The Bible Cannot Be Interpreted Literally

November 10, 2009 at 11:26 am 74 comments

There are a number of Christians who believe that the bible is the literal Word of God.  Some can be found here.  I would like to demonstrate that anyone accepting the bible as the ultimate source of truth will wind up in hot water.  It can be done in a number of ways.  I will choose just one argument today.

Question — Is slavery ever justifiable morally?

According to the bible, it is.  I am using the New International version of the Student Bible.  Leviticus 25:44 – 25:46 says,

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.  You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.  You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Some questions for Christians who accept the bible as literal truth:  Is slavery justifiable now?  If not, when did it stop being justifiable?  Was it ever justified by the book of Leviticus?  If so, how so?

I contend that the only way to stand on moral ground is to stop interpreting the bible literally, and even to condemn those portions of the bible that are objectionable to human beings on moral grounds.

Advertisements

Entry filed under: religion. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Evolution — your thoughts? Does Fundamentalism Induce Moral Idiocy? Or, Does It Attract it?

74 Comments Add your own

  • 1. DavidC99  |  November 11, 2009 at 8:30 am

    Per your invitation to read this post and answer your questions, you have the following from me:

    1) Is slavery justifiable now? Yes.
    2) If not, when did it stop being justifiable? N/A; see previous answer.
    3) Was it ever justified by the book of Leviticus? Yes.
    4) If so, how so? See Leviticus 25:44-46; God said so.

    Reply
    • 2. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 11, 2009 at 12:37 pm

      Thank you for responding.

      Just so I am understanding where you are coming from, please consider the following quote and the question that follows.

      Deuteronomy 3:1 – 3:7:

      Next we turned and went up along the road toward Bashan, and Og king of Bashan with his whole army marched out to meet us in battle at Edrei. The LORD said to me, “Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you with his whole army and his land. Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon.”

      So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them–the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city–men, women and children. But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.

      Were the Isrealites justified in killing every man, woman, and child?

      Reply
      • 3. DavidC99  |  November 11, 2009 at 1:20 pm

        Yes.

      • 4. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 11, 2009 at 2:40 pm

        So, how do you square that with Exodus 20:13: You shall not murder? Which takes precedence? Is this not a contradiction? Please explain.

  • 5. DavidC99  |  November 11, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    Exodus 20:13 was not speaking of warfare.

    Reply
    • 6. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 11, 2009 at 10:32 pm

      Murder and genocide are not defensible under any circumstances, even in warfare.

      Here’s the interesting point — because you interpret the bible so literally, you choose to defend slavery, murder, and genocide. Way to go, Christian. You are representing your faith well.

      Now consider the non-Christian reading these comments. What in this exchange is going to appeal to him or her?

      Reply
      • 7. DavidC99  |  November 12, 2009 at 3:38 am

        First of all, murder is never usually defined as being any type of killing. It does not include sanctioned killings.

        The wiping out of the people of the land of Canaan was ordered by God, because of the people’s wickedness. They had ample time to repent, and they did not heed the call. An exception to this was Rahab, who actually did repent, and not surprisingly, was spared.

        And thank you for the compliment regarding representation of the faith, but I hadn’t done anything. You are merely debating the text, not me. I’m merely being faithful to what it actually says.

        In terms of what non-Christian spectators will see, they will see two things:

        1) I am supporting these things because I believe God supports them, all in context.
        2) You are condemning these things because you think they should be condemned based on some unknown standard of morality that you hold.

      • 8. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 13, 2009 at 2:31 am

        David, I am really interested in knowing what you think. I understand that you don’t want to admit that God is approving of evil, so you insist that if God approves of it in the bible it must be alright.

        But, here is a hypothetical situation. Suppose someone were to kill someone you love. Maybe even everyone you love. The killer is apprehended and brought to trial. At the trial he admits that he did it, but he says in his defense that God told him to do it. How would you react?

        Would you believe the person? Would you come to his defense because God instructed him to do it? Would he be justified in any way? And, if not, how would you determine that this situation is different than the accounts in the bible?

      • 9. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 13, 2009 at 2:54 am

        Here is the blog of a Christian who is reasoning at a higher moral level than you are. The page I am pointing you to has some comments about Haiti, where this person is interested in missionary work. She mentions that

        7% (300,000) of the children in Haiti are enslaved. They are as young as 3 years old. They often suffer sexual, emotional, physical abuse and possibly death.

        By your claims I conclude that this isn’t a problem since God condones slavery. How do you think she would react to what you are saying?

        Again, I am asking you to think and respond from your own thoughts. At this point, I don’t need a bible quote or anything like that. I am interested in how you can square your claims that slavery is ok with this person’s genuine concern for the well-being of others.

  • 10. truelogic  |  November 12, 2009 at 6:46 am

    I am not sure the “Christian” David believes with regards to the Bible. Does he believe the entire words of the Bible are literal? Is it the word of God or inspired word of God with man made mistakes or is some of it not literal.

    That is one of the magical things about claiming to be a “Christian” and following that God. There are multiple interpretations to what this inspired word, or literal word, of God.

    So each “Christian” can make multiple claims as to what it means and then justify any action no matter how immoral and make an endless number of excuses or claims for which can’t be backed-up by any evidence.

    The entire concept is based on an original claim that their version of God is real.

    I have PROMISED David on my blog that he will not prove his God is real or provide evidence to show his God is any more real than the others.

    I recently put a quick post up to demonstrate that the Trinity is a lie and of course let David know in case he would like to attempt to debate it. Anyone that claims to be a true Christian would tend to accept the Trinity as being real.

    When it comes down to actually debating it, David runs from anything he can’t handle.

    We can discuss the Secret Gospel of Mark and we can claim it is true and that Jesus literally spent the night with a boy that wasn’t wearing any clothes. That does’t make it true but it is just as likely as any other story about Jesus.

    David may be upset that he has now been shown the Trinity is a lie. If the Church will make up a clear and obvious lie such as that, they will makeup lies about anything. But David doesn’t like facts, he likes the world of delusion where anything is possible in his mind.

    Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder

    The God that David worships is the same God that created evil. He planned it all from the beginning and when a child is molested by a wicked man on that evil day, David will claim it is moral and good and praise his God for creating such a wicked man.

    Clearly, delusional.

    Reply
  • 11. truelogic  |  November 12, 2009 at 6:49 am

    Thaddeus, why do you have the Chinese Pin Yin for “I Miss”?

    I just wonder as I lived in China for several years to include Hefei, Shanghai, Beijing, and Nanjing areas

    Reply
    • 12. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 12, 2009 at 11:38 am

      I took a year of Chinese three years ago. My wife is from Taipei and I wanted to be able to speak with my in-laws, even if it was simple stuff. (As it was, they spent most of the time speaking Taiwanese. At least now, when Taiwanese is being spoken I can distinguish it from Mandarin.)

      Wo xiang does mean, “I miss”. I did not know that until you pointed it out. But, it also means, “I think”, or “I believe”, which is why it is on my header.

