream views of Christianity despite over 90% agreement for the subject that only has the faith burden.

You have it exactly backwards.

Where have I said that atheists go on feelings alone? I just explained to you (and have several times in the past) what is involved in the post above this one. And whether you like it or not, that appears to be how all humans come to conclusions regarding morality and ethics.

It does not matter. The atheist did not mean feelings specifically either. You may use empathy, feelings, social Darwinism, reason, logic, deduction, optimality, whatever you wish it will always equal an opinion formed without regard for moral truth. Humans do not resolve moral doctrines based on opinions which have no potential objective foundation. Even in Greece and Rome they separated moral truths (those against objective moral fact) and ethical truths (those against social norms or OPINION). Now you do not even have their luxury as you have no source possible for the former and are left with he latter. Murder is no longer wrong it is not socially fashionable at best, in other cases it may be fashionable and here is the real rub. Their opinion is just as valid as yours. You would have to go way outside atheism to judge them in any meaningful way. I am not aware of any society so morally stupid that it gave up having an objective foundation for at least much of it's moral demands or standards. I would even doubt that Stalin's anti-faith of any kind empire of misery used any non-objective basis for much of it's foundations. Humans almost all act as if objective morals exist. If they didn't they would be close to being a psychopath.

Lets say that everyone besides the country you lived in had been conquered by the Nazis and either became a psychopath or died off. Their part of the world would be a bad but legitimate example or case of your moral framework in action. Lets say me and you met to decide what to do about the evil they were causing for the rest of the worlds citizens. How would you argue against them that would not equal that you merely did not agree with them? I can at least rationally claim they are violating objective moral truth, you can't. We need justification to act. What do you have?

Sorry you have a problem with it but it appears to be a fact of reality. And you keep avoiding it. Besides, you're employing the same "tactic" in reverse.

I do not have a problem with it, reason does. It is no problem, it is invalid, so I reject it. No problem. You must show that the extreme agreement in Christians doctrine is some how less than required to establish faith. I do not recall you even attempting it. You just equate theological disagreement on any level as hopeless and grant scientific disagreement on any level for a favored view is acceptable. No problem, just invalid as is.

 

[1robin]

Could you respond in a way that addresses the point?

Which point the issue that produce that post or the post's own separate point. I can not believe there was one person who could not at least get what I was driving at but two is starting to look like feigned ignorance. I know your too smart for that and think the other person was. Can you really not get the analogy? I don't think I can simplify it. BTW see the post to them above before commenting if you please Sir Skeptic.