atheists

[Red_Tory]

I do have an honest question, and if you can't divorce yourself from any exaggerated and unwarranted indignation in your reply, then please refrain. I am not rude to you - I expect the same.

Assuming, for a second, that God is real and that everything in the bible is true. And that God creates miracles for people. Now, either God intervines or he doesn't. To interfere sometimes and not others strikes me as cruel and capricious. How do you square that circle?

Also, if god is all powerful and omnipotent, why did he choose to reveal himself to only a handful of stupified illiterate peasants instead say, China where they had literacy, medicine and were far more advanced. Since there are places "christ's word" has still not reached, doesn't this seem to be rather incompetent?

Third and lastly, you do not choose your beliefs. They are a product of whatever facts or upbringing are rolling around in your head. If you disagree - you cannot step to the edge of a skyscraper and try to convice yourself by a sheer force of will that gravity doesn't work. So if you can't choose your beliefs, why would he make heaven or hell continent on doing just that? That seems more like a god that opens up doors to hell, not close them. Further - what parent would ever torture their child for an eternity no matter what they did? I wouldn't purposely burn my child or abandon them for "disrespecting me".

Alternatively, is it possible we have an innate sense of justice and something that is not always served in life. There is plenty of injustice in this world. Is it possible that we would like to think that murderers go to hell and that good people go to heaven so we invented a system (even in fantasy) to create that?

After all, The idea of hell isn't mentioned in the bible until gentle Jesus.

Respectful answers please

Assuming this god as described is real, then I think the answers would be relatively obvious.

"To interfere sometimes and not others strikes me as cruel and capricious. How do you square that circle?"

It isn't a circle that needs to be squared. If God is real, then God is the supreme ruler of all existence. God defines what is right and what is wrong; He is completely sovereign and is not bound by your own limited conceptions of morality or justice (which would, by their very nature, be incorrect).

Really, it's strange when one thinks about it. If the assumption is "God exists," your points are reduced to absurdities such as "wah, the supreme authority in and creator of the universe doesn't agree with my early 21st century American assumptions about parenting!"

The problem with the entire "assume god exists" model of argument (reductio ad absurdum) vis-a-vis morality breaks down, because if God exists and your own moral opinions are in opposition to what God defines as good or evil, then you're simply in the wrong.

 

[Cycel]

My atheism does not mean infallibility. And I agree, it is a document that has historical significance. However, I do not take this as a completely correct document. In fact, according to mathematicians, it is a mathematical impossibility that the bible even remotely reflects actual events.

Did you know that creationists like to discount evolution by citing the mathematical improbability of evolution?

A story, once retold from memory, is altered - on average - after only 3 renditions. Anyone who had played the game of telephone as a child has experienced this. (Worth noting that This is a reason why hearsay isn't permitted in courts as reasonable proof.) This, in combination with the evolution of language concurrent with multiple translations, makes for this document as having any historical accuracy pretty shaky.

There are other things that are important in the New Testament in ways you may not think of. Have you read Robert Eisenman? In my mind he is the foremost authority on Christian origins. He is the author of James the Brother of Jesus. In his last year teaching he taped most of his lectures and they are all available on YouTube. To give you background on him, however, this lecture will give some incite into his hypotheses:

robert eisenman James the Brother of Jesus you tube - Bing Videos

 

[cathym112]

32:21 they made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols. I will make them envious by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding.

32:22

For a fire is kindled by my anger, and it burns to the depths of Sheol, devours the earth and its increase, and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.


The problem is - is that there are many versions. I find it embarrassing that no one can agree on what was said. Which is a reason to be at least cautious and skeptical, even if you still conclude that it's true.

 

[Cycel]

CathyM, you've sure stirred things up.

 

[Red_Tory]

32:21 they made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols. I will make them envious by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding.

32:22

For a fire is kindled by my anger, and it burns to the depths of Sheol, devours the earth and its increase, and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.


The problem is - is that there are many versions. I find it embarrassing that no one can agree on what was said. Which is a reason to be at least cautious and skeptical, even if you still conclude that it's true.

What do you mean by this? You've cited two different verses. Where is the problem, exactly?

 

[cathym112]

Deut 32:22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

What do you mean by this? You've cited two different verses. Where is the problem, exactly?

The 32:22 I quoted did not include the word "hell". Other versions refer instead of hell, but grave.

 

[megaman125]

Other versions refer instead of hell, but grave.

You do realize the Bible was not originally written in English, right? Common sense also says that when translating from one language to another (no matter what 2 languages), you're also going to run into translational issues such as one word in Hebrew could translate to 2 or 3 different words in English, or perhaps the Hebrew word has no direct English counterpart. Hence, you end up with multiple translations.

 

[Ichabod]

You should try reading her posts sometime, like post #1102, among others.

Can you please point out where she says ALL religious people are irrational?
Maybe I need to have my eyes checked.