      I verified this with my wife. For a moment I thought I had the wrong pinyin all this time. But, she pointed out that ‘Wo xiang ni’ can mean ‘I miss you’, but it can also mean ‘I am thinking of you’.

      Reply
  • 13. KevinT  |  November 12, 2009 at 7:07 am

    DavidC99 is right. You (Thaddeus) apparently have a problem with God being God. Just as DavidC99 said, everything you seem to have a problem with are things God, for reasons that may be known only to him, and in the context in which they appear, approves of.

    Your problem is with God, not Christians.

    Reply
    • 14. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 12:29 am

      I cannot speak for Thaddeus but I have had many tell me this same thing. They say my problem is with God being God and that is a ridiculous statement to make to an agnostic or atheist. I do not believe in any of the Gods invented by men or that men claim to be real. Therefore I can not have a problem with God and I cannot hate any of the Gods. They are not real, they are a myth, a superstition and nothing more. Unless you can prove otherwise. Any claim you make that your God is real is a claim that can be used to “prove” any other God is real.

      Those that have the problem are those that believe in one of the Gods and especially those that believe ONLY their version of God is real. Your problem is that you haven’t a shred of evidence to prove your extraordinary claims. You make a claim your God is real and then on top of that you make a never ending list of claims about that God for which you also cannot prove.

      First step is to prove your God before you start making up anything that might link to him/her/it.

      Many of us happen to know your God is not real and can use your claim that only we “for reasons that may be known only to us” and therefore you can not know the truth until you manage to reach our level of understanding.

      Isn’t it amazing how we can use the same claims you make to prove anything? To excuse anything? When you speak in terms of imaginary or belief claims and not demonstrate them to be factual then you can claim anything is true, real, fact.

      However, you should lookup the words, fact, proof, evidence, reality, notional, delusional, superstition, myth and start from that point before attempting to claim you have any real knowledge of what is true or real.

      Reply
    • 15. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 13, 2009 at 2:23 am

      Kevin, you are incorrect. I don’t have a problem with God being God. I have a problem with God being invoked in lieu of the speaker or writer invoking actual though processes. I discussed this in my latest post.

      Reply
  • 16. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 12:20 am

    Taipei, I thought, was more around the language Cantonese and not Mandarin kind of like many in Hong Kong would speak, especially the older. I guess Taiwanese is Cantonese or are they different languages or maybe dialects? But hey, that just show how much I likely don’t know about Taipei or language.

    I lived in China for several years and was never very good at the language. My wife is picked it up within a month and was able to talk to just about anyone at a basic level and a bit more. I know only enough to get by which is pathetic considering the time I spent there. I had too many friends native to the country that spoke english and helped me tooooo much. This allowed my laziness to take over.

    I think Mandarin is a beautiful sounding language and I was in a language college there where they spoke only Mandarin and it was tough but the worst part was the writing of the language…wow….I would have to spend hours on it which made the speaking suffer. So I dropped out of the writing part of the class. Didn’t make sense for my needs.

    Yes, the Wo Xiang could bean I think or I believe, good point. Since the “tone” is not provided in the Pin Yen on your title, I just assumed I Miss. That is what I get for assuming..haha.

    Have you visited China? Amazing land, culture and people. Not all good but not all bad, i guess just like our land, culture and people. I miss living there even though it was difficult in many ways.

    It is nice to see another person that has come connection to the language.
    peace

    Reply
    • 17. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 13, 2009 at 2:20 am

      Taiwan is close to Fujian province. Many of the people who migrated to Taiwan when Mao took power came from that province. Taiwanese is similar to Fukanese (sp?). My wife can communicate with people from that province in Taiwanese. However, it is very different from Cantonese.

      I have not been to China. I would love to go. I have been to Taiwan twice. I look forward to going again some time. My wife and I have discussed the possibility of moving there. But, that would involve me taking a pay cut since I do software engineering and the pay rate in Taiwan is a lot less. However, I find the idea of it intriguing. I love the cities there. But, I really love the smaller towns in the rural areas. I would love to live on a small farm in Taiwan like my wife’s mother’s family.

      I agree that Mandarin is a beautiful sounding language. I found that it isn’t too difficult to speak, but the writing part was a bear for me, too.

      Reply
  • 18. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 4:59 am

    Yeah, the pay is much less and the standard of living is less than the USA.

    You are a little like me in that I really enjoyed the small towns and lived in a couple of them. I lived in a few places where it was very cold in winter with snow and all. I would have to go out and find wood to heat the water tank so I could take a warm shower outside on a concrete floor with open roof..haha. Pretty cool and a simple life. Didn’t need much money to live that lifestyle.

    Even Beijing, although a big city, would include extreme vast areas of nothingness and small towns or communities. some of which might just be considered a village of farmers. The people are great but I would say it is not for the average American as the food and housing are not what they would expect.

    you are better than I, i actually have difficulty with any language. I have enough problem with english.

    Reply
    • 19. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 13, 2009 at 9:26 am

      Your experiences having to collect wood to heat water remind me of my time as a Peace Corps volunteer in Lesotho. Very primitive living conditions in a rural village. A wonderful experience, though.

      Reply
  • 20. DavidC99  |  November 13, 2009 at 5:27 am

    In response to Thaddeus on his two comments regarding the hypothetical trial and some woman’s view of slavery:

    Actually, you have it backwards. It’s not that I have to force good into God’s decisions. I start with the premise that God is good. Since that is one of God’s attributes, we can use that to analyze the things that he does.

    As far as any type of debate goes, you are actually quite a lightweight. You clearly were not ready to hear an honest agreement with the text of the Bible. In your quest to attack the Bible, you failed miserably, because your strategy was to get a Christian to run away in fear from what God actually condones and orders, not to deal with the text itself.

    Furthermore, as another example of your rather ineffectual manner, you have introduced emotion into a debate as an appeal. Why do I have to be concerned about a killer who kills only people I love? Is it moral only to be concerned with those you love? Do you think my judgment changes as to whether or not the victim of a crime is someone I knew?

    I’m not stupid enough to believe every claim of obedience to God. If someone commits murder, he’s not right. Therefore, in your example, I would want the death penalty for the murderer; however, if the person I knew was worthy of death and the man on trial was justified in killing him, I would be in favor of acquittal.

    One problem is that you probably see this as irreconcilable, wrongly counting all killing as murder when this is not the case at all. You claimed in another post of yours that your morality is based on the greater good of humanity, but you have an incorrect notion that all forms of killing have a detrimental impact to humanity. Not to invoke Godwin’s Law, but there are many examples in which it was better off for humanity for wicked people to die.

    Nevertheless, I myself do not argue from humanity’s perspective, since humanity itself is not the purpose of life. I merely brought the aspect of the betterment of humanity to show how your own beliefs are in contradiction.

    The entire purpose for Creation in the first place is for God. Everything we do ought to be with God in mind. This is why we are supposed to be good, honest, righteous, holy, and whatever else is required of us, because God wants us to be this way.

