# Hitchens - Religion Illustrated



## atlashunter (Jan 7, 2011)

Food for thought.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CEFhEFbVcWE?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CEFhEFbVcWE?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KgN8MkNHxJM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KgN8MkNHxJM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 7, 2011)

I watched both videos in their entirety this time. Man, you need to get out of the house.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 29, 2011)

Care to address the actual content of the videos?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Care to address the actual content of the videos?



No, they were stupid.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 29, 2011)

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your unwillingless to tackle the points Hitchens makes. I wouldn't want to either if I were you.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your unwillingless to tackle the points Hitchens makes. I wouldn't want to either if I were you.



Quaken in my boots. He is just soooo smart.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 30, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Quaken in my boots. He is just soooo smart.



Hahaha. Hitchens+YouTube+Wiki=Infallibility.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

Hahaha.  Sin + human sacrifice + belief = immortality


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

Why is what immoral? Vicarious redemption?


----------



## gtparts (Jan 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Food for thought.



Poison for spiritual death. 

Chris's ignorance of spiritual things, his calculated mischaracterizations of theology in general and Christianity in particular, and simplistic and transparent use of words to evoke a negative response for the sake of advancing his controlled rant are only worthy of complete dismissal. 

Consider these clips discussed!


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

Which part was a mischaracterization?


----------



## gtparts (Jan 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Which part was a mischaracterization?



The advocacy of slavery, for one. The Bible brings up the matter of slavery as historical reality. Forced servitude was common throughout the world, before Abram and continues through today. The focal point of the Bible is God; His revelation and His plan of redemption. It is not cultural correction by opposition and upheaval. Whatever is accomplished as far as cultural correction is concerned will only be achieved by changing the hearts of mankind. Such temporal concerns are far less important than the relationship of eternal souls with their Creator, but the Christian's attitude and response to slavery is not glossed over. A detailed examination of NT teachings is all that is required to establish Chris's comment as mischaraterization. There were many others. 

Often, what he tries to pass off as callous or malicious on the part of God is actually the result of the callous or malicious actions of men and fails to concede the possibility that God, in His infinite wisdom, is allowing people to suffer the circumstances that are the direct results of sinful man, for the sake of His perfect plan for the perfect world that mankind corrupted. 

Such pain and suffering is the holy, just, and righteous judgment upon sinful men. It is also merciful, in that it is short of what we deserve.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

The NT instructs slaves to obey and fear their masters. That hardly amounts to a declaration of it's immorality wouldn't you say?

Do you not find it odd that God revealed the morality of the conduct of his people in great detail but actually endorsed slavery?

Don't you think it would have gone quite a long way in changing the hearts of mankind if God had revealed to man "slavery is wrong"? It's one thing to blame it on the fallibility of men. Quite another to say the endorsement of slavery came from an absolutely moral and infallible being.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Hahaha.  Sin + human sacrifice + belief = immortality



The immortal soul is a constant.  With whom it resides is the matter in question.  And the sacrifice was not simply human.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The NT instructs slaves to obey and fear their masters. That hardly amounts to a declaration of it's immorality wouldn't you say?
> 
> Do you not find it odd that God revealed the morality of the conduct of his people in great detail but actually endorsed slavery?
> 
> Don't you think it would have gone quite a long way in changing the hearts of mankind if God had revealed to man "slavery is wrong"? It's one thing to blame it on the fallibility of men. Quite another to say the endorsement of slavery came from an absolutely moral and infallible being.



Again, you use a word like Chris does. The use of "fear' is actually deceiving, since in context, it means having proper respect for the authority that the master has over you. 

It never was intended to express a moral judgment of slavery. It is practical advice and spiritual advice for the cultural reality of that situation. It neither condones or condemns the practice. It teaches how to live victoriously even in difficult situations. 

Please show me where slavery has been endorsed by Jesus? 
Yes, you can quote scripture, just include context.

Better to be a slave or have a diseased-riddled body and be forgiven than a free man or whole and healthy individual, bound for the "fire that will not be quenched".


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Again, you use a word like Chris does. The use of "fear' is actually deceiving, since in context, it means having proper respect for the authority that the master has over you.



Yes GT, we use the word fear. That is the same word the scripture uses. I'll grant you the less harsh interpretation you want to give it. Do you consider it a moral instruction to tell slaves to respect and obey their masters? That is not a neutral position on the matter. Christians were instructed to refrain from all sorts of other behavior that was a cultural norm in the Roman Empire. Why wasn't slavery included? We do after all, frequently hear it that christians are not of this world. They take pride in it.

You really think it the work of a perfect moral being to reveal matters of such great importance as how long a man and womans hair should be but nothing saying "hey guys, I know it's commonly accepted right now to hold people in bondage as your property but this is immoral, don't do it."? Come on GT. You REALLY see nothing wrong with telling slaves to fear and obey their masters? Really?




gtparts said:


> Please show me where slavery has been endorsed by Jesus?
> Yes, you can quote scripture, just include context.



If I were to say to you, submit to my rule or be slain, would it be fair to say I am seeking to enslave you?




gtparts said:


> Better to be a slave or have a diseased-riddled body and be forgiven than a free man or whole and healthy individual, bound for the "fire that will not be quenched".



Better to have a refrigerator sized diamond buried in your back yard than not too.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> The immortal soul is a constant.  With whom it resides is the matter in question.  And the sacrifice was not simply human.



But it's still good science and logic none the less.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yes GT, we use the word fear. That is the same word the scripture uses. I'll grant you the less harsh interpretation you want to give it. Do you consider it a moral instruction to tell slaves to respect and obey their masters? That is not a neutral position on the matter. Christians were instructed to refrain from all sorts of other behavior that was a cultural norm in the Roman Empire. Why wasn't slavery included? We do after all, frequently hear it that christians are not of this world. They take pride in it.
> 
> You really think it the work of a perfect moral being to reveal matters of such great importance as how long a man and womans hair should be but nothing saying "hey guys, I know it's commonly accepted right now to hold people in bondage as your property but this is immoral, don't do it."? Come on GT. You REALLY see nothing wrong with telling slaves to fear and obey their masters? Really?



Thanks, I appreciate that you agree to the proper understanding of "fear", as used in this passage. It is not too dissimilar to: 
*Matthew 19:14*
But Jesus said, *"Suffer* little *children*, and forbid them not, to *come* *unto* me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

"Suffer" does not mean today what it meant when the KJV was translated. It was understood to mean "urgently encourage" then. We see that word quite differently today.

The word "slave" had several meanings long ago, that is, it covered several types of servitude, including a contractual agreement where the master "paid" up front and the "slave" paid the master back in labor over time. In fact, the Hebrew rules for slaves were quite different from the rules of their pagan neighbors. I do find that instruction to be moral. By context, the slave had some moral obligation to his master. In the book of Philemon, we also get a picture of what a master might legally do to a slave who was disobedient and a petition to exercise mercy.  And, again, the purpose of God's Word is to change hearts. It does not address all the evils of that day, yet when we are in fellowship with God, we know how we should behave, even if we do not behave as we know we should.

*1 John 4:20-21   
20  If anyone says, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he  who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he  has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves  God must also love his brother
*



atlashunter said:


> If I were to say to you, submit to my rule or be slain, would it be fair to say I am seeking to enslave you?



 Don't know. What is your intent? If you are saying Jesus said that, you are mistaken. He DID point out to those who desired to remain in their sin what the consequences of that decision would be. That puts the responsibility on the sinner who will not repent, where it belongs. Jesus offers himself as the only way to avoid receiving our deserved punishment.

In your speculation above, if you had the legal right to execute me (I am guilty of a capital crime) and you offer to take my place so that I may be freed, I think I would show more appreciation for your mercy than you have shown God. If you adopted me and made me your heir, well,..... you get the picture.




atlashunter said:


> Better to have a refrigerator sized diamond buried in your back yard than not too.



 I have such a "diamond", though not buried in the backyard. His name is Jesus and He can be yours also and you, His. You are the reason He died and the reason He arose. And He won't require you to disavow science or reason as it applies to the physical world.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 31, 2011)

BTW, Did you know that back in the 1800's, a human slave cost the equivalent of $40,000 in today's money? Today, in 2011, a HUMAN- someone's child, mother, brother or grandchild- can be PURCHASED in some places for $30!

This is man's inhumanity to man.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 31, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Thanks, I appreciate that you agree to the proper understanding of "fear", as used in this passage.
> 
> 
> The word "slave" had several meanings long ago, that is, it covered several types of servitude, including a contractual agreement where the master "paid" up front and the "slave" paid the master back in labor over time. In fact, the Hebrew rules for slaves were quite different from the rules of their pagan neighbors. I do find that instruction to be moral. By context, the slave had some moral obligation to his master. In the book of Philemon, we also get a picture of what a master might legally do to a slave who was disobedient and a petition to exercise mercy.  And, again, the purpose of God's Word is to change hearts. It does not address all the evils of that day, yet when we are in fellowship with God, we know how we should behave, even if we do not behave as we know we should.



Geez you give a theist an inch and they want to take a mile.  I'm not contesting your translation of the word fear, which the verse says, into respect which it doesn't say, because it doesn't change the immoral nature of the verse. It's no more moral to tell a slave to respect their enslaver than it is to tell them to fear them.

But now you want to whitewash the term slave to make the verse not sound as bad as you know and I know it really is. I wish I had a dime for every time I've heard this one. No verses instructing slave behavior make any distinction between those who voluntarily went into servitude and those who were forced into it. If you read that into the verses then you are reading into it something that isn't there and we have no reason to believe an early christian would have made the distinction. The book of 1 Timothy makes clear that Christians may own slaves and tells the slave to be respectful and work all the harder because their master is a Christian.

The pathetic attempts of Christians to defend the bible on this point makes it _really_ tough to take them seriously.




gtparts said:


> Don't know. What is your intent? If you are saying Jesus said that, you are mistaken. He DID point out to those who desired to remain in their sin what the consequences of that decision would be. That puts the responsibility on the sinner who will not repent, where it belongs. Jesus offers himself as the only way to avoid receiving our deserved punishment.



Yes he did say it. Luke 19:27, But those my enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring here, and slay them before me.

You started out saying Hitchens mischaracterizes and here you are trying to blame the totalitarian nature of your religion on the people that would be subjected to it. You're only proving his point.

This is no different from saying I put a sword to your throat to press you into slavery. If you decline you are responsible for the consequences!




gtparts said:


> In your speculation above, if you had the legal right to execute me (I am guilty of a capital crime) and you offer to take my place so that I may be freed, I think I would show more appreciation for your mercy than you have shown God. If you adopted me and made me your heir, well,..... you get the picture.



