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

[Enoughie]

Interesting method of debate you got there. You really thought that if you'd switch the words in the topic we were debating it would go unnoticed?! You've switched the subject we were talking about (natural philosophy) to something that has absolutely nothing to do with it (natural theology).

What's the matter? You're afraid to admit that you were proven wrong?

So let's look at the original topic we were discussing:

It may shock you to discover that most of the Bible was natural philosophy (theology) before it was recorded as revealed theology. Your little quote about natural philosophy is more typical of the Bible than your personal philosophy.

To which I replied:

"You clearly have no idea what natural philosophy is. Natural philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with theology. Natural philosophy is a term that precedes natural science, and science clearly has very little to do with theology."

And now your response:

Nothing is that clear. I do know what natural philosophy is. Natural theology is a branch of philosophy and it does not depend on revealed theology. Natural theology depends on philosophy, my friend. You do not know anything about theology and very little about philosophy.You prove it here. So, defend your thread or be silent.

Except for personal attacks (that are clearly unsupported by anything), you offer nothing to support your claim that: "most of the Bible was natural philosophy (theology) before it was recorded as revealed theology."

I did not question whether you were an atheist. However, with your attack on God of the Bible, I assumed you were an atheist.

Ah. You know what they say about people who assume..

But what I did do was attack the premises of your thread; therefore, I did not screw up and my criticisms still stand. You do the same logic of an atheist so there you are,

No. I'm agnostic, so my position is that of doubt.

The logic of an atheist is disbelief in god. If you follow any religion, then you're also an atheist about all the other religions. So in that case you're logic is much closer to that of an atheist then my logic.

Your position is that you believe in the God of the Bible, and don't believe in all the other gods. So please start providing evidence why all the gods you don't believe in are not real gods.

Ok. I can do that and I already did. Not being a theologian or skilled in natural philosophy, you would not know what I am about to say, so please pay attention, because we did address this very issue in this thread and you missed the subject. We pointed out that dabar was the God of the Bible and you do reject the God of the Bible as you say. But dabar was the God of the universe before any part of the Bible was writen. So you do reject the God of the universe. He is also the God of reasoning so all natural philosophy depends on dabar the God of the Bible.

Claiming that the god of the bible is also the god of the universe is an assertion you have to prove first. This is very far from being a universally accepted fact.

There are many gods that contend to be "god of the universe" - Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, and a many others. There is no reason that your god should have any priority over the rest.

Therefor, you are responsible and accountable for all the atheistic statements in this thread.

Actually I'm not. You're far more responsible for these statements. Because you're an atheist about all the other gods you don't believe in as well.

No body will respect your credibility if you do not man up and defend your premises that have been addressed. Theist time and again have defended their God and you have said that you are tired of hearing it. You have refuted much of our evidence. This is your thread and it is your turn to provide the evidence that God does not exist or even that the God of the Bible does not exist.

So again, I say, cough it up and stop trying to back off your own thread.

I have no problem answering the question why the biblical god is not the god of the universe. And I'd proceed in a second to defending this claim. But I'd ask you to defend your claim of why the god you believe in is indeed the god of the universe, while the god of other religions (say, Islam) is not. So start defending your premises.

There are several different approaches in which I can address this issue. So I'll start with one, and if you manage to disprove my claim I'll move on to the next one.

You can see my first argument here: Is Steve Jobs a Greater Designer and Visionary than the Biblical God? | Natural Philosophy of Life or here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/109289-question-intelligent-design.html

Also, I'm still waiting for your response to the question I raised in this post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2312192-post61.html
_____________________
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]

wow...the hoops one jumps through :areyoucra
i find it very telling that you know so much and with such conviction...and how do you know this, because the convoluted and ambiguous bible tells you so? an ancient text written at a time when the understanding of the world, in the mirco sense and the cosmic sense, was not understood in the capacity it is understood today?

why would you want to put a label on the unknowable?
how bout this,
when looking through a peep hole, do you assume that whatever it is you see is small enough to fit into your limited capacity of understanding?

Do you defend the premises of the OP or do you not? I did not hear or see anything that indicated you were taking a position on the thread The OP is having problems and you do not add anything to help him.Just because you can not read the Bible with intellectual understanding does not make the Bible convoluted or ambiguous. In philosophy and logic, we ask such statements to have a solid premise. You do not have good reason to question my convictions until you know the premises of my thinking.If you disagree with my convictions, I point to where you can begin. That is what I did to the OP.
If you want to help the OP, simply explain how his premises are good and not convoluted or ambiguous.He can't do it so you help him.

I did not answer your questions because they were not good questions and had nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Debunker]

Your going to have to explain this to me because I have no idea what your talking about.

