Why Does the Biblical God Not Want People To Make an Informed Decision?

[McBell]

It only cost me credibility with those who twist the facts.

It costs you credibility with anyone who is not a member of your choir.

Some of these people do not like to be exposed in their fallacious logic.

I agree.
Now if there was only someone exposing fallacious logic in this thread...

 

[Debunker]

The Christian God is afraid. He wants to keep us at the level of docile children, never questioning, never disobeying because he knows we can learn to become better than Gods.

You surly do not offer yourself as an example of being better than God, do you?
Have you ever heard of a narcissistic personality? On another thread I give an argument that atheist react from a oppositional defiant disorder of a narcissist.No atheist has stepped forward to refute that psychological evaluation of atheism, Based on your statement, should I assume that the atheist does agree with my evaluation. Better than God! What a joke!

 

[waitasec]

The theist has defined what God is. In the Bible God is dabar and logos

whats the definition of the word?

but the atheist does not question these definitions. He questions the definitions that he makes up of God, which does not express the God of the theist at all.

define the word, we'll go from there

The definition of God has evolved. The Bible agrees with that. That is not new
to the theist. Can you give us a better lens through which to observe this evolution of the definition of God other than what is found in the Bible? We would like to see it.

no i cannot nor do i pretend to know what "gods" attributes are...
i question the attributes placed.

We do often provide you with evidence with our great logical syllogisms but no matter what we say, you ignore the solid syllogism as false.

i guess that is where you and i differ.
you take things at face value while i'm a very skeptical when approaching outrageous claims.

By providing you with good reasoning we provide you evidence of God.

your reasoning isn't evidence for me, the best you can do is change my reasoning.

You say;"creation in the biblical sense is irrational, if taken literally." Ok. I will buy that

why?

but the fact is that God or any serious theologian does not view the Bible literally.You want to argue that all Christians take the Bible literally. That is a vast falsehood. We understand imagery, poetry, metaphoric speech,and all those good things.

do you believe the story of noah's ark actually happened? the tower of babel?
how about the parting of the red sea...the entire exodus story or
jonah in the whale, the story of the fall of man in genesis?
or how about the wars the "chosen ones" participated in and committed unspeakable acts towards innocent children because god said so?

You just don't want to give us credit for our
reasoning ability. You want to paint us in a box of stupidity but that does not work because we are the people of the Book that atheist deplore.

you are right in that assessment. because if a follower of jesus believes in the golden rule, "treat others as you would have them treat you" then they would also believe that their inalienable rights are subjected to be voted on...now, is that reasonable?

 

[Ben Masada]

A common argument for the utter lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God is that if the Biblical God were to reveal himself to us we would not have a choice of whether to believe in him or not. In other words, if the Biblical God were to reveal himself to us we would not have "free will" (and free will is an important fabrication in theology, that without it the Biblical God could not send us to hell).

We have been granted with freewill, and God respects that attribute in man. And we do have a choice to believe Him or not. God reveals Himself by mean of Israel in the face of the nations, and we still have freewill. And last but not least, God does not send anyone to hell, because there is no such a place to sent anyone too. Hell must be understood under the law of cause and effect. Whatever we sow on this world, here we will harvest what we sow: Good or evil.

The New Testament goes even one step further than the Old Testament, and says that we have to accept its claims entirely on faith, without any evidence whatsoever.

That's exactly what happened to the faithful of Jim Jones, which resulted in the mass poinsoning of almost a thousands souls. Where faith begins, knowledge ends, and for lack of knowledte, people perish. (Hosea 4:6)

"For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

(1 Corinthians 1:17-18)

The message of the cross is rather a message of hatred and Replacement Theology.

Why does the Biblical God not want us to make informed decisions about life? Is this the behavior we should expect from a loving God?

Where does God not want us to make informed decisions about life? Would you quote the text for evidences? He simply warns us to make the right decision. But the actual decision is left up to us. (Gen. 4;7; Deut. 30;15-19)

Dr. Jehovah vs. Dr. Nature

Suppose you need to see a doctor because of a heart problem.
You go to a doctor (Dr. N.), and she examines you thoroughly. After the examination the doctor tells you what may have caused your heart problem, and recommends a particular medication called Naturalis.

That's how God works among man. Making of some experts in different fields so that others should be helped.

The God of Nature

If a loving God exists, he would not rely on our credulity. A loving God would want us to examine the facts about the world, and make informed decisions about our life. Instead of subverting our senses and reason, a loving God would want us to use all our senses to discover Truths about life. The better we understand the Laws that govern nature, the more informed we become, and the better we can live our life.