Again we are talking here not about rule by consent but totalitarianism.




gtparts said:


> I have such a "diamond", though not buried in the backyard. His name is Jesus and He can be yours also and you, His. You are the reason He died and the reason He arose. And He won't require you to disavow science or reason as it applies to the physical world.



Yes I know. And those Strong City folks have found the Messiah in Wayne Bent. Tell you what, when you get whisked up in the sky in the rapture you can drop me a leaflet that says "Told ya so". My money says you'll go to the grave before that day comes.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 31, 2011)

gtparts, this is why I ended my discussion with,"The videos were stupid".


----------



## gtparts (Feb 1, 2011)

I have no problem setting aside all subtle distinctions in the various types of slavery, though I believe that they are significant to you. You merely want to look at the worst case scenario. So be it. 

Put yourself in the position (boy, this is a going to be a stretch for you) of a Christian who is the object of involuntary servitude. Since your allegiance is to God, it would be important to know what God would have you do. (You still with me on this? Said it would be tough for you to empathize.)

Well, here is your answer.

You do what brings honor and glory to God. To do this it would be necessary to understand the character of God and the principles He has modeled during His life here on Earth. Jesus' life can be summed up in this: Love God, Love people, Serve all. 
That is what the Bible says.

And here is the really neat part. It works regardless of a person's circumstances.... in spite of any parameters that describe a person's condition. 

I am curious as to why you would bring up the Luke passage without bothering to see if it really had application to the question.

In context, it reads this way.

Parable of the Ten Servants
 11 The crowd was listening to everything Jesus said. And because he was nearing Jerusalem, he told them a story to correct the impression that the Kingdom of God would begin right away. 12 He said, “A nobleman was called away to a distant empire to be crowned king and then return. 13 Before he left, he called together ten of his servants and divided among them ten pounds of silver,* saying, ‘Invest this for me while I am gone.’ 14 But his people hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We do not want him to be our king.’

 15 “After he was crowned king, he returned and called in the servants to whom he had given the money. He wanted to find out what their profits were. 16 The first servant reported, ‘Master, I invested your money and made ten times the original amount!’

 17 “‘Well done!’ the king exclaimed. ‘You are a good servant. You have been faithful with the little I entrusted to you, so you will be governor of ten cities as your reward.’

 18 “The next servant reported, ‘Master, I invested your money and made five times the original amount.’

 19 “‘Well done!’ the king said. ‘You will be governor over five cities.’

 20 “But the third servant brought back only the original amount of money and said, ‘Master, I hid your money and kept it safe. 21 I was afraid because you are a hard man to deal with, taking what isn’t yours and harvesting crops you didn’t plant.’

 22 “‘You wicked servant!’ the king roared. ‘Your own words condemn you. If you knew that I’m a hard man who takes what isn’t mine and harvests crops I didn’t plant, 23 why didn’t you deposit my money in the bank? At least I could have gotten some interest on it.’

 24 “Then, turning to the others standing nearby, the king ordered, ‘Take the money from this servant, and give it to the one who has ten pounds.’

 25 “‘But, master,’ they said, ‘he already has ten pounds!’

 26 “‘Yes,’ the king replied, ‘and to those who use well what they are given, even more will be given. But from those who do nothing, even what little they have will be taken away. 27 And as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king—bring them in and execute them right here in front of me.’”** 

The parable is a story of an earthly monarch. It points out several principles. 

One is that a sovereign makes the rules about how he blesses those whom he chooses to bless. Another, along with power, authority, and responsibility comes accountability. And, performance has bearing on rewards. Lazy or fearful (yep, means 'scared') people who choose not to perform after accepting power, authority , and responsibility will suffer loss. And finally, those who are enemies of the monarch will not be included in the kingdom.

All of these are illustrations of how the Kingdom of God  operates and when it will occur. Verses 12 & 15 should be noted because the performance is measured upon the kings return. When Jesus returns, then He will judge his servants and destroy His enemies. He will review His stewards' efforts and reward according to His good pleasure.

Despite the way you interpret the passage, there is no mandate for executions of loyal subjects, and certainly not one placed upon men to decide who is and isn't an enemy of the king. 

I would like to answer one question. 

If you were afforded an opportunity to choose between the best possible situation for yourself or the worst  possible situation and you chose the worst, how could you possibly hold someone else, other than yourself, responsible for that choice? 

Sorry, didn't mean to get logical with you.*


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

gtparts said:


> I have no problem setting aside all subtle distinctions in the various types of slavery, though I believe that they are significant to you. You merely want to look at the worst case scenario. So be it.
> 
> Put yourself in the position (boy, this is a going to be a stretch for you) of a Christian who is the object of involuntary servitude. Since your allegiance is to God, it would be important to know what God would have you do. (You still with me on this? Said it would be tough for you to empathize.)
> 
> ...



If surrendering ones self to great injustice is what brings honor and glory to God then I reject the notion that God is moral. We should no more treat an enslaver with respect than a woman should respect her rapist. And to tell the victim of someone whose life is egregiously violated that they are to respect, obey, and fear their victimizer... Maybe you find that moral. I don't.





gtparts said:


> One is that a sovereign makes the rules about how he blesses those whom he chooses to bless. Another, along with power, authority, and responsibility comes accountability. And, performance has bearing on rewards. Lazy or fearful (yep, means 'scared') people who choose not to perform after accepting power, authority , and responsibility will suffer loss. And finally, those who are enemies of the monarch will not be included in the kingdom.



I'm familiar with the parable and I don't take issue the verses preceding 27 assuming the relationship between the nobleman and servants is one of mutual consent without coercion. The wheel falls off with the part in red. If that were all verse 27 was saying it would read, those enemies of mine who don't want me to be king over them - let them depart in peace. No it isn't enough to simply not include them in his kingdom. They must be slaughtered for rejecting his rule. This, as Christopher states, is totalitarianism.




gtparts said:


> Despite the way you interpret the passage, there is no mandate for executions of loyal subjects, and certainly not one placed upon men to decide who is and isn't an enemy of the king.



Nor was that claimed.




gtparts said:


> If you were afforded an opportunity to choose between the best possible situation for yourself or the worst  possible situation and you chose the worst, how could you possibly hold someone else, other than yourself, responsible for that choice?
> 
> Sorry, didn't mean to get logical with you.



If a decision of liberty or death is forced on you and you choose liberty, the blood is on the hands of the one who slays you.

Again potential slave with a sword at his throat. 

"Subject yourself to my absolute rule or die."

"I will that I be free."

"Then your blood is on your own hands."

That seems to be what you think. I reject that. The blood is on the hands of the one holding the sword.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If surrendering ones self to great injustice is what brings honor and glory to God then I reject the notion that God is moral. We should no more treat an enslaver with respect than a woman should respect her rapist. And to tell the victim of someone whose life is egregiously violated that they are to respect, obey, and fear their victimizer... Maybe you find that moral. I don't.



Yet, you surrender to the injustices of our legal system. You have accepted many tyrannies if you have ever been employed by someone. So much for your sensitivity and indignation. Suffering is integral to this life (you can thank your disobedient nature for that). God tells His children if they honor Him with obedience (to Him), He will help us endure to the end. He can make any situation bearable or simply "go away". 

I fully expected you to eventually "enthrone" yourself as God's judge. You have repeatedly made the attempt to reduce God to something less than yourself. God is no maker of slaves, no rapist. Men do that to each other and to themselves, "the chains they forged in life". How mightily you struggle to rid yourself of accountability, and how futile. 
Moral? God is the very definition of moral. Man is the one who seeks to justify himself and call it moral. Until one mirrors Jesus, one is NOT moral. If one breaks God's law, it is impossible to personally set things right. Have you ever done anything immoral? Ever? Then you need God's forgiveness.



atlashunter said:


> I'm familiar with the parable and I don't take issue the verses preceding 27 assuming the relationship between the nobleman and servants is one of mutual consent without coercion. The wheel falls off with the part in red. If that were all verse 27 was saying it would read, those enemies of mine who don't want me to be king over them - let them depart in peace. No it isn't enough to simply not include them in his kingdom. They must be slaughtered for rejecting his rule. This, as Christopher states, is totalitarianism.



Here is a heads-up. When earthly kings, humans, as in the parable do such, it may well be regarded as totalitarian. When the sovereign God of everything pronounces His perfect judgment, it may be totalitarian, but it is also right and just because of who He is. There are certain privileges He accords Himself. When you are God, you can call the shots.



> Originally Posted by *gtparts*
> 
> 
> _Despite the way you interpret the  passage, there is no mandate for executions of loyal subjects, and  certainly not one placed upon men to decide who is and isn't an enemy of  the king._





atlashunter said:


> Nor was that claimed.



So, what's the problem with the Creator doing anything with or to His creation? Is God not allowed to do as He chooses with that which He has made? Does the clay instruct the potter?




atlashunter said:


> If a decision of liberty or death is forced on you and you choose liberty, the blood is on the hands of the one who slays you.
> 
> Again potential slave with a sword at his throat.
> 
> ...



The choice is LIFE or death, Mr. Henry.  It is clear you choose death. The Christian chooses life and finds unimagined liberty, too.


No sword. No slavery.

Atlashunter moving down the path of human existence.

"Excuse me, sir, but the direction you are headed leads to destruction."

"Gosh, what can I do?"

"Well, there is another direction that leads to the life that was planned for you by your Maker. And after this life ends, you will continue to live an eternal life with your Maker. "

"But it looks like I would have to alter my heading. And besides, I am not sure about a Maker. I may be a cosmic accident."

"Yes, every choice means giving up something in order to receive something else. Cosmic accident?"

"Yep, I am relying on the smart people of science to debunk the "Maker thing" while I require the spiritual folks to provide scientific evidence. Besides, I like the direction I'm going. It is my own personal choice and so far I'm quite pleased with how it has worked out for me."

"Maybe so, but the end is still not what anyone would choose. Easy road....lousy destination. As for science, good luck with that. They just keep unraveling the natural world's secrets which just gives us insight as to how the Maker put the natural world together. Ask them to construct a natural world of their own. They can't do it."

"You are getting kind of pushy about me changing directions. I find that annoying."

"Hey, my job is just to warn you. Some listen and make the heading change. Some listen, but ignore the warning. Some quit listening altogether. It's your choice. Have a nice day."


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Yet, you surrender to the injustices of our legal system. You have accepted many tyrannies if you have ever been employed by someone. So much for your sensitivity and indignation. Suffering is integral to this life (you can thank your disobedient nature for that). God tells His children if they honor Him with obedience (to Him), He will help us endure to the end. He can make any situation bearable or simply "go away".
> 
> I fully expected you to eventually "enthrone" yourself as God's judge. You have repeatedly made the attempt to reduce God to something less than yourself. God is no maker of slaves, no rapist. Men do that to each other and to themselves, "the chains they forged in life". How mightily you struggle to rid yourself of accountability, and how futile.
> Moral? God is the very definition of moral. Man is the one who seeks to justify himself and call it moral. Until one mirrors Jesus, one is NOT moral. If one breaks God's law, it is impossible to personally set things right. Have you ever done anything immoral? Ever? Then you need God's forgiveness.
> ...