    If you disagree with the text, then you’re disagreeing with the text. All you’ve done is cited men and compared their statements with the Bible, choosing to agree with certain men over God. There is no global standard of morality that is actually binding in a truly absolute sense unless it comes from God. Therefore, I can easily reject anything you say is right, just like you can reject anything I say is right. At the end of the day, God’s Word is the only one that matters.

    So in answer to the question as to what some woman will think about slavery, the answer is that I don’t care what she thinks. If all of humanity said one thing, and God said another, it would be God who would be correct, and all of humanity wrong. Again, your strategy is more or less citing men and women and saying, “See? They disagree with God. Why can’t you?”

    Like that is going to change my mind.

    Reply
    • 21. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 13, 2009 at 10:47 am

      David, Thanks for your reply.

      You said, …you have introduced emotion into a debate as an appeal.

      My purpose was not to introduce emotion into the debate. It was to introduce reality into the context of your thinking. So, I invoked people you might love because they are probably more real to you than the Amorites.

      You asked, Is it moral only to be concerned with those you love? Good question. No. It is moral to be concerned with those you love, but it would not be moral to limit your concern to those you love.

      You said, I’m not stupid enough to believe every claim of obedience to God. But, you clearly do believe in some claims of obedience to God. You believe the ones you read in the bible. Why would you believe the “God told me to do it” defense coming from anyone? At least for me, when people use that I conclude that either they are actually schizophrenic, or they are rational but aiming for an insanity defense, or they are politicians who are trying to rationalize crimes to the masses. I never hear someone claim the God-defense and think, ‘Maybe they do have a direct pipeline from God.’ Would you ever believe any actual person who told you that God instructed him to kill someone else? If so, on what basis? If not, why would you believe the people who wrote the bible? What makes you believe they actually had real conversations with God?

      You also said,

      One problem is that you probably see this as irreconcilable, wrongly counting all killing as murder when this is not the case at all. You claimed in another post of yours that your morality is based on the greater good of humanity, but you have an incorrect notion that all forms of killing have a detrimental impact to humanity. Not to invoke Godwin’s Law, but there are many examples in which it was better off for humanity for wicked people to die.

      Actually, I don’t believe all killing as wrong. I believe, for instance, in the right to self-defense. However, I don’t believe that it is just to kill people because they are ‘wicked’. Define ‘wicked’. Then we can discuss whether it is just for one person to take the other person’s life. The problem with the bible is that wicked can be taken to mean “against God”. You might think I am against God because I am an atheist. Do you think I am wicked? If so, is anyone moral in taking my life on that basis?

      You only need to look to Saudi Arabia or Nigeria to find examples from the Muslim world where people can lose their lives for being “wicked”. I could lose my life in those countries for being an atheist. Maybe you would endose that?

      You said, Nevertheless, I myself do not argue from humanity’s perspective, since humanity itself is not the purpose of life. What is the purpose of life? I’m not sure I have an answer for that. I am curious though, to know if you do.

      You also said,

      The entire purpose for Creation in the first place is for God. Everything we do ought to be with God in mind. This is why we are supposed to be good, honest, righteous, holy, and whatever else is required of us, because God wants us to be this way.

      How do you know that God wants us to be this way? The bible? I see in the bible a man-made object. You and I both know it was written by men. I can go to where bibles are printed and note they are printed on man-made presses. I can find out who did the translations. I can research the histories of each book in the bible, to the extent that they are known. I can trace back a human lineage in the bible to the point where we lose track of who passed what on to whom. But, I see no reason to believe that God sat there with a pen in hand and actually wrote any of it out and then gave it to someone. Do you believe God actually wrote it? Or, do you accept some theory that it was written by men who were divinely inspired? If you believe the latter, on what basis do you determine that they actually were divinely inspired?

      If you disagree with the text, then you’re disagreeing with the text. All you’ve done is cited men and compared their statements with the Bible, choosing to agree with certain men over God. There is no global standard of morality that is actually binding in a truly absolute sense unless it comes from God. Therefore, I can easily reject anything you say is right, just like you can reject anything I say is right. At the end of the day, God’s Word is the only one that matters

      The key question here is, what actually comes from God and how can you determine that it is from God? Accepting it on faith is not an acceptable answer here because you need to convince me. Contrary to what you might believe, I could be convinced if you can provide actual evidence and reasoning to back up your position. That is the key…evidence and reasoning. I am not choosing to agree with men over God for the sake of opposing God. I am choosing to agree with some people over others based on evidence and reasoning. As for God, he has never spoken to me. I have waited and even prayed. But, I have never heard voices. I have looked for signs, but never seen anything that I could interpret as being divine. I eventually chose to reject, not God, but the concept of a god, because I could see no reason to believe the concept was anything other than a man-made myth. I am willing to be proven wrong. All it would take is evidence and reasoning.

      So in answer to the question as to what some woman will think about slavery, the answer is that I don’t care what she thinks. If all of humanity said one thing, and God said another, it would be God who would be correct, and all of humanity wrong. Again, your strategy is more or less citing men and women and saying, ‘See? They disagree with God. Why can’t you?’

      Again, if all humanity said one thing and God said another, how could you determine that it was God? As for my strategy, it is not citing men and women and saying, “See? They disagree with God. Why can’t you?” My strategy is to ask, how can you determine that something is from God? Provide evidence and reasoning to back up your claims. I could be swayed.

      You have made up your mind that God is real, no matter what. I have not made up my mind that God is not real, no matter what. All I want is evidence and reasoning.

      Reply
      • 22. DavidC99  |  November 13, 2009 at 11:53 am

        But, you clearly do believe in some claims of obedience to God. You believe the ones you read in the bible. Why would you believe the “God told me to do it” defense coming from anyone? At least for me, when people use that I conclude that either they are actually schizophrenic, or they are rational but aiming for an insanity defense, or they are politicians who are trying to rationalize crimes to the masses. I never hear someone claim the God-defense and think, ‘Maybe they do have a direct pipeline from God.’

        You probably don’t believe someone testifying of God in any way, partly because some witnesses are plainly false, but also partly because you reject and refuse any and all evidence of God.

        Would you ever believe any actual person who told you that God instructed him to kill someone else? If so, on what basis? If not, why would you believe the people who wrote the bible? What makes you believe they actually had real conversations with God?

        Yes, on the basis that what they say matches what the Bible actually says. Why I believe the Bible will be addressed later.

        Actually, I don’t believe all killing as wrong. I believe, for instance, in the right to self-defense. However, I don’t believe that it is just to kill people because they are ‘wicked’. Define ‘wicked’. Then we can discuss whether it is just for one person to take the other person’s life. The problem with the bible is that wicked can be taken to mean “against God”. You might think I am against God because I am an atheist. Do you think I am wicked? If so, is anyone moral in taking my life on that basis?

        That is correct; you are wicked. If you have commit a number of particular evil actions and are killed for them (ie. murder, kidnapping, etc. etc..), you would be responsible for your own death.

        You only need to look to Saudi Arabia or Nigeria to find examples from the Muslim world where people can lose their lives for being “wicked”. I could lose my life in those countries for being an atheist. Maybe you would endose that?