That's exactaly how God works and expects us to practice our freewill.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

 

[Debunker]

You can question issues within the religion. But once you start questioning the foundation of the religion, suddenly you stop hearing arguments to support this foundation. Instead you start hearing excuses for why no evidence can be provided to support the claims of religion.

So the idea that a religion welcomes it when people "question" the religion is far from the truth.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

Why do I have the impression that the enthusiasm for this thread is weakening in the atheistic camp?

Let's go back to more of the OP's weak premises of this thread. In the above, he brings up the issue of foundations and here and in other post he implies that through questioning the foundation of theistic society is threatened.

No theist claims the atheist is stupid for he is not. The stupid things he says have purpose and intent. the atheist says that God is the opiate of the people, Some atheist work diligently to sober society from removing God from the Constitution,Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, etc. because they recognize that God and these national shrines are the harbingers of self evident truths and civil rights. All these good things are given to us by God. Atheist want to replace the democratic rules of solidity that are based on the Ten Commandments and the Bible in general, with their default moral code of humanism. Democratic people point out that they will not give up their human rights given from God. The atheist logic is that if God is gone, then human rights are gone.That explains why the atheist actually justifies the use of bully tactics, illogic, and even out right lies to discredit the Bible. As noted, the atheist thinks he can be better than God.

Throughout the world, the replacement of God's laws with humanism has been a great threat to the rights of the individual and the differing of opinions. When the foundations of atheism are exposed, their society are rejected. In a free society, they must first win a philosophical and religious war. The OP refers to this as psychological warfare. And he is correct. The problem is that the atheist is not restrained by the ethics of a theist society. He is allowed to intimidate, threaten, and use assortied tactics to accomplish his point of few. Keep in mind that the atheist arrives his logic, values,ethics, and lifestyles from a moral relativity.

The OP talks about opening doors. Too the atheist everything is fair in opening the doors for humanism but the first thing he must to usher in humanism is to get God and religion off the stage of the world. Is that not the hidden purpose in this thread?.Don't you see, you theist are so uninformed that you need the humanist to make decisions for you.

The atheist here want to replace the Bible with natural philosophy which he says produces: "This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom." This is a lie. These values come from God and theistic
theology, not from humanism.Whenever and wherever has an atheistic philosophy created a great nation like the USA? We would be fools to reject our free society and replace it it an atheistic society. Now that is what the concept of foundations is all about. What say you members of this great forum? Step up and be heard, your God has no fear of any question posed by the atheist.

 

[Debunker]

I have no axe to grind with people who think differently - they have a perfect right to their own opinions.
But the OP was regarding the God of the Bible so please forgive me for thinking we could discuss him in that light.

We are discussing the God of the Bible. We just do not allow the perverted definition of God presented by the OP. If we accepted the premises of the OP. there would be no discussion.Are you looking to be a dictator or something?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why do I have the impression that the enthusiasm for this thread is weakening in the atheistic camp?

We have better things to do, such as preparing for the baby-sacrificing orgy tonight, or scratching our butts.

 

[Debunker]

It costs you credibility with anyone who is not a member of your choir.

I agree.
Now if there was only someone exposing fallacious logic in this thread...

Well, why don't you go ahead and do that?

 

[waitasec]

We are discussing the God of the Bible. We just do not allow the perverted definition of God presented by the OP. If we accepted the premises of the OP. there would be no discussion.Are you looking to be a dictator or something?

that is very telling. you don't allow yourself to acknowledge skeptics POV...
what are you afraid of?
perverted=skeptical....interesting

the point in a debating is to not have you accept the premise but to acknowledge it and to present a rebuttal...not by ignoring the premise and move goal posts.

 

[Debunker]

whats the definition of the word?

define the word, we'll go from there

no i cannot nor do i pretend to know what "gods" attributes are...
i question the attributes placed.

i guess that is where you and i differ.
you take things at face value while i'm a very skeptical when approaching outrageous claims.

your reasoning isn't evidence for me, the best you can do is change my reasoning.

why?



do you believe the story of noah's ark actually happened? the tower of babel?
how about the parting of the red sea...the entire exodus story or
jonah in the whale, the story of the fall of man in genesis?
or how about the wars the "chosen ones" participated in and committed unspeakable acts towards innocent children because god said so?

you are right in that assessment. because if a follower of jesus believes in the golden rule, "treat others as you would have them treat you" then thewould also believe that their inalienable rights are subjected to be voted on.ow, is that reasonable?