If someone made an amazing claim about something (such as seeing bigfoot for example) would you not need some evidence before believing such claims? Why is it so hard for you to grasp the concept that unbelievers require more than your word to except your amazing claims about your god?



If you want to view those who don't believe in your god as arrogant, narcissitic, unreasonable, and just plain bad people then I can't stop you. But let me remind you of a few little details you won't like about the greatest nation in the world. God did not free the slaves, the north did. God did not give women equal rights, the womens sufferage movement did. Some of the founding fathers had little to no use for religion. Lastly, America is not a Christian Theocracy, deal with it.

I certainly do not think all atheist/agnostics are bad people. Many fine people in that group. Those who write insulting threads, make fun of theist, and invite opposition deserve it and must be willing to accept return criticism when posting on a forum like this one.

It is the obligation of the OP to defend his premises. The OP brought "foundation" into this discussion saying that when the foundations of religion is questioned that it would begin to crumble or something like that. I thought that was rather arrogant so I became more determined to test his hypothesis on his argument that he stated in his thread. He made up a God that is not found in the Bible and attack that God thinking that he had logically exposed religion as irrational. Now that is what the OP did.

I am not saying all religious people are rational just as I do not say all atheist/agnostics are bad people but all who invent images and facts that are false are inellectually unfair. I pointed out the Bible concept of dabar and logos as the Bible definition of God. The theist God is very intellectual you see.

The true God of the Bible does not go well with the thesis statement of the OP. This definition does rip at the foundation of his argument, To be honest the OP needs to change his argument. For emotional reasons that have nothing to do with philosophy or logic, the OP refuses to give up his false assumptions. His argument was oppositional in its tone from the get go. That was the first thing I noticed that attracted me to the thread.

I am sure if I said the mountain is tall, the OP would say, not really. If I said the tree was green, he would say the tree was yellow, etc. People who respond like that are emotional. Many such emotional people like that have an emotional personality called oppositional fefiant disorder. These people are very narcissistic. Many atheist/agnostics on foruns like this are like that. Some theist are that way too. These people can not be persuaded with a logical argument. What might help them would be a pill or a shot from a medical doctor.

No matter what I say or what information I give out to th OP, I doubt he will soften his argument. The only thing that is to be done here is to expose the foundation of his reasoning in hopes he will back off his attack on religion and God.Others should not be intimidated and abused to the point they will not voice their view in opposition to either atheism or theism.

 

[McBell]

I certainly do not think all atheist/agnostics are bad people. Many fine people in that group. Those who write insulting threads, make fun of theist, and invite opposition deserve it and must be willing to accept return criticism when posting on a forum like this one.

It is the obligation of the OP to defend his premises. The OP brought "foundation" into this discussion saying that when the foundations of religion is questioned that it would begin to crumble or something like that. I thought that was rather arrogant so I became more determined to test his hypothesis on his argument that he stated in his thread. He made up a God that is not found in the Bible and attack that God thinking that he had logically exposed religion as irrational. Now that is what the OP did.

I am not saying all religious people are rational just as I do not say all atheist/agnostics are bad people but all who invent images and facts that are false are inellectually unfair. I pointed out the Bible concept of dabar and logos as the Bible definition of God. The theist God is very intellectual you see.

The true God of the Bible does not go well with the thesis statement of the OP. This definition does rip at the foundation of his argument, To be honest the OP needs to change his argument. For emotional reasons that have nothing to do with philosophy or logic, the OP refuses to give up his false assumptions. His argument was oppositional in its tone from the get go. That was the first thing I noticed that attracted me to the thread.

I am sure if I said the mountain is tall, the OP would say, not really. If I said the tree was green, he would say the tree was yellow, etc. People who respond like that are emotional. Many such emotional people like that have an emotional personality called oppositional fefiant disorder. These people are very narcissistic. Many atheist/agnostics on foruns like this are like that. Some theist are that way too. These people can not be persuaded with a logical argument. What might help them would be a pill or a shot from a medical doctor.

No matter what I say or what information I give out to th OP, I doubt he will soften his argument. The only thing that is to be done here is to expose the foundation of his reasoning in hopes he will back off his attack on religion and God.Others should not be intimidated and abused to the point they will not voice their view in opposition to either atheism or theism.

You keep going on and on about the OP and foundation of religion, but I STILL do not see anything about any foundation in the OP.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point it out?

 

[Debunker]

Interesting method of debate you got there. You really thought that if you'd switch the words in the topic we were debating it would go unnoticed?! You've switched the subject we were talking about (natural philosophy) to something that has absolutely nothing to do with it (natural theology).

What's the matter? You're afraid to admit that you were proven wrong?