        What does Islam have to do with this? The Bible doesn’t advocate Islam. In fact, you may or may not have noticed that Islam hates the Bible.

        What is the purpose of life? I’m not sure I have an answer for that. I am curious though, to know if you do.

        I already told you.

        How do you know that God wants us to be this way? The bible?

        Yes.

        I see in the bible a man-made object. You and I both know it was written by men. I can go to where bibles are printed and note they are printed on man-made presses. I can find out who did the translations. I can research the histories of each book in the bible, to the extent that they are known. I can trace back a human lineage in the bible to the point where we lose track of who passed what on to whom. But, I see no reason to believe that God sat there with a pen in hand and actually wrote any of it out and then gave it to someone. Do you believe God actually wrote it? Or, do you accept some theory that it was written by men who were divinely inspired? If you believe the latter, on what basis do you determine that they actually were divinely inspired?

        Here’s the basic idea of how to prove the Bible:

        1) Seek God, in sincerity, being willing to do whatever it is that he tells you.

        That’s it. Easy, isn’t it?

        Now, I can tell you that you’d end up learning that the Bible is his Word, and that through it is how he speaks to man. You are correct, in a sense, that men literally wrote physical words down. The idea is that God did indeed tell them what words to write. How do you know the Bible is true and is the Word of God? It has to be revealed to a person from Heaven. This is because this entire topic is spiritual, and it must therefore be spiritually discerned. You won’t be able to verify the text in a purely physical fashion.

        This is why seeking God in sincerity must be done.

        The key question here is, what actually comes from God and how can you determine that it is from God? Accepting it on faith is not an acceptable answer here because you need to convince me.

        Actually, I don’t have to convince you of anything. What do I get out of having you agree with me? In actuality, I may or may not get something out of it, but that’s not the point of my question. I ask this question because you seem to think I have this great personal need to win people for some personal reason. The only reason why we attempt to win people to the truth is because God deserves the service of each and every person.

        Contrary to what you might believe, I could be convinced if you can provide actual evidence and reasoning to back up your position. That is the key…evidence and reasoning. I am not choosing to agree with men over God for the sake of opposing God. I am choosing to agree with some people over others based on evidence and reasoning.

        You haven’t used reasoning correctly. You’re basing many of your statements off of poor assumptions about life, many of which are wrong. There is nothing objective in bringing up someone else’s quote about slavery, for example, and challenging me on my points of view based on what someone else thinks. That’s not objective; that’s a subjective point of view (or at least the way you seemed to present it.)

        Your whole sense of morality is subjective, too. Why do we need to focus on what is good for mankind? For that matter, how do we define good?

        Why isn’t murder morally acceptable? It isn’t acceptable to you, because internally, you know that it is something wicked and evil. This knowledge has been given to you by God, being placed in your conscience. You try to explain the wrongness of murder by attributing it to a sin against humanity only, which is wrong. When I say that various acts of war were sanctioned by God, you bristle, but you also remain completely unable to explain to me why it is wrong in any objective sense.

        As for God, he has never spoken to me. I have waited and even prayed. But, I have never heard voices. I have looked for signs, but never seen anything that I could interpret as being divine. I eventually chose to reject, not God, but the concept of a god, because I could see no reason to believe the concept was anything other than a man-made myth. I am willing to be proven wrong. All it would take is evidence and reasoning.

        You have the witness of Creation that speaks of God. You have the Word of God, which speaks of God and is part of God. You can’t approach God as some sort of experiment only for your personal amusement. The lightness with which some attempt to approach God is absolutely wicked. You couldn’t run up to a human leader, such as a king or a president, with the same lightness, only to test their existence and their power, without risking serious consequences. Do you think God is obligated to give you any special invitation with only your name on it?

        If the witnesses God has given to everyone is not good enough for you, that’s too bad. You’re not on equal terms with God. You can’t demand that he prove himself to you. You’re merely one of the many people that he has created, and it’s your duty to give him the honor and reverence which he so rightfully deserves.

        As I said before, your mission is to seek God. God promises that all those who truly seek him will find him. You can’t be searching for him with any trace of insincerity, though, and claim it to be acceptable. Would you honestly give up everything for the sake of God, or not, were he to reveal himself to you? You have to answer that before you rush out there to make any grand conclusions about myths and facts. Show some respect for God before you ask him to reveal himself to you.

        The Bible says that most of humanity won’t be considered righteous. Yet, I also just said that the Bible says that all those who truly seek God will find him. So what does this mean? It means that most people do not even bother seeking God. And did you, yourself, not say that you didn’t find seeking God an act worthy of your time? You said, “I see no point in trying to know God […]” on a different blog post. Do you not think that when you are judged at the end that this will be more than enough for you to receive the damnation on which many in the world focus? You never bothered honestly to check the evidence in a spiritual pursuit of truth. You have ignored the evidence of Creation, the Word of God, and your conscience, which has the knowledge of good and evil written inside of it.

        Again, if all humanity said one thing and God said another, how could you determine that it was God? As for my strategy, it is not citing men and women and saying, “See? They disagree with God. Why can’t you?” My strategy is to ask, how can you determine that something is from God? Provide evidence and reasoning to back up your claims. I could be swayed.

        You have made up your mind that God is real, no matter what. I have not made up my mind that God is not real, no matter what. All I want is evidence and reasoning.

        Once God reveals himself to a person, that person is able to discern what comes from God and what doesn’t. Primarily, the Word of God is used for such discernment, but it is a spiritual thing, not merely a physical looking up and matching, and even mismatching, of words, as a certain spammer appears to do so frequently here.

        If you are seriously open to the evidence, begin searching for God immediately, however, I consider you a lost cause, personally, though.

      • 23. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 13, 2009 at 10:38 pm

        You probably don’t believe someone testifying of God in any way, partly because some witnesses are plainly false, but also partly because you reject and refuse any and all evidence of God.

        Not true. I just haven’t seen any good evidence for God.

        I asked, Would you ever believe any actual person who told you that God instructed him to kill someone else? If so, on what basis?

        You replied Yes, on the basis that what they say matches what the Bible actually says.

        This is nonsense. Imagine somebody kills another person. He claims the God-defense. Explain on what basis you would accept his defense. That is, provide an imaginary account of how his claim could possibly match what the bible actually says. I will show you aren’t thinking deeply about this.

        That is correct; you are wicked. If you have commit a number of particular evil actions and are killed for them (ie. murder, kidnapping, etc. etc..), you would be responsible for your own death.

        I haven’t committed any evil actions. I haven’t murdered anybody. I haven’t kidnapped anybody. I’ve never committed rape. But, you didn’t know that before you declared that I am wicked. So, on what basis did you claim I am wicked? And would anyone be justified in taking my life on that basis?

        I mentioned Saudi Arabia and Nigeria as examples of places where people can be killed for being wicked. You responded by asking,

        What does Islam have to do with this? The Bible doesn’t advocate Islam. In fact, you may or may not have noticed that Islam hates the Bible.