This would apply if you were someone who had been to the end of the road.   As it turns out, you believe you know what lies in store based on what it says in a book with talking donkeys and the voices that you hear in your head.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

And with that last post GT moves from a denial of the totalitarian nature of Christian theology to a justification of it. Progress of a kind I suppose. There is no mischaracterization in what Hitchens is saying.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> ... you believe you know what lies in store based on what it says in a book with talking donkeys and the voices that you hear in your head.



My wedding ring found after being lost in the surf at Frisco beach in the Outer Banks is one of many tangible proofs for me that God can certainly speak. Whether we hear Him or not is a matter of the heart, or in my case, a faithless, desperate prayer when I learned my ring was not on my hand after a swim in the surf with my wife.  I was directed to the very location it was being dashed by waves, the Voice clear enough.  Another second and it would have been gone.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> My wedding ring found after being lost in the surf at Frisco beach in the Outer Banks is one of many tangible proofs for me that God can certainly speak. Whether we hear Him or not is a matter of the heart, or in my case, a faithless, desperate prayer when I learned my ring was not on my hand after a swim in the surf with my wife.  I was directed to the very location it was being dashed by waves, the Voice clear enough.  Another second and it would have been gone.



You found a ring you lost on the beach and that is proof of God for you? Boy the evidence sure isn't what it was back in the old days of people walking on water, people being turned into pillars of salt, and the sun stopping it's motion across the sky.

I'm curious, if someone of another religion had the same experience you had and told you about it would that convince you their god was real?


----------



## applejuice (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You found a ring you lost on the beach and that is proof of God for you? Boy the evidence sure isn't what it was back in the old days of people walking on water, people being turned into pillars of salt, and the sun stopping it's motion across the sky.
> 
> I'm curious, if someone of another religion had the same experience you had and told you about it would that convince you their god was real?



Great question.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> This would apply if you were someone who had been to the end of the road.   As it turns out, you believe you know what lies in store based on what it says in a book with talking donkeys and the voices that you hear in your head.



Not only that, there are hundreds of others telling him the same thing.

"You're on a road that leads to destruction!"

"Destruction by who?"

"By my god! But he is merciful and provides you a path to salvation if you surrender to him!"

In every one of those cases his response is the same as the atheists, "you're talking rubbish mate".


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I'm curious, if someone of another religion had the same experience you had and told you about it would that convince you their god was real?



No, I would think it was The One and only God trying to get their attention.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Not only that, there are hundreds of others telling him the same thing.
> 
> "You're on a road that leads to destruction!"
> 
> ...



what you just typed is rubbish mate


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> My wedding ring found after being lost in the surf at Frisco beach in the Outer Banks is one of many tangible proofs for me that God can certainly speak. Whether we hear Him or not is a matter of the heart, or in my case, a faithless, desperate prayer when I learned my ring was not on my hand after a swim in the surf with my wife.  I was directed to the very location it was being dashed by waves, the Voice clear enough.  Another second and it would have been gone.



And if you didn't find it I suppose you would have seen it as God's plan as well; perhaps a lesson for you to not be attached to Earthly things.  Or perhaps if you didn't find it God was trying to teach you a lesson about how your love for your wife is more important than the token you received from her on your wedding day.  Perhaps His plan was for you NOT to find it but Ol' Scratch jumped in and made the sun glint off of it in a way that would draw your attention, thus keeping your spirit tied up in a physical object.  





stringmusic said:


> No, I would think it was The One and only God trying to get their attention.



What if they told you you were wrong?  Would you say something like:  "We'll see who's wrong.  You just wait til Jesus gets back."


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You found a ring you lost on the beach and that is proof of God for you? Boy the evidence sure isn't what it was back in the old days of people walking on water, people being turned into pillars of salt, and the sun stopping it's motion across the sky.



You missed the part in my post about His voice directing me to the ring.  
Imagine if someone tossed a silver dollar in the surf (without you seeing where he threw it) and you have to find it in a 30 yard long location in the water with a mask and snorkel while 1 to 2 foot waves are kicking you around.  You have about 10, maybe 20 min before the weight and the surf drives it into the sand, no chance at coming back in time with a metal detector.  That's what I faced that day.
If His voice did not direct me to the exact location, that ring of mine would have been lost.  



atlashunter said:


> I'm curious, if someone of another religion had the same experience you  had and told you about it would that convince you their god was  real?


 
 Each miracle needs to be judged on a case by case basis, there's plenty  of scriptural warnings about ones that will come to turn us away from  faith in the Lord.  However, after my experience, I didn't start  believing in  Budda, let's put it that way.  It was my faith in Christ that grew.  I  simply knew where to turn in my time of need, and the Lord chose to  answer.  Not all prayers are answered this way, but that's for another discussion.


The ring story is in post 2,  here.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> And if you didn't find it I suppose you would have seen it as God's plan as well; perhaps a lesson for you to not be attached to Earthly things.  Or perhaps if you didn't find it God was trying to teach you a lesson about how your love for your wife is more important than the token you received from her on your wedding day.



You probably don't believe me, but your rebuke is well received. 

And I'm sorry your sarcasm has you miss the importance of what you are saying here.  Yes, I've learned many other faith lessons without a response as the one on the beach that day.  Maybe that was a time in my life when my faith was so weak that a boost like the one I got was His way to reach me at the time.  (Many people in scripture were comforted in miraculous ways.)
Anyway, this was one of the most profound things you have posted.  Thank you. 



ambush80 said:


> Perhaps His plan was for you NOT to find it but Ol' Scratch  jumped in and made the sun glint off of it in a way that would draw your  attention, thus keeping your spirit tied up in a physical object.


I'll let this one go for obvious reasons.  Gosh, you started so well...


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> You missed the part in my post about His voice directing me to the ring.
> Imagine if someone tossed a silver dollar in the surf (without you seeing where he threw it) and you have to find it in a 30 yard long location in the water with a mask and snorkel while 1 to 2 foot waves are kicking you around.  You have about 10, maybe 20 min before the weight and the surf drives it into the sand, no chance at coming back in time with a metal detector.  That's what I faced that day.
> If His voice did not direct me to the exact location, that ring of mine would have been lost.
> 
> ...




Have you ever prayed to Buddah for guidance?  What if you did and He helped you?  Do you think that there are people who pray to Buddah and have their prayers answered, as far as they can tell?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> You probably don't believe me, but your rebuke is well received.
> 
> And I'm sorry your sarcasm has you miss the importance of what you are saying here.  Yes, I've learned many other faith lessons without a response as the one on the beach that day.  Maybe that was a time in my life when my faith was so weak that a boost like the one I got was His way to reach me at the time.  (Many people in scripture were comforted in miraculous ways.)
> Anyway, this was one of the most profound things you have posted.  Thank you.
> ...



"Something" directed you to the place where you lost your ring.  Are you open to the possibility that it may have been your subconscious?  I have a friend who sees and hears ghosts.  We will be in a room and he will say:" Did you hear those voices?" where as I hear an electrical buzz.    A dish will shift in the sink and he will say:  "I told you the old lady still lives here."  Maybe she does.  

My point is that if you look for supernatural causes for phenomena you will find them.  And if you are open to the the supernatural, how do you know that it wasn't Ol' Scratch?  Honestly?


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> Each miracle needs to be judged on a case by case basis, there's plenty  of scriptural warnings about ones that will come to turn us away from  faith in the Lord.  However, after my experience, I didn't start  believing in  Budda, let's put it that way.  It was my faith in Christ that grew.  I  simply knew where to turn in my time of need, and the Lord chose to  answer.  Not all prayers are answered this way, but that's for another discussion.
> 
> 
> The ring story is in post 2,  here.



Keep every detail of your story except the deity being prayed to. Would you find the story persuasive if you heard it from someone of another religion explaining to you how they knew their god was real?

It's funny ambush brought up the questions about Buddha because I was reminded of when I was stationed in Japan in the Navy. Shortly after arriving there I met another sailor who had been there a few years and had taken to Japanese culture like a fish to water. He spoke fluent Japanese and had converted to Buddhism. He told me of an experience that had convinced him. He was in a situation where he had lost his car and was in desparate need of transporation on short notice. I don't recall the exact details as this was years ago but he said he started doing some Buddhist chant. I don't think they actually pray TO anyone. Anyway after doing these chants out of seemingly nowhere he got a car. Again don't recall the exact details but to him it seemed miraculous. At the time I was still a believer and I remember thinking how similar it sounded to testimonies of answered prayer I had heard for years in church.

In your story the odds may have been against you finding the ring but it certainly wasn't outside the realm of possibility. Maybe you don't believe you would have found it without any prayer but it is possible right? Also possible that just like people of other religions who have similar experiences had you been born in another part of the world you might have had the same experience praying to some other god. It is possible right?

What would you have concluded if the ring had been lost? Would that serve as evidence that there was no god? I'm guessing no. So you've created a situation where god has a shot at winning and no chance at losing. In such a situation over enough flips of the coin its impossible for the potential deity to lose out. In fact you could replace your god in that kind of a lopsided test with any god or even a superstitious inanimate object and you will eventually validate the superstition. No god, real or imagined, can lose when you count the hits but write off the misses. And people of all faiths do this on a regular basis.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2011)

I lost my ATM card and driver's license yesterday.  Hmmm.  Who to pray to that I find them.......


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 1, 2011)

I do not take my experience as highly as I put the scriptures.  That may answer a few questions you both raise, but I'm sure not the whole, sorry.  

Other supernatural events don't sway my faith because a deeper relationship exists with the personal work and touch from providence to my heart.  Sorry that this next thought may derail, but the only way I can explain any work of God in me is to see how it draws me closer to the person of Christ and His unconditional love.  The scriptures do that. Some specific events do that.  I try to be careful and judge all things by prayer and the Word of God, but I also fail in that.  The grace of God keeps me close during those times.  

Your other religion arguments are well work a look to the secular world.  In the end I pray that many hearts without a Savior might embrace the one who died and rose again on their behalf.

'Nite,

done!