So let's look at the original topic we were discussing:


To which I replied:

"You clearly have no idea what natural philosophy is. Natural philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with theology. Natural philosophy is a term that precedes natural science, and science clearly has very little to do with theology."

And now your response:

Except for personal attacks (that are clearly unsupported by anything), you offer nothing to support your claim that: "most of the Bible was natural philosophy (theology) before it was recorded as revealed theology."


Ah. You know what they say about people who assume..

No. I'm agnostic, so my position is that of doubt.

The logic of an atheist is disbelief in god. If you follow any religion, then you're also an atheist about all the other religions. So in that case you're logic is much closer to that of an atheist then my logic.

Your position is that you believe in the God of the Bible, and don't believe in all the other gods. So please start providing evidence why all the gods you don't believe in are not real gods.


Claiming that the god of the bible is also the god of the universe is an assertion you have to prove first. This is very far from being a universally accepted fact.

There are many gods that contend to be "god of the universe" - Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, and a many others. There is no reason that your god should have any priority over the rest.


Actually I'm not. You're far more responsible for these statements. Because you're an atheist about all the other gods you don't believe in as well.


I have no problem answering the question why the biblical god is not the god of the universe. And I'd proceed in a second to defending this claim. But I'd ask you to defend your claim of why the god you believe in is indeed the god of the universe, while the god of other religions (say, Islam) is not. So start defending your premises.

There are several different approaches in which I can address this issue. So I'll start with one, and if you manage to disprove my claim I'll move on to the next one.

You can see my first argument here: Is Steve Jobs a Greater Designer and Visionary than the Biblical God? | Natural Philosophy of Life or here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/109289-question-intelligent-design.html

Also, I'm still waiting for your response to the question I raised in this post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2312192-post61.html
_____________________
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.

Look! If you missed not on your education, don't blame me. You open with a retort that is typical of an oppositional attitude. Your knowing so much more than I, did nothing to support your premises. It support what I said about an oppositional defiant disorder. You need to get past puberty before you get into philosophy.

Except for personal attacks (that are clearly unsupported by anything), you offer nothing to support your claim that: "most of the Bible was natural philosophy (theology) before it was recorded as revealed theology."

To rebut this, I simply appeal to common sense. People commonly know thing before they write them down. You do seem to be the exception to that rule of common sense.

Do I sound like I am afraid of your sophistry?

You can see my first argument here: Is Steve Jobs a Greater Designer and Visionary than the Biblical God? | Natural Philosophy of Life or here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/109289-question-intelligent-design.html

Did you write all this? I am impressed. Now, explain how this helps your premises.

I answered your questions by destroying your premises and foundation of your natural philosophy and you are not even aware of it. Against, against,that is all you have. Take a few pills and get a good sleep and you will be able to think better.

 

[McBell]

**wonders if Debunker is ever going to address the thread topic**

 

[Enoughie]

Debunker:

I'm not going to waste any more time on you or your idiotic personal attacks, or address any new topics you bring up in this thread, until you answer the question in this post:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2312192-post61.html

_____________________
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]

**wonders if Debunker is ever going to address the thread topic**

You and the OP have beaten me down! I just can not overcome your great logic and understanding of things. How could I ever have thought I could deal with you fellows, so good bye Now you fellows can have this thread all to yourselves.

 

[McBell]

You and the OP have beaten me down! I just can not overcome your great logic and understanding of things. How could I ever have thought I could deal with you fellows, so good bye Now you fellows can have this thread all to yourselves.

i see.
So you are not going to ever address the thread topic then?
All you can do is attack your strawmen and call names?

Perhaps you should fly home and claim victory.

 

[waitasec]

Do you defend the premises of the OP or do you not?

ok lets talk about the premise of the OP.
why does the biblical god not want people to make an informed decision?

what is faith? is it based on evidence or the lack of it?

Just because you can not read the Bible with intellectual understanding does not make the Bible convoluted or ambiguous.

In philosophy and logic, we ask such statements to have a solid premise. You do not have good reason to question my convictions until you know the premises of my thinking.If you disagree with my convictions, I point to where you can begin. That is what I did to the OP.
If you want to help the OP, simply explain how his premises are good and not convoluted or ambiguous.He can't do it so you help him.

obviously you believe god wants people to make an informed decision...
again, what is faith?

I did not answer your questions because they were not good questions and had nothing to do with this thread.

well lets see, if the thread is about labeling god in a certain way because the evidence for this case is in the bible...why can't you provide evidence to the contrary?

 

[Enoughie]

You and the OP have beaten me down! I just can not overcome your great logic and understanding of things. How could I ever have thought I could deal with you fellows, so good bye Now you fellows can have this thread all to yourselves.