        I mentioned those countries as examples of places where people can be killed for being wicked. I suppose I should have made pointed questions about this rather than leaving it hanging to be interpreted in any way. Do you advocate a similar approach here in the U.S.? Do you advocate a theocracy where people can be put to death for being wicked?

        Here’s the basic idea of how to prove the Bible:

        1) Seek God, in sincerity, being willing to do whatever it is that he tells you.

        That’s it. Easy, isn’t it?

        Easy for you. You think this lets you off the hook? I was asking you how you can prove the bible, not how I can convince myself. I am of the opinion that the bible is not the word of God. I developed this opinion by studying the book and noting the errors and contradictions that it contains. Now, given that if there is a God, and God created me with the faculties of logical reasoning, I would assume it would please God that I wouldn’t conclude that a book containing errors and contradictions came from him. He would be pleased that I was using the gift of reason for its intended purpose.

        You, on the other hand, have made the assumption that the book is God’s word, and have concluded, based solely on that assumption, that it therefore does not contain errors or contradictions. That is not a logical approach. It’s certainly not a proof. So my question still stands. How would you prove that the bible is from God? (Answering this question could be beneficial to you.)

        You then went on to explain:

        Now, I can tell you that you’d end up learning that the Bible is his Word, and that through it is how he speaks to man. You are correct, in a sense, that men literally wrote physical words down. The idea is that God did indeed tell them what words to write. How do you know the Bible is true and is the Word of God? It has to be revealed to a person from Heaven. This is because this entire topic is spiritual, and it must therefore be spiritually discerned. You won’t be able to verify the text in a purely physical fashion.

        This is why seeking God in sincerity must be done.

        However, this discource follows the attempt to gloss over how to prove that the bible is God’s word. Since you didn’t provide an explanation based on reason and evidence that the bible is the word of God, anything you then say based on that assumption is invalid. It leaves open the questio of how you could demonstrate that God did indeed tell them what words to write.

        Your previous statement ended with you saying, …You won’t be able to verify the text in a purely physical fashion.

        Is this an admission that the bible cannot be demonstrated, based on evidence and reason, to be the word of God? If so, case closed. It has been good debating you. However, I will conclude with some commentary and questions on the rest of your statements.

        Actually, I don’t have to convince you of anything. What do I get out of having you agree with me? In actuality, I may or may not get something out of it, but that’s not the point of my question. I ask this question because you seem to think I have this great personal need to win people for some personal reason. The only reason why we attempt to win people to the truth is because God deserves the service of each and every person.

        God deserves the service of each and every person? What possible way could people serve God? I thought God was all powerful and perfect. How could I possibly be of service?

        You haven’t used reasoning correctly. You’re basing many of your statements off of poor assumptions about life, many of which are wrong. There is nothing objective in bringing up someone else’s quote about slavery, for example, and challenging me on my points of view based on what someone else thinks. That’s not objective; that’s a subjective point of view (or at least the way you seemed to present it.)

        My objective was to start an interesting discussion about your assumption that the bible can be interpreted to be the literal word of God. Thank you, by the way, for participating. I do mean that.

        Your whole sense of morality is subjective, too. Why do we need to focus on what is good for mankind? For that matter, how do we define good?

        Your sense of morality is also subjective. You made the assumption, for personal, subjective reasons, that the bible is the word of God and have based all of your reasoning off of that personal, subjective assumption.

        Why isn’t murder morally acceptable? It isn’t acceptable to you, because internally, you know that it is something wicked and evil. This knowledge has been given to you by God, being placed in your conscience. You try to explain the wrongness of murder by attributing it to a sin against humanity only, which is wrong. When I say that various acts of war were sanctioned by God, you bristle, but you also remain completely unable to explain to me why it is wrong in any objective sense.

        Here is way the various acts of war ostensibly sanctioned by God are wrong. God said, thou shalt not murder. But, in the quote from Deuteronomy 3 he instructed the Israelites to kill every one, including the children. This is plainly a contradiction. However, you try to rationalize this by saying that the killing was sanctioned by God because the people were wicked.

        Were the children wicked? Even the Amorite infants? How so? They haven’t even approached the age of reason. They were incapable of making wicked decisions or having wicked values. The bible also has God instructing the Israelites to kill infants in other places. (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

        Also, we are talking about a god who is supposedly all powerful. If so, why would he have the Isrealites perform the act? Why wouldn’t he take care of it himself? We are not of service to God in any way since he is all powerful. We are certainly not of service when we are breaking the ten commandments. If God were perfect, he wouldn’t give us the ten commandments and then instruct one set of people to wipe out another set of people! There is no possible way you can rationalize that!

        You have the witness of Creation that speaks of God. You have the Word of God, which speaks of God and is part of God. You can’t approach God as some sort of experiment only for your personal amusement. The lightness with which some attempt to approach God is absolutely wicked. You couldn’t run up to a human leader, such as a king or a president, with the same lightness, only to test their existence and their power, without risking serious consequences. Do you think God is obligated to give you any special invitation with only your name on it?

        The reason I can’t test the existence and power of a king or president without consequences is because they are real. The reason I can question the existence of a god without consequences is because it is not real. It’s funny how its the humans who are always dishing out the consequences when others question the reality of their gods. When the Israelites killed the Amorites, it wasn’t a demonstration of God’s power. It was a demonstration of the military power of the Jews. It wasn’t done for God’s sake. It was done for the benefit of the Jewish tribe.

        If the witnesses God has given to everyone is not good enough for you, that’s too bad. You’re not on equal terms with God. You can’t demand that he prove himself to you. You’re merely one of the many people that he has created, and it’s your duty to give him the honor and reverence which he so rightfully deserves.

        I agree that I am not on equal terms with God. I exist. He does not. I have no duty to worship a figment of your imagination. Your imaginations do not rightly deserve honor and reverence from me.

        As I said before, your mission is to seek God. God promises that all those who truly seek him will find him. You can’t be searching for him with any trace of insincerity, though, and claim it to be acceptable. Would you honestly give up everything for the sake of God, or not, were he to reveal himself to you? You have to answer that before you rush out there to make any grand conclusions about myths and facts. Show some respect for God before you ask him to reveal himself to you.

        My mission is to seek God? Who is giving me this mission? You? It can’t be God because I need evidence that he exists before I start running around trying to serve him. That is only rational. I would be honoring God with this pre-requisite since he created me with the faculties of logical reasoning. After all, it would be illogical for me to run around serving your imaginations. That would not please God. It might please you. But, that is definitely not my purpose here on earth. Show some respect for God before I ask him to reveal himself to me? I show God respect by using my faculties of logical reasoning, God’s supposed gift to me, by asking him to reveal himself. I am perfectly willing to show Him respect if he is real and deserving of respect.

        Once God reveals himself to a person, that person is able to discern what comes from God and what doesn’t. Primarily, the Word of God is used for such discernment, but it is a spiritual thing, not merely a physical looking up and matching, and even mismatching, of words, as a certain spammer appears to do so frequently here.