----------



## The Original Rooster (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Keep every detail of your story except the deity being prayed to. Would you find the story persuasive if you heard it from someone of another religion explaining to you how they knew their god was real?
> 
> It's funny ambush brought up the questions about Buddha because I was reminded of when I was stationed in Japan in the Navy. Shortly after arriving there I met another sailor who had been there a few years and had taken to Japanese culture like a fish to water. He spoke fluent Japanese and had converted to Buddhism. He told me of an experience that had convinced him. He was in a situation where he had lost his car and was in desparate need of transporation on short notice. I don't recall the exact details as this was years ago but he said he started doing some Buddhist chant. I don't think they actually pray TO anyone. Anyway after doing these chants out of seemingly nowhere he got a car. Again don't recall the exact details but to him it seemed miraculous. At the time I was still a believer and I remember thinking how similar it sounded to testimonies of answered prayer I had heard for years in church.
> 
> ...



Your story is fascinating and I see your point. 
Do you feel that atheists sometimes do the opposite and count the misses while writing off the hits?


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

RoosterTodd said:


> Your story is fascinating and I see your point.
> Do you feel that atheists sometimes do the opposite and count the misses while writing off the hits?



It's possible but what would constitute a hit? It's a bit problematic to use anything that has a natural explanation, even if the odds are highly against it, as evidence for the supernatural. So if you pray to X to help you pick the winning lottery numbers and some numbers pop in your head that turn out to be the right numbers, it's possible that X answered your prayer but I think it would be a mistake to assume that. The more reasonable explanation is that you were incredibly lucky. Incredibly rare events happen all the time but we have a tendency to attribute some higher force when they do. Now if prayer always worked and/or only worked when a particular deity was prayed to... then you would have something. But I don't see that.

Really just looking at how amazing our universe is, if it was the creation of an intelligent being and that being wanted us to know about it, it could easily reveal itself in a way that would leave zero room for doubt. We wouldn't be playing this hide and seek game or having various men running around telling other men what the creator whispered to them when noone else was around. There would be no need for that. That is what I would expect in a world of con artists finding ways to exploit our natural fears and psychological needs for their own gain.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 2, 2011)

> What if they told you you were wrong?  Would you say something like:  "We'll see who's wrong.  You just wait til Jesus gets back."



Answer:

String- No, that is not what I would say.

Ambush- Yea right, thats what EVERY Christian would say, your lying!

String- Well the only other answer is yes, and thats not the answer I choose, so I dont know what else to tell you.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It's possible but what would constitute a hit? It's a bit problematic to use anything that has a natural explanation, even if the odds are highly against it, as evidence for the supernatural. So if you pray to X to help you pick the winning lottery numbers and some numbers pop in your head that turn out to be the right numbers, it's possible that X answered your prayer but I think it would be a mistake to assume that. The more reasonable explanation is that you were incredibly lucky. Incredibly rare events happen all the time but we have a tendency to attribute some higher force when they do. Now if prayer always worked and/or only worked when a particular deity was prayed to... then you would have something. But I don't see that.





Isnt that an oxymoron?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 2, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Answer:
> 
> String- No, that is not what I would say.
> 
> ...



So you wouldn't say those exact words.  You believe with all you are that they are wrong.  You also believe that some day they will know how right you are and how wrong they are.  I paraphrased.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 2, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> So you wouldn't say those exact words.  You believe with all you are that they are wrong.  You also believe that some day they will know how right you are and how wrong they are.  I paraphrased.



No I wouldn't say those exact words, not very well thought out apologetics IMO. I do believe one day they and you and I will all know what is right and what is not, just yelling it out like that is not a good way to communicate the issue.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 2, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> No I wouldn't say those exact words, not very well thought out apologetics IMO. I do believe one day they and you and I will all know what is right and what is not, just yelling it out like that is not a good way to communicate the issue.



Or not.  That's a possibility too, you know?  

I suppose what we are doing in discussions like this is trying to make sense of things that are mysterious.  Some people are willing to spend the rest of their lives trying to use all the resources available to them to gain insight and some will accept the answers put forth by ancient soothsayers (all religions implied) or some combination there of.


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 2, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Isnt that an oxymoron?



Nope


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Nope



so how are the events rare if they happen all the time?


----------



## OutFoxed (Feb 2, 2011)

Somebody has to win the lottery.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 2, 2011)

OutFoxed said:


> Somebody has to win the lottery.



somebody wins the lottery all the time, I wouldnt classify someone winning the lottery incredibly rare, it not even rare, you said yourself in your statement that "somebody HAS to win". Its known that someone is going to win, the odds are just not high for the single individual. The same person winning the same lottery twice would classify as incredibly rare.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Feb 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It's possible but what would constitute a hit? It's a bit problematic to use anything that has a natural explanation, even if the odds are highly against it, as evidence for the supernatural. So if you pray to X to help you pick the winning lottery numbers and some numbers pop in your head that turn out to be the right numbers, it's possible that X answered your prayer but I think it would be a mistake to assume that. The more reasonable explanation is that you were incredibly lucky. Incredibly rare events happen all the time but we have a tendency to attribute some higher force when they do. Now if prayer always worked and/or only worked when a particular deity was prayed to... then you would have something. But I don't see that.
> 
> Really just looking at how amazing our universe is, if it was the creation of an intelligent being and that being wanted us to know about it, it could easily reveal itself in a way that would leave zero room for doubt. We wouldn't be playing this hide and seek game or having various men running around telling other men what the creator whispered to them when noone else was around. There would be no need for that. That is what I would expect in a world of con artists finding ways to exploit our natural fears and psychological needs for their own gain.



As a business analyst in my professional life, I see how statistics can come into play. 
So, what if my prayers caused a flipped coin to come up heads 75,000 times out of 100,000 flips? Would you be convinced or would you believe that if we should continue flipping and that statiscal anomaly would eventually be ironed out? The problem is that God doesn't grant every prayer. Maybe he doesn't want spoiled believers.I really don't know, but if I got everything I prayed for, I'd be in pretty bad shape. You know, the whole "unanswered prayers" thing.
I wholeheartedly agree that there are con artists running around selling everything from the sham-wow, instant weight loss, and prosperity salvation. It gives real chamois, healthy weight loss, and a honest relationship with God a bad name. If you do ever seek a relationship with God, I would encourage you to speak to someone who doesn't want anything from you.
I also look forward to the day that God removes all doubt. As you said, it would make things much easier to believe if he would just show up. 
But...I also live with the positive changes he's made in my life every day. To me, that's enough.


----------



## OutFoxed (Feb 2, 2011)

The point was more its a subjective statement...... I consider winning the lottery once incredibly rare, but it's not unheard of for people to win twice. Theoretically if one did win the lottery for the right amount they could just buy every number. Diminishing return on investment but not exactly a miraculous feat.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 3, 2011)

RoosterTodd said:


> As a business analyst in my professional life, I see how statistics can come into play.
> So, what if my prayers caused a flipped coin to come up heads 75,000 times out of 100,000 flips? Would you be convinced or would you believe that if we should continue flipping and that statiscal anomaly would eventually be ironed out? The problem is that God doesn't grant every prayer. Maybe he doesn't want spoiled believers.I really don't know, but if I got everything I prayed for, I'd be in pretty bad shape. You know, the whole "unanswered prayers" thing.
> I wholeheartedly agree that there are con artists running around selling everything from the sham-wow, instant weight loss, and prosperity salvation. It gives real chamois, healthy weight loss, and a honest relationship with God a bad name. If you do ever seek a relationship with God, I would encourage you to speak to someone who doesn't want anything from you.
> I also look forward to the day that God removes all doubt. As you said, it would make things much easier to believe if he would just show up.
> But...I also live with the positive changes he's made in my life every day. To me, that's enough.



Really?  What kind of weird stuff do you pray for?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 3, 2011)

RoosterTodd said:


> The problem is that God doesn't grant every prayer. Maybe he doesn't want spoiled believers.I really don't know, but if I got everything I prayed for, I'd be in pretty bad shape. You know, the whole "unanswered prayers" thing.



When evaluating the effectiveness of prayer, I understand that I can't just pray for ten things and see how many come true.  I evaluate the effectiveness of prayer by only considering prayers that seem reasonable based upon human's understanding of God's promises.  And I consider the outcome for a Christian with many "Godly" folks praying for them compared to the outcome for regular old heathens.  Not just a single instance, but an overall average.  

An example would be people I know who fall ill from cancer.  The prayer I take into consideration is not for the person to never get cancer or for the cancer to miraculously disappear.  I only consider a prayer that I believe to be reasonable such as "Dear Lord, if this is her time to go, please don't let her suffer long".  If less Christians than heathens lay in the bed suffering a long, horrible, painful death, then I would consider that particular type of prayer to be successful.


----------



## 1handkneehigh (Feb 3, 2011)

RoosterTodd said:


> If you do ever seek a relationship with God, I would encourage you to speak to someone who doesn't want anything from you.
> QUOTE]
> 
> They don't want anything from you except convert you to christianity and be enslaved for eternity.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 4, 2011)

1handkneehigh said:


> They don't want anything from you except convert you to christianity and be* enslaved *for eternity.



can you give us your definition of enslaved?


----------



## VisionCasting (Feb 4, 2011)

1handkneehigh said:


> They don't want anything from you except convert you to christianity and be enslaved for eternity.



Somehow you've confused freedom and slavery.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Feb 4, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Really?  What kind of weird stuff do you pray for?



Just praying for you ambush, just praying for you...


----------



## The Original Rooster (Feb 4, 2011)

1handkneehigh said:


> RoosterTodd said:
> 
> 
> > If you do ever seek a relationship with God, I would encourage you to speak to someone who doesn't want anything from you.
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 5, 2011)

RoosterTodd said:


> Just praying for you ambush, just praying for you...



That's pretty weird.


----------



## chicken cow (Feb 6, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> That's pretty weird.



I see a lot of "Weird" in here!


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 6, 2011)

Sorry to jump into this one so late, guys.  But I just had an opportunity to read this thread today.

The lost ring story is a nice story, and I don't doubt that Striperaddict believes wholeheartedly that his god led him to the lost ring.  I've heard similar stories from Christian friends used as proofs (or at least evidences) of god's existence and work.

Each time I hear such a story (including the ring story here) I get really, really ticked off.  

Stories like these solidify the extreme narcissism of Christianity.  I wonder, when god showed Striperaddict where his ring was, I wonder how many children were starving to death.  I wonder how many women were being raped.  I wonder how many men were facing bankruptcy.  I wonder how many teenagers were preparing to commit suicide.  I wonder how many people were being killed in natural disasters.  I wonder how many men and women were suffering from depression.  I wonder how many of these people prayed to god, only to hear nothing.  But praise Jesus that Striperaddict found his ring!  Disgusting, if you ask me.  

If Christians reserved the right to use stories such as the ring story as evidence of god's existence, then I reserve the right to use the story as evidence of god's nonexistence.  Thank you for further solidifying my atheistic beliefs.


----------



## VisionCasting (Feb 6, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> If Christians reserved the right to use stories such as the ring story as evidence of god's existence, then I reserve the right to use the story as evidence of god's nonexistence.  Thank you for further solidifying my atheistic beliefs.