What a marvelous display of condescension and hypocrisy (clearly, these must be your religious values).

The topic of this thread was that the biblical god does not want people to make informed decisions about life.

The specific example I gave for this assertion was that the biblical god doesn't want us to make an informed decision about homosexuality.

The biblical god condemns homosexuality. Yet, if we want to make an informed decision about this issue, we cannot see any evidence that homosexuality per se has any negative effects. Since there is no evidence against homosexuality that supports the biblical condemnation, the biblical god does not allow us to make an informed decision on the matter.

We also cannot make informed decisions on claims about eternal life, heaven, or hell. I gave the simpler example of homosexuality, to see if the opponents of my OP statement can at least come up with a convincing argument against that. Evidently they cannot.

Debunker: you tried all sorts of tactics to discredit my statement. From personal attacks, to calling me an atheist who must prove that god doesn't exist, to condescending remarks about my supposed lack of knowledge of theology or philosophy, to claiming that my premises are weak, and to simply resorting to empty and dishonest rhetoric (and even demanding that this thread should be deleted).

Yet, you did not do the one thing you needed to do - which is to demonstrate how my statement is incorrect.

That's a shame. I hope you'd be more honest in your debate style next time.

_____________________
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]

What a marvelous display of condescension and hypocrisy (clearly, these must be your religious values).

The topic of this thread was that the biblical god does not want people to make informed decisions about life.

The specific example I gave for this assertion was that the biblical god doesn't want us to make an informed decision about homosexuality.

The biblical god condemns homosexuality. Yet, if we want to make an informed decision about this issue, we cannot see any evidence that homosexuality per se has any negative effects. Since there is no evidence against homosexuality that supports the biblical condemnation, the biblical god does not allow us to make an informed decision on the matter.

We also cannot make informed decisions on claims about eternal life, heaven, or hell. I gave the simpler example of homosexuality, to see if the opponents of my OP statement can at least come up with a convincing argument against that. Evidently they cannot.

Debunker: you tried all sorts of tactics to discredit my statement. From personal attacks, to calling me an atheist who must prove that god doesn't exist, to condescending remarks about my supposed lack of knowledge of theology or philosophy, to claiming that my premises are weak, and to simply resorting to empty and dishonest rhetoric (and even demanding that this thread should be deleted).

Yet, you did not do the one thing you needed to do - which is to demonstrate how my statement is incorrect.

That's a shame. I hope you'd be more honest in your debate style next time.

_____________________
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.

The topic of this thread was that the biblical god does not want people to make informed decisions about life.

The specific example I gave for this assertion was that the biblical god doesn't want us to make an informed decision about homosexuality.

The biblical god condemns homosexuality. Yet, if we want to make an informed decision about this issue, we cannot see any evidence that homosexuality per se has any negative effects. Since there is no evidence against homosexuality that supports the biblical condemnation, the biblical god does not allow us to make an informed decision on the matter.

The biblical God is dabar/logos and not the God you say is the God of the Bible. The bible is a history of how God has revealed himself to people who did not understand God as he is. That is what God said to Moses. "I am." The last book of the Bible in titled "The Revelation of Jesus Christ," that is logos as defined by John the Revelatory in chapter one of the Gospel of John. The God you define as the God of the Bible is the God the Bible rejects as a false image of God. Theist agree that the God you refer to should be denounced. Can you not see that your premise of this thread does not match your conclusions?

Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. You say there is "no evidence" against homosexuality. How about AIDS. I am not saying that homosexuals caused AIDS but there is little doubt that they have a major group in spreading this illness. Another reason that condemns homosexuality is the same argument homosexuals use to justify their behavior is the same argument that pedophiles, sadomasochists, and other perverted sex offender use to justify their behavior. The definition of normal is so screwed by the behavior of homosexuals today that it is difficult to determine how children should be educated in the public schools. Children of homosexuals have different parents than other normal children. On and on, we could offer many reasons why homosexual behavior is condemned in the Bible and society at large. Out of sympathy for homosexuals situation, theist do not generally point out the evils of homosexual behavior but you press this point so strongly that it must be addressed here but only because you insist.

Debunker: you tried all sorts of tactics to discredit my statement. From personal attacks, to calling me an atheist who must prove that god doesn't exist, to condescending remarks about my supposed lack of knowledge of theology or philosophy, to claiming that my premises are weak, and to simply resorting to empty and dishonest rhetoric (and even demanding that this thread should be deleted).

No body said your thread should be deleted. I did say that, "in this sense" it was against the forum rules. An attack on a particular religion is not permitted. You do attack, without reservation, Christianity.