        Once God reveals himself to a person, that person is able to discern what comes from God and what doesn’t… I hope I have made it clear, I am waiting for God to reveal himself. Some sort of evidence would be only fair before I start trying to “serve God”. Some sort of evidence before I start trying to serve an all powerful perfection that somehow needs my service. Some sort of evidence before I start trying to serve a logical contradiction.

  • 24. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 7:32 am

    One should noticed that David and the one that attempted to come to his defense on my blog site both failed miserably to demonstrate their claim of a God is real or any more real than any other God claimed by men.

    One should first establish the truth of their original claim before attempting to make new claims about the apparent lie they begin with.

    If you want to claim that God wants certain things or is about certain things then you should first state the God you are speaking of, prove the God is real and since you believe ONLY your God is real you should demonstrate that no other God is real or that your God is more real than another.

    As I promised on my blog, you will NOT provide ANY of this proof, not a single fact, not a shred of evidence in support of the base, the foundation of all your statements. The belief that your God is real.

    Prove it, I promise you can’t. So, like on my site, you might want to run away.

    Reply
    • 25. mcoville  |  November 13, 2009 at 8:16 pm

      truelogic, grown ups are talking here. Wait until you have something to add before you begin typing.

      Reply
      • 26. truelogic  |  November 15, 2009 at 11:43 am

        Wow, that was a real “grown up” comment for you to make. thanks for your input and demonstrated they real you again. are you just upset with me so you feel a need to follow me around? I am sorry, I am already married but wish you the best with your next infatuation.

  • 27. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 7:51 am

    Let us expose that the “premise” of that God is good is not completely true according to scripture.

    According to Scripture God (Christian form) created evil. Evil comes from him and would not be here if not for him. According to Scripture we can see that a child can not be molested if not for God (the christian form).

    So, let me prove it using scripture:

    We must remember that the God that David an All Others have Not proven to be remotely true happens to think evil is “very GOOD”.

    “And God saw every thing that He had made [‘I make peace, and create evil’ Isa. 45:7] , and, behold, it was very good…”

    Pretty funny stuff, isn’t it?

    God Creates Evil, Does Evil, Instructs Evil and anything else you can imagine, according to Scripture from the Christian Form of God:

    “I create EVIL” (Isa. 45:7)

    Now, I have had many Christians attempt to explain this away and claim evil is translated as calamity. Again, their attempt to deceive and demonstrating that none of them seem to agree, David is just one of many that disagree on the “premise” of his God.

    The word translated “evil” in Isaiah 45:7 is the Hebrew word ra. The Hebrew word for “calamity” is the Hebrew word ade which means “misfortune, misery, or ruin. Whereas the Hebrew word ra means “bad or evil.” It is the same word used for the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil [ra].” It was not the tree of the knowledge of “good and calamity.” Did Jacob really mean to say,“a calamitous beast” had devoured his son?(Gen. 37:33)? Did Israel really “do calamity in the sight of God” by worshipping Balaam, or did they do evil?(Jud. 3:7).

    The Hebrew ra means “bad or evil” and it is used over four hundred times to represent bad or evil, not calamity.

    Some have tried to show that Isa. 45:7 is speaking of “calamity” and not “evil.” Of the nineteen times that the word “calamity” appears in the Scriptures, it is never translated from the Hebrew Word ra, but usually is translated from the Hebrew word, ade.

    As you can see, there is no mistaking God created Evil.

    It is important to REMEMBER these two scriptures in understanding the “premise” of God:

    1. “God is operating ALL in all” (I Cor. 12:6)

    Operate: To Control The Function.

    2. “Yet ALL is of God” (II Cor. 5:18)

    Now, Christian will love to say it is out of context but if we know the overall “premise” of God we know that everything is said to be of him, he created all, planned all, approved all and it is all according to his will. So the above are consistent with the “premise” of God and that “premise” would include God being both Good and Evil. Evil which God sees as being “very Good”.

    I apologize for the length of this Thaddeus but as you have likely witnessed, Christian will attempt anything to claim they are right and no one else is.

    Stick with me and you will see that this God is exposed to be something much different than Christians want you or anyone to know. FACT is that their God isn’t going to literally torture anyone (I will prove with scripture) and their God WILL save ALL MEN ( I will prove with scripture just as I am slowly proving the evil of God). I will also show the reason why God, like any father, would do anything to prevent their child from being tortured in a hell fire and do anything to spend eternity with their children, especially if they have all the power to ensure it can happen.

    Think about it…I will create another reply to finish the evil of God and will repeat some of what is stated to ensure David and others don’t attempt to ignore it.

    Reply
  • 28. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 8:07 am

    As I have established evil is of God and God sees the evil that he created as being “very Good”.

    “I create EVIL” (Isa. 45:7)

    “And God saw every thing that He had made [‘I make peace, and create evil’ Isa. 45:7] , and, behold, it was very good…”

    Again, lets all notice that David and all other Christian still have not bothered to provide a shred of evidence to prove their God is factual or any more real than other Gods. One would think that the original claim of a God being real would be proven before moving on to make other claims about something you haven’t proven to be true yet.

    Imagine if we did that in reality, in science? Claimed something and then based on it maybe claim it would save millions of lives. Then give that claimed substance to millions and find out it actually kills them. Christians don’t realize how important FACTS are in life. History provides us with the great harm religious belief has caused this world because it is a false claim based on nothing.

    So, Created evil and All things. “yet all is of God”. A child is molested? “God operates all in all”.

    The Christian will tell us that it was man that decided to molest a Child. They will also ignore the fact that God apparently stands by and watches it, hears the cries and does nothing with these acts often resulting in a long, torturous, suffering death for children and in some cases babies. Pretty sick, isn’t it.

    However, he no only just watches, God ensures that it will happen.

    How did we get the wicked man to molest a child? He was formed by the potter.

    “…has not the Potter [God] the right… to make… one [vessel] for DISHONOR?” (Rom. 9:19-25).

    Another Witness from Scripture?

    “The Lord has made…the WICKED for the day of EVIL” (Prov. 16:4).

    Again, Remember, “yet all is of god” and “God operates all in all”.

    Did the Devil himself do it and is that an excuse?

    “I [God] created the waster to DESTROY” (Isa. 54:16).

    Apparently, if the Devil has a part to play it wasn’t until God created him for that very purpose. The Devil/Satan, is the waster. Clearly he didn’t fall from being an Angel because he had some free choice to do so. NO, God designed him to be the waster to destroy.

    Do Christians present scripture that tells us “yet NOT all is of God” NO. Do they provide scriptures that state “God is NOT operating all in all”. No, and God doesn’t even imply any of that either.

    You see, if a child is molested, which is very evil in our terms, God did it, he watched it and he planned it.

    Another witness?

    [1] “To every thing there is a season [appointed time],and a time to every purpose [matter or event] under the heaven” (Ecc. 3:1).

    AND:

    [2] “I know that, whatsoever God does…NOTHING can be put to it, nor ANYTHING taken from it: and GOD does it” (Ecc. 3:14).