So do you contend that if the world contained only unmitigated good and the absolute lack of bad, or only pure abject evil and the absolute lack of good that you could then justify the existence of God?


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 6, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> Sorry to jump into this one so late, guys.  But I just had an opportunity to read this thread today.
> 
> The lost ring story is a nice story, and I don't doubt that Striperaddict believes wholeheartedly that his god led him to the lost ring.  I've heard similar stories from Christian friends used as proofs (or at least evidences) of god's existence and work.
> 
> ...



Why don't you take a step back and look at the big picture of our universe and it's creation and our place in it. Start there and work your way down. Maybe that should help you out a little.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 6, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Why don't you take a step back and look at the big picture of our universe and it's creation and our place in it. Start there and work your way down. Maybe that should help you out a little.



So in the big picture of our universe, Striperaddict's lost ring is more important to god than a starving child?  

I fail to see your point.


----------



## VisionCasting (Feb 6, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> So in the big picture of our universe, Striperaddict's lost ring is more important to god than a starving child?  .



If you were god would you create a system that was void of anything bad?


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 6, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> If you were god would you create a system that was void of anything bad?



I'd create a system that was void of starving children.


----------



## VisionCasting (Feb 6, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> I'd create a system that was void of starving children.



That's it?  Cancer? That's OK?  Rape? OK?  Wars? OK?  

Tell us, exactly what's in and what is out?  Where exactly would you draw the line?  All evil, all good, or a mix thereof?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 7, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> That's it?  Cancer? That's OK?  Rape? OK?  Wars? OK?
> 
> Tell us, exactly what's in and what is out?  Where exactly would you draw the line?  All evil, all good, or a mix thereof?



1. Cotton candy; all you want: Good
2. Born a dirt bag no good bound for he11 no good piece of poo: Bad


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> 1. Cotton candy; all you want: Good



God likes us to have our teeth, I dont think He has anything against dentist, just that we have all our teeth in good shape.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> Sorry to jump into this one so late, guys.  But I just had an opportunity to read this thread today.
> 
> The lost ring story is a nice story, and I don't doubt that Striperaddict believes wholeheartedly that his god led him to the lost ring.  I've heard similar stories from Christian friends used as proofs (or at least evidences) of god's existence and work.
> 
> ...



Why are these things bad? I know I have asked this question in here before, but what reference point are you using to arrive at objective morals?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Why are these things bad? I know I have asked this question in here before, but what reference point are you using to arrive at objective morals?



Small children who are sent to day care must make decisions regarding their actions and reactions involving other children.  They learn through watching others and through their own experiences which actions and reactions result in a beneficial atmosphere for themselves and the group, and vice-versa, which actions and reactions result in conflict and ultimately unfavorable results for the entire group.  It soon becomes evident that taking something that belongs to someone else results in conflict.  Children also learn what it feels like to be the victim of "theft" and with a tiny amount of reasoning, can turn that feeling into a personal understanding of THE GOLDEN RULE.  When one child exhibits an understanding of THE GOLDEN RULE, other children gain the benefit of seeing the results of the application of THE GOLDEN RULE and so it spreads. 

Pack animals display a sense of an understanding of THE GOLDEN RULE or at least an understanding of denying oneself something one wants for the benefit of the group.

Any primitive tribe could develop the standards of acceptable behavior in a similar manner, especially if their survival depends upon working together as a group.

So, I guess my answer to your question would be the application of THE GOLDEN RULE in a manner that is most beneficial to the entire group and the individual and is least detrimental to the entire group and the individual.


----------



## VisionCasting (Feb 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> 1. Cotton candy; all you want: Good
> 2. Born a dirt bag no good bound for he11 no good piece of poo: Bad



Just answer the question.  Would you permit anything "bad", and if so where would you draw the line?


----------



## JFS (Feb 7, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Just answer the question.  Would you permit anything "bad", and if so where would you draw the line?



Putting aside the incredibly faulty premise that the world is in fact created by intentional design, perhaps you would draw the line such that bad things result from the fault of the victim in proportion to their culpability.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 7, 2011)

dexrusjak said:


> Sorry to jump into this one so late, guys.  But I just had an opportunity to read this thread today.
> 
> The lost ring story is a nice story, and I don't doubt that Striperaddict believes wholeheartedly that his god led him to the lost ring.  I've heard similar stories from Christian friends used as proofs (or at least evidences) of god's existence and work.
> 
> ...



That's an interesting perspective. It would seem you find those issues of human suffering more palatable in a "belief" system that recognizes no god. Or perhaps you find them equally repugnant, independent of any theology. Cancer is no less a scourge to the body of a believer than any one else. Same for the pain and trauma of rape, etc. So, it seems your passionate rejection of God is not based on the circumstance, but because you perceive that God has not intervened in every circumstance. I say "every" because you are unwilling to give God credit for any healing or restoration, even when it is scientifically unexplainable and yet real. In other words, if God doesn't make every thing right, all the time, He must not exist. In fact, if God exists, nothing should ever go wrong to start with. But, you know that good things happen and bad things happen. The question to ask is why does a good God allow bad things to happen and we both know that line of inquiry well. 

My question is why, when the answer is explained to you from the Christian perspective, will you brush it off without fair consideration? Is it really so difficult to grasp that we are all experiencing a life that was caused by the disobedience shown toward God in the beginning? That all men share the disobedient nature of our first ancestor? We are all suffering the physical consequences of our spiritual failure and, unless we are changed, the spiritual consequences, also. God intervenes as He chooses, to show His mercy and direct us toward His grace, made manifest in His Son, Jesus. In truth, both believer and non-believer are spared the full punishment we deserve in this life, if only temporarily. There is coming a day when all will be weighed according to grace or justice and each has the choice by which measure they will be judged.


----------



## dexrusjak (Feb 7, 2011)

gtparts said:


> That's an interesting perspective. It would seem you find those issues of human suffering more palatable in a "belief" system that recognizes no god. Or perhaps you find them equally repugnant, independent of any theology. Cancer is no less a scourge to the body of a believer than anyone else. Same for the pain and trauma of rape, etc. (In a worldview in which there is no belief in an intervening god, I recognize that bad things happen because...bad things happen.  People get cancer and die.  Evil people take advantage of innocent people.  There is no god to intervene, therefore, I accept these unfortunate and painful circumstances as a part of life.  It is up to me and others to watch out for ourselves and our loved ones.  There is no god on which to depend.) So, it seems your passionate rejection of God is not based on the circumstance, but because you perceive that God has not intervened in every circumstance. (False.  My passionate rejection of god is based on the evidence (and lack of evidence).  God has never intervened in any circumstance because there is no god.  There is circumstance, and there is coincidence, but there is no god.) I say "every" because you are unwilling to give God credit for any healing or restoration, even when it is scientifically unexplainable and yet real. (You know what would be scientifically unexplainable?  If an amputee were healed.  If god healed one amputee, just one, I would change my whole worldview then and there and I would become the most fervent Christian on the planet.) In other words, if God doesn't make everything right, all the time, He must not exist. In fact, if God exists, nothing should ever go wrong to start with. But, you know that good things happen and bad things happen. The question to ask is why does a good God allow bad things to happen and we both know that line of inquiry well. (God doesn't allow these things to happen, because there is no god.)
> 
> My question is why, when the answer is explained to you from the Christian perspective, will you brush it off without fair consideration? (Believe me, I gave it fair consideration for over 20 years of my life.  If given a plausible explanation that contains belief in a god, I would still give it fair consideration.  I do not, however, give fair consideration to fairy tales and superstitions.  Not those about the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny, and not those about the Christian god.) Is it really so difficult to grasp that we are all experiencing a life that was caused by the disobedience shown toward God in the beginning? (Grasp?  No.  Accept as fact?  Yes) That all men share the disobedient nature of our first ancestor? We are all suffering the physical consequences of our spiritual failure and, unless we are changed, the spiritual consequences, also. God intervenes as He chooses, to show His mercy and direct us toward His grace, made manifest in His Son, Jesus. In truth, both believer and non-believer are spared the full punishment we deserve in this life, if only temporarily. (What full punishment do I deserve?  Better yet, what full punishment does my infant daughter DESERVE?  What has she done that makes her DESERVE the punishment that Christians believe in?  She DESERVES to burn forever because a naked man ate a piece of fruit thousands of years ago?  Seriously?  That's what you believe?  Give me a break.) There is coming a day when all will be weighed according to grace or justice and each has the choice by which measure they will be judged. (And if I'm wrong, I'll suffer the consequences and you'll live in bliss while I and billions others burn in torment.  If you're wrong, then you’ll spend your entire life with a core belief system that is unequivocally false.  I refuse to betray my intellect and reason and bow to fear.  If god wants to punish me in torment for all of eternity for being true to what the evidence shows (or doesn't show), if god wants to punish me in torment for all of eternity for using the intellect that god (supposedly) gave me, if god wants to punish me in torment for all of eternity for not accepting unbelievable claims made by uneducated and superstitious men who lived in a time and place far intellectually inferior from today, then so be it.  That god is no god that deserves worship.  Fear maybe, but not worship.)



Response in blue.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 7, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Just answer the question.  Would you permit anything "bad", and if so where would you draw the line?



If I were God, no. I would give Heaven to everybody, right here, right now.  That would be kind and loving.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> If I were God, no. I would give Heaven to everybody, right here, right now.  That would be kind and loving.



Not everyone wants to go there.

Either way, your answer of no would mean God forced us to only choose good, which would also mean He didnt love us.


----------



## VisionCasting (Feb 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> If I were God, no. I would give Heaven to everybody, right here, right now.  That would be kind and loving.



Thank you for answering the question.  One more.

As God, would you also give people free will?  Or would they be puppets that you force  into your presence for eternity?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Not everyone wants to go there.
> 
> Either way, your answer of no would mean God forced us to only choose good, which would also mean He didnt love us.



Not everyone wants eternal bliss with unlimited cotton candy and no cavities?  

From looking at some of the bad things that happen while he sits idly by I would say that He doesn't love us; He's messing with us..



VisionCasting said:


> Thank you for answering the question.  One more.
> 
> As God, would you also give people free will?  Or would they be puppets that you force  into your presence for eternity?



No.  No free will. Just like in Heaven.  I would tell my creation "Just enjoy the chocolate fountain and go play with the lion and the lamb".  The kind of God that would make man with free will is just messing with you.  Or the kind of God that would give you the ability to reason and then tell you that you have to abandon your reason to believe in Him is also messing with you.  He's treating you like a plaything.

I choose to not view myself as a plaything.