I did discredit your statement as did many others did. Were we suppose to agree with everything you said about the Bible, come and follow you because you say the Bible is such and such? Without the Bible there is a high probability that there would not be a Western Civilization. You are an agnostic and doubt everything. That position, however, does not make for a strong leadership position in philosophy and religion. The blind should not be sent to lead the blind.

Calling you an atheist was giving you a more respected position in philosophy than that of an agnostic. An atheist does know what he believes about God. whereas you believe there is a God but seem to have no ideas about God. How can you tell anybody how to make informed religious decisions when you doubt there is truth or concrete knowledge of any kind? You have not pointed us in any informed direction but have only informed us from a very unformed concept of God about why we are wrong. Until one knows the correct way, one should not be allowed to be the chief guide.

As for your understanding of natural philosophy, my statements were not made with the intent to insult you. In philosophy we know the definitions of such things as "natural philosophy" are operationally defined terms. To an atheist, agnostics, theist, materialist, idealist, determinism, pragmatist, etc. all have their own definition of natural philosophy. The definition you give at the end of all your post is well suited for atheist. Atheist want to say values do not come from God but from a natural philosophy that does not include God whereas a theist wants to say that natural philosophy points to a God that gives us such values as unalienable rights, self evident truths, etc. Without actually knowing I would say you definition came from an atheistic author. What you might overlook is that others disagree with how you define natural philosophy and with very good reason to do so. That is what I meant to say when I said you obviously did not know about philosophy. I am sorry that your feelings were hurt, It, however, was not a personal attack on you. I will, however attempt to mellow out my rhetoric with you.It has been rather forward and direct. From now on, I will try to handle you and others with kid gloves. Do have a nice day.

 

[McBell]

The topic of this thread was that the biblical god does not want people to make informed decisions about life.

Oh.
My mistake then.

I was under the impression that the thread was about how god not proving his existence would somehow magically negate freewill.
I mean it is the very first line of the OP.

All that about homosexuality came later in the thread.

 

[Debunker]

Oh.
My mistake then.

I was under the impression that the thread was about how god not proving his existence would somehow magically negate freewill.
I mean it is the very first line of the OP.

All that about homosexuality came later in the thread.

I suggest for clarity sake that you reread the OP's thread introduction again.

 

[Debunker]

It's in 1st Corinthians, but I can't remember exactly where, somewhere in chapters 1 or 2, where Paul tells the Corinthians to not study philosophy. And he does it again in another one of his letters. At the time, the philosophical schools were the best at understanding how the world works. Why would he not want believers to study this? The only conclusion I can come up with is because reason and logic lead to a disbelief in god, or at least god the way he saw it. The problem with knowledge and understanding is that, when put to the test, the many of the claims of many religions fail. There's no need to doubt god when the only thing you're allowed to study and believe in is the Bible, or Qur'an, or whatever other religious scripture you're following. I don't think all Christians, or followers of other religions, mostly monotheistic, think this way, but some do. That's the reason why liberal Christians have such a different view of god and the Bible and religion than their more conservative counterparts. Such things hold mankind back, and keep us from progressing. An ethical standard is always needed in this pursuit, but no one religion has any monopoly on morals, as there is not an absolute morality.

I found this verse for you;
Col:2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

What it says to me is that Jesus Christ had a philosophy and that it was vainm to study philosophies of men (humanism). All the premises of Christians should be based on the fact that God does exist.

God does want Christians to study. Paul used natural philosophy in the book of Romans to explain why atheist were without excuse for not believing in God and he explained why atheist could not be saved also. Paul also told Timothy to study to be able to give a reason why he had the hope of Christ. Liberal Christians might have a better view of dabar than do some Christians. It does take a little more sophistication to correctly understand the Bible.

 

[SoulTraveler]

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).

What do you mean by 'evidence'? If you mean scientific evidence, you aren't going to go with science where science is incapable of going. Spiritual matters lie outside its domain (presently, for the most part). All honest science (not scientism, a disease biased scientists and laypeople often have) can say is "we don't know, either way." If you mean evidence that would be convincing but not scientific, you're talking about subjectivity, which will get you booed off the stage in most circles. So either you adopt a belief system on faith (swallowing the blue pill), stop asking the hard questions, and enjoy the comfort and support of "knowing" you're right, or you get comfortable with subjectivity, verify things for yourself, and keep your mouth shut, most of the time.

Then there's the problem of defining 'God', which even in Christian circles is not a simple as it appears. The God of the faithful can be very different than the experience of (and ineffable) God of the mystics, even though they are ostensibly the same God. In Christianity there have always been both. Lets not get into the God in the OT who wipes out entire cities (including babies) and the God of love taught by Jesus.