    Other examples from other versions of the “perfect” word of God:

    “…for He has appointed a time for every matter, and for every work…” (The New Revised Standard Version).

    “For He has set a season for every event and for every deed…” (The Concordant Literal Old Testament).

    Now, Scripture shows us that the Christian form of God appointed the time and the event of a child being molested.

    Proven through scripture.

    Still with me David? Are the other Christians still with me?

    Stick around, more to come!!

    Reply
  • 29. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 8:22 am

    As shown in my last post, the Christian Form of God, according to scripture, is the reason a child is molested, he watches it and lets it happen, He appointed the time for the event, he formed the wicked like a piece of clay to do exactly the dishonor he wanted.

    We can imagine the excuses, can’t we? David will surely come up with some excuse but I promise he will not begin with proven his God is even remotely more real than any other God. I promise!!!

    As shown: God “appointed a time for every matter and every event” and that included what the Devil does and what man does and has done.

    Remember:

    “yet all is of God” and “God is operating all in all” which means:

    “Declaring the END from the BEGINNING…” (Isa. 46:10).

    That is right, everything, appointed, planned, declared and according to “my (God’s) Will”.

    Doesn’t say much for free will, does it? haha.

    Lets stick with the discussion of Evil before I expose the other truths of the Christian form of a God.

    I am sure he or others will come up with an excuse that it must be men that is responsible for such vile acts of molesting a child. Do we need more scriptural witness?

    “O Lord, why have You MADE us TO ERR from your ways…” (Isa. 63:17).

    Seems again we have Scripture, supporting Scripture and supporting the scriptures that say “yet all is of God”. Seems in context, doesn’t it?

    “…so shall the Lord bring upon you ALL EVIL THINGS…” (Josh. 23:15).

    “…Hear, O earth: behold, I [God] will bring EVIL upon this people…” (Jer. 6:19).

    “…I [God] will raise up EVIL against thee…” (II Sam. 12:11).

    “…an experience of EVIL has God given to the sons of man…” Ecc. 1:13

    It seems that God has again planned it all and “God is operating All in All”. To operate means to control the function, in case you forgot, David.

    Out of God’s mouth “proceeds…EVIL” (Lam. 3:38).

    “…I [God] will bring EVIL from the north, and a great DESTRUCTION (Jer. 4:6).

    “…Hear, O earth: behold, I [God] will bring EVIL upon this people…” (Jer. 6:19).

    I guess he said that one to Earth and thus they can not claim it was meant to some individual or out of context they want to pretend is there.

    God told a “lying spirit” to “…go forth, and do so [lie]” (I Kings 22:22).

    To lie is evil, if you ask me. Christian are exposed as liars all the time. What is interesting is that if God can send a lying spirit to delude people, he can send a lying spirit to a person that claims to be Christian so that they will believe anything they state which is not based on facts. Right DAVID?

    “He [God] turned their heart to HATE His people…” (Psalm 105:25).

    “Yet He [God] is SCOURGING [severely beating] every son to whom He is receiving” (Heb. 12:5).

    ok…you still with me David or are have you run away again? Notice the Scriptural support and the logic and I have much more to provide for those that are not afraid of the truth and your Bible and Beliefs being exposed.

    Stick around, i will show how all are saved, none literally are tortured and show why.

    But lets stick with this evil concept first.

    So, what we have noticed is that man really isn’t the issue when it comes to evil and we can’t blame it on Satan either. But surely it isn’t God that does it.

    Reply
  • 30. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 8:31 am

    Yes, my comments are in response to the claims of David and other Christians. Notice, David the Christian doesn’t bother to prove his claims of a God.

    Notice the endless number of Scriptures I provide and much more can be provided. I can even give the logic behind why the Bible is presented as such. Can you David?

    So, I have shown that Man was created to do what he does. He doesn’t have a choice and God is the potter that determined the time and the person and the place for which all will take place. Proven with scripture.

    We can’t blame Satan because God made Satan for a purpose and that was to destroy. Satan is exactly as God planned from the beginning. He didn’t fall like some Christians claim. They don’t have scriptural proof for that claim, do they? Of course not.

    Surely, God isn’t the one that does evil? All the scriptures I posted imply he is the reason for it and is the one that makes it happen but surely he never would admit to it, would he?

    “…shall there be EVIL in a city, and the Lord has not done it?” (Amos 3:6).

    Could I please have another Witness?

    “What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God and shall we not receive EVIL” (Job 2:10).

    Remember:

    “God is operating ALL in all” (I Cor. 12:6)

    “Yet ALL is of God” (II Cor. 5:18)

    Now, one can see with clean, logic that yet all must be of God based on ALL the examples I provided directly from Scripture.

    Can a Christian show me that this is not true and that “yet all is NOT of God”?????

    I don’t think it is necessary but if someone would like, I can post a rather long lest of the evils God claims to do. If you can imagine it, I can show God claims to do it. From being poor, to earth quakes, to famine ……etc….

    Do you want it David or have you already run from the issue and since you are shown to be miserably ignorant of your God, don’t want to read it or comment?

    My next post will be to demonstrate a small number of scriptures that prove what I have stated above.

    Reply
  • 31. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 8:33 am

    David, you can surely find many more since I am the one that you have claimed to be ignorant. Since you are so much more informed than the rest of us, you can surely find many examples. If not, I am happy to provide more:

    Plagues and Diease:
    “Moreover He will bring upon you all the diseases of Egypt, which you were afraid of and they shall cleave unto you. Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of the law, them will the Lord bring upon you, until you be destroyed” (Deut. 28:60-61)

    “The LORD shall smite you with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue you until you perish” (Deut. 28:22).

    Poverty:

    “The LORD makes poor…” (I Sam. 2:7).

    “The rich and poor meet together: the Lord is the maker of all” (Prov. 22:2).

    Famine:
    “Moreover He [God] called for a famine upon the land: He broke the whole staff of bread” (Psalm 105:16).

    “And I [God] will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, among them, till they be consumed from the land…” (Jer. 24:10).

    Afflictions:

    “…the Lord has testified against me, and the Almighty has afflicted [Heb: ‘to make good for nothing’] me” (Ruth 1:21).

    “And the Lord rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them [Heb: ‘hurt and weakened’]” (II Kings 17:20).

    Killing with the Sword:
    “I [God] will consume them by the sword…” (Jer. 14:12).

    “I [God] will scatter them also among the heathen, whom neither they nor their father have known: and I will send a sword after them, till I have consumed them” (Jer. 9:16).

    WAR:

    “The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is His name” (Ex. 15:3).

    “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse, and He that sat upon Him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he does judge and make war” (Rev. 19:11).

    Destruction:
    “Howl! Ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty” (Isa. 13:6).

    “Alas for the day! For the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come” (Joel 1:15).

    “PESTILENCE:

    “And I will smite the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast: they shall DIE of a great pestilence” (Jer. 21:6).

    “If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people…” (II Chron. 7:13).

    Reply
  • 32. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 8:46 am

    You see David, if someone commits Murder, your God has claimed it is of him. If a child is molested, your God planned it and it is “according to” God’s “will”.