----------



## chicken cow (Feb 7, 2011)

Job said He didnt deserve what was happening to him and said he was being delt with unjustly, and well...God showed up.. But  Nobody believes the Bible anyway , But this question was asked a long time ago Job 38
 1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 

 2Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 

 3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. 

 4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 

 5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 

 6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 

 7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 

 8Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? 

 9When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, 

 10And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, 

 11And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? 

 12Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; 

 13That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? 

 14It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment. 

 15And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken. 

 16Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? 

 17Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? 

 18Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all. 

 19Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, 

 20That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof? 

 21Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 7, 2011)

The story of Job, whether literal or parable, only reads well if you put yourself in the place of Job, as the story was intended.  Try putting yourself in the place of one of his four sons or three daughters and see how much sense the story makes.  

If you were one of his seven children, who God killed by sending a great wind to smite the house causing it to fall on you and kill you,  what morals do you think you would take away from this?  Do you think you might feel like an insignificant pawn who was killed along with many others as part of a wager?  Just how important would it seem that your life is to God?


----------



## chicken cow (Feb 7, 2011)

Well....it would depend on where I went when the house fell on me. Heaven or the other place. But no matter who had what happen to them the moral of the story stays the same. Parable or not, Who is Man to decide what is best, If people were obediant to Got they would have ended up in Abrahams Bosom, if they wre disobediant maybe the other place and it was divine Judgement, Who knows. So,this story is sumed up as Who is anybody to question God. And It would be safe in saying Nobody would if God showed up. Job kept his mouth shut and had nothing else to lose.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 7, 2011)

chicken cow said:


> Well....it would depend on where I went when the house fell on me. Heaven or the other place. But no matter who had what happen to them the moral of the story stays the same. Parable or not, Who is Man to decide what is best, If people were obediant to Got they would have ended up in Abrahams Bosom, if they wre disobediant maybe the other place and it was divine Judgement, Who knows. So,this story is sumed up as Who is anybody to question God. And It would be safe in saying Nobody would if God showed up. Job kept his mouth shut and had nothing else to lose.



God said that Job was perfect and upright and that there was none like him in the earth.  In that time period, if his children who lived with him weren't God fearing as well, then Job would not be considered perfect because Job was responsible for his household.  Job sanctified his sons with burnt offering just in case they may have sinned.  Therefore, placing yourself in the position of one of Job's sons automatically makes you a fine, God-fearing, upright person.  And since you are a fine, God-fearing, upright person who's father and role model is the most perfect and upright person in the earth, you just might be the second most perfect and upright person in the earth.  The moral of this story, either literal or parable, is about what blessings a perfect and upright person could expect if he stays true to God.  But you, as Job's son were killed in Chapter 1 verse 19, before even being given the chance to choose how you will react to the test.  The story would have been better if Job's children had been given a chance to turn their back on God before they were killed.


----------



## chicken cow (Feb 7, 2011)

So your saying either you can either be a fine, God-fearing, upright person and god kill you and Go to Heaven...or disobedient and live a long life and die of Natural causes and then burn forever?...Wouldnt you think if there ever was anybody that had a right to complain to God it was Job...So why did Job say "Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. 

 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further".
Because Gods ways are above ours.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 7, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> God said that Job was perfect and upright and that there was none like him in the earth.  In that time period, if his children who lived with him weren't God fearing as well, then Job would not be considered perfect because Job was responsible for his household.  Job sanctified his sons with burnt offering just in case they may have sinned.  Therefore, placing yourself in the position of one of Job's sons automatically makes you a fine, God-fearing, upright person.  And since you are a fine, God-fearing, upright person who's father and role model is the most perfect and upright person in the earth, you just might be the second most perfect and upright person in the earth.  The moral of this story, either literal or parable, is about what blessings a perfect and upright person could expect if he stays true to God.  But you, as Job's son were killed in Chapter 1 verse 19, before even being given the chance to choose how you will react to the test.  The story would have been better if Job's children had been given a chance to turn their back on God before they were killed.



If the children's faith was as a strong as their father's they are happy to be with the Lord the second their life left their bodies.


----------



## VisionCasting (Feb 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> No.  No free will. Just like in Heaven.  I would tell my creation "Just enjoy the chocolate fountain and go play with the lion and the lamb".  The kind of God that would make man with free will is just messing with you.  Or the kind of God that would give you the ability to reason and then tell you that you have to abandon your reason to believe in Him is also messing with you.  He's treating you like a plaything.
> 
> I choose to not view myself as a plaything.



What makes you assume there is no free will in Heaven?  That is not a Biblical truth, just FYI.

And where does He ask you to suspend reason?  Also a falsehood.

Now to the matter of playthings...  Would you not be a simple plaything if you lacked free will?  A toy?  Isn't the application of free will the thing that elevates one above plaything?  That's just the point, humanity needed to receive free will in order to NOT be a plaything.  And with that free will you have the option to accept or reject God.  It's all pretty simple once you think it through with you non-suspended sence of reason.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 7, 2011)

I thought we already said you have free will in heaven, but you your emotional, physical body is rotting on earth. Leaving behind your capacity to sin.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Not everyone wants eternal bliss with unlimited cotton candy and no cavities?


Do you?


----------



## gtparts (Feb 8, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> The story of Job, whether literal or parable, only reads well if you put yourself in the place of Job, as the story was intended.  Try putting yourself in the place of one of his four sons or three daughters and see how much sense the story makes.
> 
> If you were one of his seven children, who God killed by sending a great wind to smite the house causing it to fall on you and kill you,  what morals do you think you would take away from this?  Do you think you might feel like an insignificant pawn who was killed along with many others as part of a wager?  Just how important would it seem that your life is to God?





HawgJawl said:


> God said that Job was perfect and upright and that there was none like him in the earth.  In that time period, if his children who lived with him weren't God fearing as well, then Job would not be considered perfect because Job was responsible for his household.  Job sanctified his sons with burnt offering just in case they may have sinned.  Therefore, placing yourself in the position of one of Job's sons automatically makes you a fine, God-fearing, upright person.  And since you are a fine, God-fearing, upright person who's father and role model is the most perfect and upright person in the earth, you just might be the second most perfect and upright person in the earth.  The moral of this story, either literal or parable, is about what blessings a perfect and upright person could expect if he stays true to God.  But you, as Job's son were killed in Chapter 1 verse 19, before even being given the chance to choose how you will react to the test.  The story would have been better if Job's children had been given a chance to turn their back on God before they were killed.



Never thought much from the perspective of Job's children. Seems to me they received their earthly end much as they would have under any other circumstances. Does it really matter whether it happened one day or another, in one way or another, as the result of natural events or Satan's attempt to discredit and destroy Job's faith ? 

It has been pointed out more than once on this forum that physical death is not the worst that can happen to a person. The lost person has a much worse situation to experience, eternally.  Many have regarded death as a welcome relief or release from their suffering. 

Regardless of how one might view this narrative, does the fact that an individual has come into existence give them any right to dictate how or when they will exit this life?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> God said that Job was perfect and upright and that there was none like him in the earth.  In that time period, if his children who lived with him weren't God fearing as well, then Job would not be considered perfect because Job was responsible for his household.  Job sanctified his sons with burnt offering just in case they may have sinned.  Therefore, placing yourself in the position of one of Job's sons automatically makes you a fine, God-fearing, upright person.  And since you are a fine, God-fearing, upright person who's father and role model is the most perfect and upright person in the earth, you just might be the second most perfect and upright person in the earth.  The moral of this story, either literal or parable, is about what blessings a perfect and upright person could expect if he stays true to God.  But you, as Job's son were killed in Chapter 1 verse 19, before even being given the chance to choose how you will react to the test.





> The story would have been better if Job's children had been given a chance to turn their back on God before they were killed.


The decision for the children of Job to turn their back on God came long before this test. A person, knowing how they are going to die, should have no bearring on whether they turn their back on God or not.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 8, 2011)

*A lesson learned.....*


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 8, 2011)

Y'all are misunderstanding what I mean by putting yourself in the place of one of his sons.  The story of Job, whether literal or parable is intended to illustrate a moral lesson to an audience.  The audience imagines themselves as being Job.  The audience questions themselves as to what their reaction would be if they were presented with a similar situation.  The story presents Job's response as the correct response and illustrates that if the members of the audience were to react as Job did, then God might bless them as He did Job, in the end.

The moral of this story is that when a "Godly" person is faced with extreme adversity and is tempted to turn his back on God, if the person stays true to God through the adversity, then God will bless the person in the end.  But, you only get that moral if you place yourself in the role of Job.  If you place yourself in the role of one of Job's sons, their is no moral for you, only that you can be taken at any time regardless of your faith.  If the story had been told such that Job's entire family and servants had all endured a portion of the adversity and had all turned their backs on God and maybe even tried to convince Job to turn his back on God, but Job refused, then God killing everyone but Job would help support the moral of the story.

Even the story of the great flood illustrates every person God killed as being wicked.  From the audience's perspective, if Job's children had been given time to turn wicked, then killing them would fit into the moral of the story.

In the play, I know everyone want to be Job, but somebody has to play the part of his children.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 8, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Do you?



That would be swell.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 8, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> I thought we already said you have free will in heaven, but you your emotional, physical body is rotting on earth. Leaving behind your capacity to sin.



Several of you said that you are a different "person" in Heaven; reprogrammed.  As stated by the OP in that thread: Why not just start out that way?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 8, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> What makes you assume there is no free will in Heaven?  That is not a Biblical truth, just FYI.



Can you sin in Heaven?



VisionCasting said:


> And where does He ask you to suspend reason?  Also a falsehood.sigh



You can find the verses that support anti-intellectualism yourself.  I'm not going to do the Google search for you.



VisionCasting said:


> Now to the matter of playthings...  Would you not be a simple plaything if you lacked free will?  A toy?  Isn't the application of free will the thing that elevates one above plaything?  That's just the point, humanity needed to receive free will in order to NOT be a plaything.  And with that free will you have the option to accept or reject God.  It's all pretty simple once you think it through with you non-suspended sence of reason.



What will you be in Heaven; your ultimate goal?  A well behaved yard ornament; never spilling milk or stubbing your toe?  Isn't the moral of the Eden Story that they wanted to be like God; with the knowledge of good and evil and the where with all to use it?  And for that they were punished.  Your reward for NOT using your free will is that it gets removed from your psyche in Heaven where you will be a happy and content, well mannered pet.

The type of "tests of faith" set forth in the Bible read to me like a sicker version of what frat boys might do to pledges during Rush Week:  "Abraham,  this is the Lord thy God......"  [sic] messing with you.