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. Through all sorts of theological acrobatics, the Christian God is playing "psychological warfare" with people who are genuinely interested in discovering truths about life, yet find absolutely nothing that would support the claims of the New Testament:

"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)

What a great excuse and cover up story for having absolutely no evidence to support the theology.

The New Testament is a book, but not a work. It is a compilation of several works, each written within its own historical and religious context while reflecting the bias of its human author. This compilation was assembled and declared authoritative by members of the one group of many groups of Christians that "won" the "argument," thanks to a lot of help from Constantine and especially Theodosius. These Christians, in the name of a loving God, often brutally suppressed their opponents into exile, oblivion, or death. There is plenty of evidence for this. Not to mention what happened to those works individually as they were altered against 'heretics' and transmitted through time. There is plenty of evidence for this as well.

So now we have to define what 'God' is, what the NT is or should be, and what it may be missing. No easy task without being a part of the historical 'in' group and swallowing two thousand years of theological constructs, which you have pointed out.

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?

It isn't that (God) doesn't want you to. It's the belief system that doesn't. You've noticed how fear-based the thinking is, in direct contradiction to love. That eternal punishment is even a factor, let alone a compelling one, is telling. All the worshiping, the supplications for forgiveness, the fear of being cast into the flames of Perdition. It's all nonsense in the face of love. And saying (God) is a God of love while also saying that (he) does that to his children really needs theological stretching in the face of the obvious dichotomy. So what is the solution for the cognitive dissonance? Theology. Apologetic. Hermeneutics. And lots of them, giving you a full blown belief system that may or may not have much to do with reality and the truth.

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.

You ask her for more detail about this medication, and she happily provides it for you. The medication Naturalis was rigorously tested for years, and was shown to be effective in 98% of cases. There are minor side effects to this medication that were reported in about 0.5% of the people tested. After the medication was approved, 96% of people who were prescribed this medication reported good or very good results. You thank the doctor for her diagnosis and recommended medication, but you would still like to get a second opinion. For this purpose you go to another doctor (Dr. J.).

Dr. J. does not examine you at all, and does not even ask for the reason you came. Instead, he inspects what is written in an old book he has and concludes that you have abdominal pain. He then goes on to recommend a medication called Religiosis. You try to explain to him that you have a heart problem. Yet, he asserts that you have abdominal pain because that is what the book says, and the book can never be wrong (or at least so he claims).

You have your doubts, but you still decide to ask the doctor for more details about this medication. The doctor says that Religiosis was never tested on anyone. The doctor claims that the reason for this is that testing Religiosis would only make it ineffective. Moreover, he tells you that having any evidence for Religiosis' effectiveness would undermine your ability to truly choose what's best for you.

In the medical profession, Dr. J. would be considered a charlatan, and almost anyone would be prudent to question his claims. However, when it comes to looking for guidance on how to live, too many people do not question the claims of religion, but instead choose this form of charlatanism for guidance.

I like your analogy except that is uses a physical problem that exists within time-space, which means it can be broken down quickly.

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.

I agree, with the caveat that how we define 'nature' can make a huge difference here. Does that definition include just the material world, or can it include that which is outside the perception of our five senses? If the former is operative, then you may as well stick to science and stay out of irrelevant religions debates (except for mysticism, which the atheist author Sam Harris points out as rational). If the latter is your paradigm, then the only real solution is to find a way to go experience for yourself (the red pill) what and what is not true about nonphysical reality and then draw your own conclusions.

 

[Debunker]

What do you mean by 'evidence'? If you mean scientific evidence, you aren't going to go with science where science is incapable of going. Spiritual matters lie outside its domain (presently, for the most part). All honest science (not scientism, a disease biased scientists and laypeople often have) can say is "we don't know, either way." If you mean evidence that would be convincing but not scientific, you're talking about subjectivity, which will get you booed off the stage in most circles. So either you adopt a belief system on faith (swallowing the blue pill), stop asking the hard questions, and enjoy the comfort and support of "knowing" you're right, or you get comfortable with subjectivity, verify things for yourself, and keep your mouth shut, most of the time.

Then there's the problem of defining 'God', which even in Christian circles is not a simple as it appears. The God of the faithful can be very different than the experience of (and ineffable) God of the mystics, even though they are ostensibly the same God. In Christianity there have always been both. Lets not get into the God in the OT who wipes out entire cities (including babies) and the God of love taught by Jesus.(The God of the Bible is the same God throughout. The God you don't like is the God that god-haters adopt for Christians, such as the OP has done here.)