I am not going to write a research paper for you. You caq define God based on your own research. It's easy. Google it!

We theist have given you more than enough evidence and you do twist it all. If you want an answer give us a syllogism that makes sense. Otherwise don't bother us because we are too busy shacking the dust off our feet.

 

[JustWondering]

One of the theist pointed out that the OP used circular reasoning and now you prove that you too do this.

How on earth do you get that I am using circular reasoning?! My reasoning is straight forward. No evidence for gods, faieries, unicorns, bigfoot, or the lochness monster so I do not believe they exist. There is no evidence that proves they do not exist but there is also no evidence to prove Zeus does not exist. Do you believe Zeus exists? There is no evidence to prove he doesn't so I guess according to your logic Zeus must exist, right?

At least the theist is willing to offer what he calls evidence but the atheist does not require that of himself. The theist disproves every premise of the atheist's syllogisms and the atheist irnores all his own illogic.

Again, if theists had actual evidence that their god existed we would all be theists and there would be no need for this debate. Also, I have yet to see you provide one shred of evidence for your gods existence.

You say there is undeniable evidence for each position.

I never said there was undeniable evidence for Theism or Atheism, reread my post.

What reason do you have to assume the universe has always been here?

I don't assume the universe was always here. I clearly said I don't know why anything exists or if it where created. You are the one claiming to have all the answers without being able to provide evidence to support your position.

See, that is what we theist thought and that is the reason we think God created the universe.

See what? All you have done is make unsubstantiated claims to contradict me.

Sorry, there is a debate and the agnostic whitth all his doubt, adds nothing to the debate.

Still waiting for that evidence you keep going on about.

 

[no-body]

You surly do not offer yourself as an example of being better than God, do you?
Have you ever heard of a narcissistic personality? On another thread I give an argument that atheist react from a oppositional defiant disorder of a narcissist.No atheist has stepped forward to refute that psychological evaluation of atheism, Based on your statement, should I assume that the atheist does agree with my evaluation. Better than God! What a joke!

I was using the argument that is presented by Christianity and the bible, which I believe is just rubbish to begin with but that is what is being debated.

The pantheistic all loving, all forgiving, compassionate but impartial God sounds a lot better than the petty tyrant presented in the bible. If an idea of God is a fiction then just humanities imagination is better than God. There is no "I" to begin with so I offer up no ones fevered egos as an example.

Christianity says God created everything so we should not be able to judge Him or his standards, I say it should be the other way around. An all powerful being should be able to accept criticism and explain itself without mystery and petty human emotions or else it is not really "God"

Anyways you still don't offer up any type of evidence for your own belief as long as we're point out fallacies, you seem to be a big fan of using them yourself to side step everyone's original questions.

 

[Debunker]

How on earth do you get that I am using circular reasoning?! My reasoning is straight forward. No evidence for gods, faieries, unicorns, bigfoot, or the lochness monster so I do not believe they exist. There is no evidence that proves they do not exist but there is also no evidence to prove Zeus does not exist. Do you believe Zeus exists? There is no evidence to prove he doesn't so I guess according to your logic Zeus must exist, right?

Again, if theists had actual evidence that their god existed we would all be theists and there would be no need for this debate. Also, I have yet to see you provide one shred of evidence for your gods existence.

I never said there was undeniable evidence for Theism or Atheism, reread my post.

I don't assume the universe was always here. I clearly said I don't know why anything exists or if it where created. You are the one claiming to have all the answers without being able to provide evidence to support your position.

See what? All you have done is make unsubstantiated claims to contradict me.

Still waiting for that evidence you keep going on about.

Let me remind all you atheist that this thread is that of the atheist. We theist, not just me, have exposed your true agenda which is hidden in the weak premises of this thread. You painfully don't want to defend your premises but the onus is on you to do so.

I explained well the concept of foundations a few post back and thus far you have ignored to justify your weak premises. You continually point away from your very weak premises and try to debate very small issues trying to avoid the real issues of a very destructive issues of the evils of atheism.

It is not unimportant to debunk the Debunker. You have taken on the major philosophy of Western Civilization. Don't waste your time on me, Get busy and defend the culture you want to build to replace the greatest nation that has ever existed. That is your goal, is it not?