If God exists, ANY God(s), and He/They intercede in your daily business, particularly to "test" you, you are a plaything. And if God(s) do exist, what can I do to stop them from messing with me?  Supplicate?  I will not.  Supplication only seems to inhibit sensible behavior.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 8, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Y'all are misunderstanding what I mean by putting yourself in the place of one of his sons.  The story of Job, whether literal or parable is intended to illustrate a moral lesson to an audience.  The audience imagines themselves as being Job.  The audience questions themselves as to what their reaction would be if they were presented with a similar situation.  The story presents Job's response as the correct response and illustrates that if the members of the audience were to react as Job did, then God might bless them as He did Job, in the end.
> 
> The moral of this story is that when a "Godly" person is faced with extreme adversity and is tempted to turn his back on God, if the person stays true to God through the adversity, then God will bless the person in the end.  But, you only get that moral if you place yourself in the role of Job.  If you place yourself in the role of one of Job's sons, their is no moral for you, only that you can be taken at any time regardless of your faith.  If the story had been told such that Job's entire family and servants had all endured a portion of the adversity and had all turned their backs on God and maybe even tried to convince Job to turn his back on God, but Job refused, then God killing everyone but Job would help support the moral of the story.
> 
> ...



I fully understood what you were saying. It is about the varying perspectives of the characters in the story.  Through out time people have been killed and God has gained glory from it. If these people are saved, then they do not care what the moral of the story was. They are in heaven with Abba.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 8, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Can you sin in Heaven?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ambush i had almost forgotten how prideful you were. I face the same test man. I am right there with you. 

It sucks to know we are nothing more than a cold mornings exhaled breath to God, but at the same time He loves each and every one of us as much as He loves Christ.


----------



## VisionCasting (Feb 8, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> You can find the verses that support anti-intellectualism yourself.  I'm not going to do the Google search for you.



Please do.  I'd like you to enlighten me.  Maybe I can learn from you.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 9, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> I fully understood what you were saying. It is about the varying perspectives of the characters in the story.  Through out time people have been killed and God has gained glory from it. If these people are saved, then they do not care what the moral of the story was. They are in heaven with Abba.



Any moral gained from the story is gained by the audience, not the characters of the story.  That's why I keep saying that whatever Job's children feel about their fate is irrelevant.


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 9, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Any moral gained from the story is gained by the audience, not the characters of the story.  That's why I keep saying that whatever Job's children feel about their fate is irrelevant.



Well why didn't you say so! Haha...


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 18, 2011)

RoosterTodd said:


> As a business analyst in my professional life, I see how statistics can come into play.
> So, what if my prayers caused a flipped coin to come up heads 75,000 times out of 100,000 flips? Would you be convinced or would you believe that if we should continue flipping and that statiscal anomaly would eventually be ironed out? The problem is that God doesn't grant every prayer. Maybe he doesn't want spoiled believers.I really don't know, but if I got everything I prayed for, I'd be in pretty bad shape. You know, the whole "unanswered prayers" thing.
> I wholeheartedly agree that there are con artists running around selling everything from the sham-wow, instant weight loss, and prosperity salvation. It gives real chamois, healthy weight loss, and a honest relationship with God a bad name. If you do ever seek a relationship with God, I would encourage you to speak to someone who doesn't want anything from you.
> I also look forward to the day that God removes all doubt. As you said, it would make things much easier to believe if he would just show up.
> But...I also live with the positive changes he's made in my life every day. To me, that's enough.



What I would expect to see if the theist claims were true is statistical evidence of it. I'm fine with the excuse that God doesn't answer every prayer. To whatever extent that he answers any at all, we should see statistical evidence for it. If a million christians pray for healthy bodies or for healing from cancer but the incidence and mortality rate for them is indistinguishable from people of other religions or people with no religion how can it be claimed their prayers worked. Even if they only worked 25% of the time you would see it.

The world would be a very different place if prayer really worked, even part of the time. Insurance companies would be offering discounts to christians due to their lower incidence of illness and other catastrophes if prayers for God's protection really had any effect.



String,

What I meant by incredibly rare is not the odds that someone will win the lottery but the odds a particular person will win. You won the greatest lottery of all by being here. We all did. It would be like walking out into the Sahara and picking up a single grain of sand. The odds that you would pick up that particular grain are extremely small. That doesn't mean there is some special meaning or predestined purpose for that grain though. That was my point. Just because an extremely unlikely event happens it doesn't mean there was some supernatural force behind it. But people often mistakenly draw that conclusion.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What I would expect to see if the theist claims were true is statistical evidence of it. I'm fine with the excuse that God doesn't answer every prayer. To whatever extent that he answers any at all, we should see statistical evidence for it. If a million christians pray for healthy bodies or for healing from cancer but the incidence and mortality rate for them is indistinguishable from people of other religions or people with no religion how can it be claimed their prayers worked. Even if they only worked 25% of the time you would see it.
> 
> The world would be a very different place if prayer really worked, even part of the time. Insurance companies would be offering discounts to christians due to their lower incidence of illness and other catastrophes if prayers for God's protection really had any effect.
> 
> ...




Do you remember my "whoops it was an accident thread"?


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 18, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> [/COLOR][/B]
> 
> Do you remember my "whoops it was an accident thread"?



I do and it makes my point. You're falling for the same fallacy that if an improbable event occurs it _must_ have been purposeful. Just isn't true as I just explained.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The NT instructs slaves to obey and fear their masters. That hardly amounts to a declaration of it's immorality wouldn't you say?
> 
> Do you not find it odd that God revealed the morality of the conduct of his people in great detail but actually endorsed slavery?
> 
> Don't you think it would have gone quite a long way in changing the hearts of mankind if God had revealed to man "slavery is wrong"? It's one thing to blame it on the fallibility of men. Quite another to say the endorsement of slavery came from an absolutely moral and infallible being.




Why is slavery immoral?


----------



## applejuice (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> Why is slavery immoral?





wow, why is it immoral?


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

applejuice said:


> wow, why is it immoral?




Yes. Why is it immoral? I think its a fair question given the subject matter.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

I start with the premise that each man is the sole and rightful owner of his mind and body aka his life. Slavery is immoral for the same reason theft and murder are immoral. It takes from someone by force that which is rightly theirs.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I start with the premise that each man is the sole and rightful owner of his mind and body aka his life. Slavery is immoral for the same reason theft and murder are immoral. It takes from someone by force that *which is rightly theirs*.



Who gives you or me that right?


----------



## applejuice (Mar 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Who gives you or me that right?



The right of what? Makign your own decisions?
Every person has control over their own lives, and when someone else try's to take that from you, YES that is immoral. Whether it be slavery or forcing someone to follow a certain religion. In this country we all get to choose our own paths, no matter how many loonies want everyone else to follow THEIR paths.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

I don't see rights as something that are given but rather claims that are asserted. It is self evident that you are the possessor of your mind and only you could be.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

applejuice said:


> The right of what? Makign your own decisions?


re-read atlashunters post, it will tell you what right we are talking about.



> Every person has control over their own lives, and when someone else try's to take that from you, YES that is immoral.


and what if I decide no to agree with you?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I don't see rights as something that are given but rather claims that are asserted. It is self evident that you are the possessor of your mind and only you could be.



So I just get to claim whatever I want?


----------



## applejuice (Mar 7, 2011)

I agree Atlas. Rights are a product of a society and laws. 
Slavery being applauded in the Bible just proves to show that humans wrote and edited the text. If there were a supreme god that came to this planet and gave us a text to live by, do you really think selling your daughter into slavery would be in that book? Not me. Morally slavery is horrendous, I dont think it needs to explained any better than that. IMO


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I start with the premise that each man is the sole and rightful owner of his mind and body aka his life. Slavery is immoral for the same reason theft and murder are immoral. It takes from someone by force that which is rightly theirs.




I realize that an I am challenging that very premise. It is not self evident that anything is rightly yours. It might _seem _self evident to_ you_, but this has to be proven not asserted. 

I can easily assert that you and your mind belong to me. 

Until you have demonstrated how your operating premise is necessarily the case you have not shown slavery to be immoral, objectively. You have only shown that you are not comfortable with it.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

applejuice said:


> I agree Atlas. Rights are a product of a society and laws.
> Slavery being applauded in the Bible just proves to show that humans wrote and edited the text. If there were a supreme god that came to this planet and gave us a text to live by, do you really think selling your daughter into slavery would be in that book? Not me. Morally slavery is horrendous, I dont think it needs to explained any better than that. IMO




Let's try this another way....

You are immoral for not condoning slavery. Perhaps a supreme god would have said selling your daughter is morally acceptable. Who are you to say otherwise?


----------



## applejuice (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> Let's try this another way....
> 
> You are immoral for not condoning slavery. Perhaps a supreme god would have said selling your daughter is morally acceptable. Who are you to say otherwise?



Well I think for myself. If this GOD told you to kill your first born child would you do it?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

You're really moving into philosophy here. I'm not out to prove my moral framework objectively. I don't claim morality to be objective. I'm making a moral claim against others which can either be accepted or rejected. I do have what I believe to be persuasive evidence supporting my claims. Until some form of mind control is invented you can lay claim to someones mind but you still lack the capability of possessing it.

Also you may make the claim that noone has a right to their life but if this is true then on what grounds can you even make the claim? If I may rightfully lay claim to you and your mind then by what right may you assert anything at all without my consent?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So I just get to claim whatever I want?



Of course you can, right or wrong.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Of course you can, right or wrong.



and it gets to be truth?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> and it gets to be truth?



No our claims have no bearing on what is or isn't the truth.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> No our claims have no bearing on what is or isn't the truth.



but you claim you have a right to your life...



atlashunter said:


> I don't see rights as something that are given but rather *claims *that are asserted. It is self evident that you are the possessor of your mind and only you could be.



so your claim is untrue?


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> ..... Incredibly rare events happen all the time .....





stringmusic said:


> Isnt that an oxymoron?





atlashunter said:


> Nope



Paradox of vicious circularity.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> but you claim you have a right to your life...
> 
> 
> 
> so your claim is untrue?



It may or may not be the truth. But whether it is true or not does not hinge on my claim either way.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It may or may not be the truth. But whether it is true or not does not hinge on my claim either way.



Im sorry, your going have to spell this one out for me. You can claim something and it does not matter if it is true or not?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

You can claim anything you want to claim. Claiming it doesn't make it true. The claim may be true or untrue. You can claim that there is a god. The truth is either there is one or there isn't one. Whatever that truth happens to be, it's not dependent on your claim. It would be as it is regardless of what you claim.