The New Testament is a book, but not a work. It is a compilation of several works, each written within its own historical and religious context while reflecting the bias of its human author. This compilation was assembled and declared authoritative by members of the one group of many groups of Christians that "won" the "argument," thanks to a lot of help from Constantine and especially Theodosius. These Christians, in the name of a loving God, often brutally suppressed their opponents into exile, oblivion, or death. There is plenty of evidence for this. Not to mention what happened to those works individually as they were altered against 'heretics' and transmitted through time. There is plenty of evidence for this as well. You must admit that the authors of these works of the NT did not encourage violence. This came from so called Christian leaders only after the true authors of the book were dead.The true authors of the book represent God.)

So now we have to define what 'God' is, what the NT is or should be, and what it may be missing. No easy task without being a part of the historical 'in' group and swallowing two thousand years of theological constructs, which you have pointed out.(The constructs you point out may not be those of the book.)

It isn't that (God) doesn't want you to. It's the belief system that doesn't. You've noticed how fear-based the thinking is, in direct contradiction to love. That eternal punishment is even a factor, let alone a compelling one, is telling. All the worshiping, the supplications for forgiveness, the fear of being cast into the flames of Perdition. It's all nonsense in the face of love. And saying (God) is a God of love while also saying that (he) does that to his children really needs theological stretching in the face of the obvious dichotomy. So what is the solution for the cognitive dissonance? Theology. Apologetic. Hermeneutics. And lots of them, giving you a full blown belief system that may or may not have much to do with reality and the truth.(Much of what is call the Christian tradition did not come from the Bible and does not represent Christ's teachings. As an outsider to such a Christian group, you would not recognize that many adhere to the originally meaning of Chriistianity that is in the Bible.)

I like your analogy except that is uses a physical problem that exists within time-space, which means it can be broken down quickly.

I agree, with the caveat that how we define 'nature' can make a huge difference here. Does that definition include just the material world, or can it include that which is outside the perception of our five senses? If the former is operative, then you may as well stick to science and stay out of irrelevant religions debates (except for mysticism, which the atheist author Sam Harris points out as rational). If the latter is your paradigm, then the only real solution is to find a way to go experience for yourself (the red pill) what and what is not true about nonphysical reality and then draw your own conclusions.

Otherwise, qhat you say is somewhat correct, but close consideration should be given to the comments in red.

 

[McBell]

I suggest for clarity sake that you reread the OP's thread introduction again.

I would suggest you follow your own suggestion...
How about you start with replying to my post, I will repost it here since you missed it the first time:

You keep going on and on about the OP and foundation of religion, but I STILL do not see anything about any foundation in the OP.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point it out?

 

[Enoughie]

The biblical God is dabar/logos and not the God you say is the God of the Bible. The bible is a history of how God has revealed himself to people who did not understand God as he is. That is what God said to Moses. "I am." The last book of the Bible in titled "The Revelation of Jesus Christ," that is logos as defined by John the Revelatory in chapter one of the Gospel of John. The God you define as the God of the Bible is the God the Bible rejects as a false image of God. Theist agree that the God you refer to should be denounced. Can you not see that your premise of this thread does not match your conclusions?

If you want to view the bible as a purely historic (ie. mythological) text, you're welcome to do so. But then you must ignore all the parts where the biblical god actually dictates his rules - in the ten commandments, Deuteronomy, and so on. My post refers exactly to those parts where the biblical god dictates his rules, but doesn't not provide any reason to follow many of these rules. In other words, there is no justification outside of the bible to follow many of these rules. If you reject or denounce that god, then more power to you.

Now:

For someone who prides himself on "debunking" weak arguments, you surely can give lessons on presenting really crappy arguments.

So let's demolish your argument point by point.

Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. You say there is "no evidence" against homosexuality. How about AIDS. I am not saying that homosexuals caused AIDS but there is little doubt that they have a major group in spreading this illness.

Before I actually demolish this point, let's see what rakhel has to say about this issue:

You really have low opinions of people if you think AIDS is the first thing that comes to mind as a consequence for homosexual sex. I wasn't even going to go there.

Her words, not mine.

Now, about your claims: Clearly, this is utter nonsense. Homosexuality doesn't spread AIDS. Being infected and having unprotected sex does.

If you claim that homosexuals are relatively overrepresented among people infected with AIDS, then what about the fact that the vast majority of people infected with AIDS are African? Why doesn't the biblical god condemn people for being African then? (or maybe he does, I don't know).

On the other hand, homosexuals are highly underrepresented in the category of people that have abortions. Seems like a big plus in god's book..

Another reason that condemns homosexuality is the same argument homosexuals use to justify their behavior is the same argument that pedophiles, sadomasochists, and other perverted sex offender use to justify their behavior.

Really?! Sex offenders - people who rape or force themselves onto someone against his/her will - use the same argument to justify their crime as homosexuals?! (individuals who have consensual sex with other individuals of their own gender)

If that is your view, then we can all appreciate now how religion perverts a person's outlook. The only one perverted here is you and your outlook!