North Korea, Russia, Red China, Cuba, and several other atheist populations are depending on you to destroy the fabric and foundations of freedom and democracy so you can usher in a greater humanistic natural philosophy to bring order, justice, and above all, moral relativity to society. Your narcissistic view of world order places you so much greater than God, your words and not mine, that you somehow expect the theist to keep answering you while you destroy the fabric of a stable world. Just what is the better way of life that you offer us? Can you give us an example of this utopia that you offer in a world without God? I for one want to see and hear about this example. Just where do you lead us with you elimination of God? Believe this, the Debunker is not your problem. Your lack of ability to enlighten us is your problem. Go ahead, inform us on how to make informed decisions ,if our God does not want us to be. Inform us of your superior way of living.

 

[Rakhel]

Tell you what...
Let's change the question a bit.
The "biblical god" says do not have sex with animals.
Have you made an informed decision as to whether or not you should have sex with an animal?
Did you base this decision based on personal experience? OR did you base this decision based on someone telling you "EWWW that's nasty!"

 

[Jacksnyte]

What are you on about? Can't you just directly approach the subject and debate the issue at hand instead of just wandering off into some weird imaginary conspiracy theory?

Let me remind all you atheist that this thread is that of the atheist. We theist, not just me, have exposed your true agenda which is hidden in the weak premises of this thread. You painfully don't want to defend your premises but the onus is on you to do so.

I explained well the concept of foundations a few post back and thus far you have ignored to justify your weak premises. You continually point away from your very weak premises and try to debate very small issues trying to avoid the real issues of a very destructive issues of the evils of atheism.

It is not unimportant to debunk the Debunker. You have taken on the major philosophy of Western Civilization. Don't waste your time on me, Get busy and defend the culture you want to build to replace the greatest nation that has ever existed. That is your goal, is it not?

North Korea, Russia, Red China, Cuba, and several other atheist populations are depending on you to destroy the fabric and foundations of freedom and democracy so you can usher in a greater humanistic natural philosophy to bring order, justice, and above all, moral relativity to society. Your narcissistic view of world order places you so much greater than God, your words and not mine, that you somehow expect the theist to keep answering you while you destroy the fabric of a stable world. Just what is the better way of life that you offer us? Can you give us an example of this utopia that you offer in a world without God? I for one want to see and hear about this example. Just where do you lead us with you elimination of God? Believe this, the Debunker is not your problem. Your lack of ability to enlighten us is your problem. Go ahead, inform us on how to make informed decisions ,if our God does not want us to be. Inform us of your superior way of living.

 

[Debunker]

What are you on about? Can't you just directly approach the subject and debate the issue at hand instead of just wandering off into some weird imaginary conspiracy theory?

Your answer sir is that the OP brought up the question of foundations. I was not wandering all over the place. I was directly addressing the thread. You do agree that our world without God needs to be supplied with a humanist to take God's place, do you not? Now you directly answer the question or be quite.

 

[McBell]

Still trying to figure out what any of your posts have to do with god not proving he exists because proving he exists would eliminate free will...

 

[Rakhel]

This was the question of the OP

Why Does the Biblical God Not Want People To Make an Informed Decision?

this was the OPs reasonings in an attempt to discredit G-d.

The God of Nature

If a loving God exists, he would not rely on our credulity. A loving God would want us to examine the facts about the world, and make informed decisions about our life. Instead of subverting our senses and reason, a loving God would want us to use all our senses to discover Truths about life. The better we understand the Laws that govern nature, the more informed we become, and the better we can live our life.

Once told that G-d says nothing about not making informed decisions, it went to questioning the foundations of religion. Once it was pointed out that the OP author was still questioning the church and not G-d, it changed to "why does G-d not allow you to decide to have homosexual sex?"

Since that law is in the same category as the law against bestiality, it must be determined if one can truly make an informed decision based on what the bible says the laws are.

If the question can be applied to one law, then it must be applied to all laws. Otherwise you have a flawed argument.

 

[waitasec]

I am not going to write a research paper for you. You caq define God based on your own research. It's easy. Google it!

but i though defining god was simple...

We theist have given you more than enough evidence and you do twist it all. If you want an answer give us a syllogism that makes sense. Otherwise don't bother us because we are too busy shacking the dust off our feet.

no one is twisting anything...being skeptical is being honest with yourself.
why would you have a problem with that?

 

[Debunker]

but i though defining god was simple...

no one is twisting anything...being skeptical is being honest with yourself.
why would you have a problem with that?

the Jack *** why the OP defines God, you would think it was an impossible task to define the simplest part of God. Yes, you are twisting the definition of God. You have yet to address dabar. Why not?