Christians aren't your welcome mats were you get free reign to trample them however you desire with no consequences in return. We don't have to sit here, nod our heads, and accept blatent trolling.

Ever heard of "turning the other cheek"?

It's a famous phrase in Christian doctrine.

 

[Bryancampbell]

The 32:22 I quoted did not include the word "hell". Other versions refer instead of hell, but grave.

You quoted me on this subject lol? I believe Hell and Sheol are two different places. Hell hasn't came yet, but Sheol is the grave of the undead, where people went after death. Sheol is a division of paradise and torment.

 

[Praus]

Inability to comprehend basic Hebrew:

The 32:22 I quoted did not include the word "hell". Other versions refer instead of hell, but grave.

 

[cathym112]

Yes, Cycel, I am aware of this of tr mathematical impossibility of evolution. Which is why I do not claim to *know* everything. I do not claim to *know* everything about evolution...the only thing I *know* for sure is that we are still finding new information. So, I question everything. I don't see how this would negate the impossibility of the accuracy of the bible?

 

[Red_Tory]

The 32:22 I quoted did not include the word "hell". Other versions refer instead of hell, but grave.

It isn't a literal grave. It's the congregation of the dead in the afterlife.

 

[cathym112]

I know that it also has more than one meaning based on interpretation. That sounds like a mass grave to me, a place where the dead are gathered. Another meaning is hell or purgatory. Which one did the author mean? How will you ever truly know? Answer: you don't.

Language has many different meanings depending on how you look at it...it also evolves over time.

 

[megaman125]

Can you please point out where she says ALL religious people are irrational?
Maybe I need to have my eyes checked.

Yeah, maybe you do.

Ever heard of "turning the other cheek"?

It's a famous phrase in Christian doctrine.

Turning the other cheek is not an ivitation for non-Christians to make Christians their door mat, no matter how much you'd like it to be that way.

 

[cathym112]

How do you know its not literal?

I don't understand. So some things in te bible are literal (the literal virgin birth) but other things are parables, or subjective metaphors? How do you know which is which? All anyone ever has (atheists and theists alike) are simply assertions. No one knows. Everyone believes something different, even within the same religion. To claim that your belief is more than an assertion is ridiculous!

 

[Bryancampbell]

I know that it also has more than one meaning based on interpretation. That sounds like a mass grave to me, a place where the dead are gathered. Another meaning is hell or purgatory. Which one did the author mean? How will you ever truly know? Answer: you don't.

Language has many different meanings depending on how you look at it...it also evolves over time.

I'm not trying to be mean, but that sounded very ignorant. You're reading it in English, whether it's in one version or not, what is it in Hebrew? Or even in Greek? We do know, friend, that's why if you wanna know more, you study the depths instead of assuming. I'm not trying to be mean here.

 

[Red_Tory]

The problem is - is that there are many versions. I find it embarrassing that no one can agree on what was said. Which is a reason to be at least cautious and skeptical, even if you still conclude that it's true.

It's "embarrassing" that there are multiple translations of a text written over two thousand years ago? My my, I wasn't aware that you were an authoritative expert in ancient languages. It's obvious that there should only be one translation. Is it an embarrassment that there's a dozen mainstream translations of Plato's Republic? How about the Antiquities?

You claim it's "rude" when people on here call you out for being arrogant, but they aren't far off the mark.

 

[Red_Tory]

I know that it also has more than one meaning based on interpretation. That sounds like a mass grave to me, a place where the dead are gathered. Another meaning is hell or purgatory. Which one did the author mean? How will you ever truly know? Answer: you don't.

Language has many different meanings depending on how you look at it...it also evolves over time.

Well, that right there blows your entire "Hell is never mentioned" idea right out of the water. You say: "you don't know what this word means" and then make such strange pronouncements in your posts.

So, let me get this straight:

Cathym says that the concept of Hell is never mentioned in the Old Testament...

Then, when confronted with evidence that the conceptmay very well be in the Old Testament she says we cannot know what the language used means... But somehow she thinks she can state that Hell isn't mentioned in the Bible.

Somehow, Cathym thinks herself immune from the intellectual standards she herself sets up.

 

[Red_Tory]

How do you know its not literal?

I don't understand. So some things in te bible are literal (the literal virgin birth) but other things are parables, or subjective metaphors? How do you know which is which? All anyone ever has (atheists and theists alike) are simply assertions. No one knows. Everyone believes something different, even within the same religion. To claim that your belief is more than an assertion is ridiculous!

It's called the "academic community" - you know, people who actually read and write in these languages, spend their lives studying the context of the passages at hand, and can provide an authoritative opinion on the matter.

But hey, apparently "nobody can know" - even though it's somehow still OK even then for you to make the pronouncements you do.

 

[Praus]

How do you know which is which? All anyone ever has (atheists and theists alike) are simply assertions. No one knows.

We know you.

1 Cor 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.