The definition of normal is so screwed by the behavior of homosexuals today that it is difficult to determine how children should be educated in the public schools.

What exactly is the "behavior of homosexuals"? Having sex for pleasure? How is that behavior any different from the behavior of heterosexuals? Do heterosexuals not have sex for pleasure?

Or maybe you mean that homosexuals are good interior designers, and we should not educate our children to have a good taste in things.

Children of homosexuals have different parents than other normal children.

"Different" how? The fact that they're not the biological parents? That seems to me like an argument against adoption, not against homosexuals. Homosexuals can't technically reproduce among themselves.

On and on, we could offer many reasons why homosexual behavior is condemned in the Bible and society at large.

On and on? You haven't even provided one good reason.

Out of sympathy for homosexuals situation, theist do not generally point out the evils of homosexual behavior but you press this point so strongly that it must be addressed here but only because you insist.

Theists don't like to address this issue because it reveals the moral bankruptcy of religion. You could not provide even one good reason for why homosexuality is bad. But you did reveal quite a lot about the perverted worldview that one must adopt to accept religious dogma. Religion makes you equate love (homosexuality) with violence and torture (pedophilia, rape), and that is truly perverted.

No body said your thread should be deleted. I did say that, "in this sense" it was against the forum rules. An attack on a particular religion is not permitted. You do attack, without reservation, Christianity.

The hypothesis of this thread is that the biblical god does not want us to make informed decisions about life. The biblical god doesn't allow us to make an informed decision about eternal life, about heaven, about hell, about homosexuality, and many other issues.

Christianity makes these claims, but doesn't allow us to make an informed decision on them. That's a legitimate and sensible argument.

Yet, even though you evidently failed to demonstrate that this is not the case (even for the "simpler" issue of homosexuality), you still tried other, less than honest, methods to discredit it.

Here is what you wrote:

"Since the premises of the OP are rubbish, lies, and deliberatively dishonest, we should reject totally his summary hypotheses above as a vicious attack on a religion. This thread is a violation of forum rules."

. .

I did discredit your statement as did many others did.

You did not disprove the claim that the biblical god doesn't want us to make an informed decision about life. (Yet you tried to discredit this statement in other, less than honest, ways).

To disprove my statement, you must show what evidence there is to support such claims as for eternal life, heaven, hell, or to reject homosexuality. I asked to show what evidence there is against homosexuality (which should be simpler than to find evidence for heaven, for example). Yet, you couldn't do even that. Which means that you cannot disprove that claim.

All you did was to attack my exposition, and claim that the "foundation" to my view of the bible is inconsistent with how you view it. This is hardly the same as disproving the main claim of the OP ((the claim that the biblical god doesn't want us to make an informed decision about life).

_____________________
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.

 

[Hawkins]

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).

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. Through all sorts of theological acrobatics, the Christian God is playing "psychological warfare" with people who are genuinely interested in discovering truths about life, yet find absolutely nothing that would support the claims of the New Testament:

"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)

What a great excuse and cover up story for having absolutely no evidence to support the 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?

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.

You ask her for more detail about this medication, and she happily provides it for you. The medication Naturalis was rigorously tested for years, and was shown to be effective in 98% of cases. There are minor side effects to this medication that were reported in about 0.5% of the people tested. After the medication was approved, 96% of people who were prescribed this medication reported good or very good results. You thank the doctor for her diagnosis and recommended medication, but you would still like to get a second opinion. For this purpose you go to another doctor (Dr. J.).

Dr. J. does not examine you at all, and does not even ask for the reason you came. Instead, he inspects what is written in an old book he has and concludes that you have abdominal pain. He then goes on to recommend a medication called Religiosis. You try to explain to him that you have a heart problem. Yet, he asserts that you have abdominal pain because that is what the book says, and the book can never be wrong (or at least so he claims).

You have your doubts, but you still decide to ask the doctor for more details about this medication. The doctor says that Religiosis was never tested on anyone. The doctor claims that the reason for this is that testing Religiosis would only make it ineffective. Moreover, he tells you that having any evidence for Religiosis' effectiveness would undermine your ability to truly choose what's best for you.

In the medical profession, Dr. J. would be considered a charlatan, and almost anyone would be prudent to question his claims. However, when it comes to looking for guidance on how to live, too many people do not question the claims of religion, but instead choose this form of charlatanism for guidance.

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.

_____________________
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.

He already did. Have you read Genesis? Adam is allowed to make an informed decision and he fell.

As a result, what actually will work out is to allow you to rely on your faith to know God in order to survive the eternity.