When I make a claim about what is right behavior for us as human beings I'm using a foundation that you may or may not agree with and making value judgments you may or may not agree with. These are subjective claims that we attempt to persuade each other to agree on. Some like murder are easy for most to agree on. Others like doing drugs, abortion, stem cell research, assisted suicide, etc are not nearly as easy to reach agreement on because there is so much subjectivity involved.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You can claim anything you want to claim. Claiming it doesn't make it true. The claim may be true or untrue. You can claim that there is a god. The truth is either there is one or there isn't one. Whatever that truth happens to be, it's not dependent on your claim. It would be as it is regardless of what you claim.
> 
> When I make a claim about what is right behavior for us as human beings I'm using a foundation that you may or may not agree with and making value judgments you may or may not agree with. These are subjective claims that we attempt to persuade each other to agree on. Some like murder are easy for most to agree on. Others like doing drugs, abortion, stem cell research, assisted suicide, etc are not nearly as easy to reach agreement on because there is so much subjectivity involved.



Gotcha


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You can claim anything you want to claim. Claiming it doesn't make it true. The claim may be true or untrue. You can claim that there is a god. The truth is either there is one or there isn't one. Whatever that truth happens to be, it's not dependent on your claim. It would be as it is regardless of what you claim.
> 
> When I make a claim about what is right behavior for us as human beings I'm using a foundation that you may or may not agree with and making value judgments you may or may not agree with. These are subjective claims that we attempt to persuade each other to agree on. Some like murder are easy for most to agree on. Others like doing drugs, abortion, stem cell research, assisted suicide, etc are not nearly as easy to reach agreement on because there is so much subjectivity involved.



It's too hard!!!  I can't figure it out on my own!!  Give me a book or something to follow then lead me around like a sheep!


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

applejuice said:


> Well I think for myself. If this GOD told you to kill your first born child would you do it?



Well try and think harder. No, I would not do it. However, that still doesn't mean I am acting morally. It must first be demonstrated that killing my first born is immoral. You are simply taking this for granted.

In other words you are going to have to explain to me why it is moral for me to "not" kill my child and disobey the commands of said god. When discussing ethics we are not allowed to assume in advance that certain behaviors are to be taken for granted.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> It's too hard!!!  I can't figure it out on my own!!  Give me a book or something to follow then lead me around like a sheep!


Funny....the irony is that even atheist follow a book if they are following a moral framework. You might be a utilitatarian, deontologist, or virtue ethicist. In any case you are following the writings of Bentham, Kant, and Aristotle - like sheep.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> Well try and think harder. No, I would not do it. However, that still doesn't mean I am acting morally. It must first be demonstrated that killing my first born is immoral. You are simply taking this for granted.
> 
> In other words you are going to have to explain to me why it is moral for me to "not" kill my child and disobey the commands of said god. When discussing ethics we are not allowed to assume in advance that certain behaviors are to be taken for granted.



_They're_ gonna call you a "smarty pants, intellectual, moral relativist, know it all".


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> Funny....the irony is that even atheist follow a book if they are following a moral framework. You might be a utilitatarian, deontologist, or virtue ethicist. In any case you are following the writings of Bentham, Kant, and Aristotle - like sheep.



None of those notions stand on their own in a comprehensive way.  Philosophies (the Bible included) are better used as reference material in one's own personal search.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Also you may make the claim that noone has a right to their life but if this is true then on what grounds can you even make the claim? If I may rightfully lay claim to you and your mind then by what right may you assert anything at all without my consent?



If I were a slave owner I would claim on the same grounds I would claim ownership over cattle.



> I start with the premise that each man is the sole and rightful owner of his mind and body aka his life. Slavery is immoral for the same reason theft and murder are immoral. It takes from someone by force that which is rightly theirs.



You don't sound like someone who is claiming morality to be _un_objective.



> You're really moving into philosophy here. I'm not out to prove my moral framework objectively. I don't claim morality to be objective. I'm making a moral claim against others which can either be accepted or rejected.



Ethics is a branch of philosophy, so it is valid that I am asking yu to justify your first principles, which you haven't. Until that time your anti-slavery position is your opinion and hardly an issue you can have with the concept of god as a moral standard. In other words, if the god of the bible is the ethical standard for humanity then your opinion is irrelevent.



> I do have what I believe to be persuasive evidence supporting my claims.



Good. Let's hear some.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> _They're_ gonna call you a "smarty pants, intellectual, moral relativist, know it all".




Who? Why?


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> None of those notions stand on their own in a comprehensive way.  Philosophies (the Bible included) are better used as reference material in one's own personal search.



I didn't say they did. I found problems with all of them in college. I find morality, in general, to be problamatic.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> Funny....the irony is that even atheist follow a book if they are following a moral framework. You might be a utilitatarian, deontologist, or virtue ethicist. In any case you are following the writings of Bentham, Kant, and Aristotle - like sheep.



Poor comparison. One group approaches from reason, another from authority.


----------



## applejuice (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> Well try and think harder. No, I would not do it. However, that still doesn't mean I am acting morally. It must first be demonstrated that killing my first born is immoral. You are simply taking this for granted.
> 
> *In other words you are going to have to explain to me why it is moral for me to "not" kill my child and disobey the commands of said god.* When discussing ethics we are not allowed to assume in advance that certain behaviors are to be taken for granted.



Why do I need to think harder? I asked you if you would kill your first born child if God told you too. I know my answer, I was curious of yours.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> If I were a slave owner I would claim on the same grounds I would claim ownership over cattle.



Sure, except you are also one of the cows. Maybe like the Pharohs you can convince your fellow humans that you are much more than human. A god perhaps? Or a king ruling by divine right? And in that way con your fellow humans into accepting your arbitrary rule. You'll have a difficult time convincing me.




Hoyt Mathews said:


> You don't sound like someone who is claiming morality to be _un_objective.



Really? Where have I claimed otherwise?




Hoyt Mathews said:


> Ethics is a branch of philosophy, so it is valid that I am asking yu to justify your first principles, which you haven't. Until that time your anti-slavery position is your opinion and hardly an issue you can have with the concept of god as a moral standard. In other words, if the god of the bible is the ethical standard for humanity then your opinion is irrelevent.



That cuts both ways. The theist needs to make their case to me. They need to show first that their God is more than just a figment of their imagination and second I would need some way to differentiate between what God says and what some man claims God said. The bible falls far short on both counts. When I point out the biblical endorsement of slavery I'm not appealing so much to my own sense of morality as I am the believers. If a Christian were to respond "Yeah the bible endorses slavery. Slavery is moral. What's your point?" then we would be at the point of disagreeing on moral grounds. It's never gotten to that point on slavery. I've already said I can't prove my moral framework objectively, nor am I making any effort to. What I can do is give the reasons for holding the view that I do and those reasons can either be accepted or rejected but I don't claim them to be objective. In any event I reject the claim of a moral high ground coming from anyone who claims slavery is moral.




Hoyt Mathews said:


> Good. Let's hear some.



To make a really long answer really short, when authoritarian regimes and ideologies prevail human progress has historically been impeded or even reversed. Not to mention all the needless bloodshed that goes along with it. This is not the kind of world I strive for. Where individual liberty has prevailed that is where we have seen the bulk of advancement and improvement in the human condition. That's the utilitarian argument. Freedom works. 

The freedom philosophy is also logically consistent. You respect my freedom, I respect yours, and we largely are both able to pursue our own ambitions in life. It's the closest to a win-win situation you can get as opposed to one of us ruling over the other.

If you have a better alternative I'd be happy to entertain it.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Poor comparison. One group approaches from reason, another from authority.



So. Why is one more valued than the other?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> So. Why is one more valued than the other?



What have they each brought us? One brought the conviction that the earth was flat and torture for anyone that said otherwise. The other brought us the hubble telescope. One brought self flagellation and idle prayers while a third of the population of europe died of plague. One brought us cures for smallpox and polio.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> In any event I reject the claim of a moral high ground coming from anyone who claims slavery is moral.



Thats fine with me so long as you know that is your opinion, thus, it is irrational.






> Freedom works.


 

I suppose that depends on what you think we should be working towards. Pragmaticism is a rather vague philosophy. If I were Stalin, freedom would not work. But I grant you it is more pleasurable.



> The freedom philosophy is also logically consistent. You respect my freedom, I respect yours, and we largely are both able to pursue our own ambitions in life. It's the closest to a win-win situation you can get as opposed to one of us ruling over the other.



The problem here is that for an authoratarian regime, win-win, is not the proper formula for human existence. We don't have anything which claims that to be the higher good or reason for existing. One way is just as valid as another.



> If you have a better alternative I'd be happy to entertain it.



No; I agree with you. I'm just playing devils advocate.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What have they each brought us? One brought the conviction that the earth was flat and torture for anyone that said otherwise. The other brought us the hubble telescope. One brought self flagellation and idle prayers while a third of the population of europe died of plague. One brought us cures for smallpox and polio.



Touche. Enough about the authority worldview - what did the reason bring us?

Reson cut both ways....it might have saved us from smallpox but it gave us the atomic bomb. What killed more, reason or authority?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> Thats fine with me so long as you know that is your opinion, thus, it is irrational.



It is rational based on my foundational premise.




Hoyt Mathews said:


> I suppose that depends on what you think we should be working towards. Pragmaticism is a rather vague philosophy. If I were Stalin, freedom would not work. But I grant you it is more pleasurable.



I agree.




Hoyt Mathews said:


> The problem here is that for an authoratarian regime, win-win, is not the proper formula for human existence. We don't have anything which claims that to be the higher good or reason for existing. One way is just as valid as another.



I get what you are saying but disagree that they are equally valid positions. I suppose it boils down to how you define good which delves into philosophy and philosophy is not my strong suit. There are the Saddam Hussein's of this world who live by the authoritarian credo. I'm fine with subjecting them to their own moral standards and letting them swing from a rope.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

> It is rational based on my foundational premise.



Then everyones system is rational if we take for granted their starting premise. Be consistent and allow Chrsitians to assert the primacy of the Bible and they can demonstrate almost anything to you. I guess I am suggetsing tha tevery systemof thought is in some way circular, thus, question begging.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 7, 2011)

You don't find any internal contradictions in the bible?


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 8, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You don't find any internal contradictions in the bible?



Honestly, I don't look for them. I am not committed to it as a worldview. I'll leave that task to the anit-christians. I do enjoy looking for inconsistencies in all views - I was trained in philosophy and political science, so my interest is purely geared toward truth and the search for it.


----------



## JFS (Mar 8, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> I guess I am suggetsing tha tevery systemof thought is in some way circular, thus, question begging.



Even if that's true we are still left with the necessity to choose, and not all flaws are equal.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 8, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> Honestly, I don't look for them. I am not committed to it as a worldview. I'll leave that task to the anit-christians. I do enjoy looking for inconsistencies in all views - I was trained in philosophy and political science, *so my interest is purely geared toward truth and the search for it*.



would you be interested in listening to a talk on that very subject and telling me/us what you think?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 8, 2011)

Your interest is in searching for the truth but you don't look for internal contradictions...


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2011)

Bump for the Hitch.


----------