    Do you not understand the ALL powerful powers of your Almighty God? “yet all is of God”. ALL…what doesn’t you understand about your God’s word?

    “…Who works [‘operates’] ALL THINGS after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11).

    “For OF Him, and THROUGH Him, and TO Him, are ALL THINGS…” (Rom. 11:36).

    NO, David, it is not of YOUR WILL, or what you imagine is true. Not according to your God’s word. You seem to think it is real and literal so why don’t you believe it?

    Yes, David, everything you do is according to God’s will. Even your lies, according to Scripture which you claim is God’s word.

    What don’t you understand about God’s will, his plan, his desires, his pleasures? He stated his “will” and “desires” and “pleasures” WILL BE DONE. not yours. Do you think you are above God?

    Do you David or is this how you always fail miserably in your opinions and judgments?

    NO, David, you do not choose God, you do not Seek God, you do not do anything of your free choice. it is planned.

    “You have NOT CHOSEN ME, but I have CHOSEN YOU…” (John 15:16).

    Did you see it David, God make the choice, not you. “yet all is of God”. You think you choose him but that would be against Scripture, wouldn’t it?

    “NO MAN CAN COME TO ME] except the Father which has sent me DRAW HIM and I WILL raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44). If you know your Greek, you will notice that this states “Father which has sent me DRAG HIM”.

    That is right, David, it is not your choice, Ooops, you are not as powerful as God and all knowing like you think, are you?

    “There is NONE that seeks after God” (Rom. 3:11b).

    Did you catch that David? NONE. again, PROVING the scriptures I have been providing and that “yet all is of God” and that “God operates all in all”.

    Wow, the person you call ignorant seems to be teaching you what you rather ignore. Why, David, why would you ignore it.

    “For it is GOD which works IN you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

    Did you get that David, God works IN you both to WILL and to DO his good pleasure. Seems I keep finding scripture after scripture to support my point and expose you as a liar, a fake, a fool.

    But feel free to attempt to insult any of us as you have attempted to do to Thaddeus and myself. I am sure that is your practice but it seems “do onto others as you would have done onto yourself” is kind of like Karma, isn’t it, DAVID.

    Can you manage to stay with me David or have you long ran away and or will you attempt to make an excuse for why you can’t address the magnitude of scriptures presented in support of my point or points?

    Reply
  • 33. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 9:04 am

    No David, your faith isn’t even your free choice.

    “For by grace are ye saved through FAITH; and that is NOT OF YOURSELVES it is the GIFT OF GOD” (Eph. 2:8).

    Did you notice that David, “your” faith is not of yourself. No, it comes from God, you don’t make the decision, God does. You can’t have faith if God doesn’t give it.

    You can’t seek him, choose him, believe in him or anything if not for God making it so. “yet all is of God”. “God operates all in all”.

    Ever hear the phrase, “nothing but for the will of God”. I had people tell me that all the time as a child. There is a reason they said it, the believe it, unless it takes away free will. funny, isn’t it?

    “…and what have you that you did not RECEIVE….?” (I Cor. 4:7).

    There is nothing that you have not received, that you can do unless God had planned it, appointed it, desired it, will it….etc.

    So why would you want to deny it unless God wants you to deny it
    OR

    “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men…Full well you reject the commandments of God, that you may keep your OWN TRADITION” (Mark 7:7 & 9)

    You know, commandments like love your enemies, thou shalt not kill/murder. Murder is not ok, molesting a child is never ok, going to war based on lies that your supported President George Bush approved based on lies.

    You have no problem supporting George Bush and therefore the lies, the murder the torture the death of innocent americans for a lie and yet you are against Obama and his desire to help those that are less fortunate.

    and you want to claim you are deciding to follow God’s word that you clearly haven’t a clue of understanding

    Reply
  • 34. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 9:12 am

    No David, you do not get to make that free choice. You do what you are predetermined you will do, what is “before ordained” by God.

    “I am the Vine, ye are the branches: He that abides in Me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit, for without ME YE CAN DO NOTHING” (John 15:5).

    According to God’s Word, Scripture…. what is it that you can do by our own free choice, David? Answer: “NOTHING.” It is Christ “IN him” that brings forth much fruit. You do not bring forth fruit or anything without God making it so, planning it, appointing the time.

    “…being predestinated according to the purpose of Him Who works ALL THINGS after the counsel of His OWN WILL” (Eph. 1:11).

    I just gave you a little more of a scripture i posted before. notice it…predestinated according to the purpose of him. NOT YOU. you are a slave, a robot….according to scripture.

    Why would anyone follow your God that is the person that makes others to molest children when they could believe in Buddha a more peaceful God?

    So, prove your God David, go ahead, prove to use why he is real and why we would follow a almighty child molester?

    Reply
  • 35. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 9:18 am

    Oh DavidC99, what has happened to you?

    You can’t even repent, an evil person can’t repent, a wicked person can’t repent if God doesn’t make it happen.

    No, they don’t even have that free choice to repent on their own. There is only one way they can repent, according to scripture.

    proof? a scriptural witness?

    “Or despise you the riches of HIS goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God LEADS you to repentance?” (Rom. 2:4).

    God’s “leading” is the cause. Can you read DavidC99 or as you claim others do, are you miserably failing to understand, or know anything about the character of your god.

    He provided you an entire book and the other thing that gives you an advantage is that you claim to know God…he is your buddy, clearly, you would have more knowledge about him than I would. Like you stated, I am ignorant so i couldn’t be a sharp as you.

    but this ignorant man is demonstrating I have actually read and understood the word of your God.

    So, DavidC99, i provide an endless number of examples for you and you have yet to prove the one shred of evidence I asked for many times about your God being the one real god and the other are not. show us how your god is more real than others DavidC99 or have I again proven that one of us is truly ignorant about your God.

    You aren’t going to let this ignorant person prove he is right, are you?

    Are you hiding DavidC99?

    Reply
  • 36. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Instead of using Thaddeus’s blog to post my comments, I will rehash my overall evidence here on my blog in a new post just for you DavidC99 and we can do it in the name of your God. Since you are such a good witness of Christ to spend your time blogging and not doing what Jesus asked and taught. You remember, the giving of your possessions, not saving for the future and stuff. Remember all those scriptures I posted to prove you don’t care to do what Jesus asked?

    I even asked you to give your possessions to the poor and go help them so we can prove you will not do what others asked but jesus told you should.

    I will use my blog to finish my statements.

    I will show that ALL men will be saved, that you have no free will, that God does evil, that no one will literally be tortured by literal fire on their literal bodies for a literal enternity, and I will show why.

    Reply
  • 37. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 9:32 am

    Finally, DavidC99 let me provide you with a little logic and a story from scripture that again proves you don’t have free choice. Which again supports the scripture, “yet all is of God” and “God is operating all in all”.

    Jesus stated he could do NOTHING but for the father and you apparently think you can do something that Jesus couldn’t do. Do you think you can do anything that God has not willed, DavidC99?

    Jesus told his disciples that they would deny him. What nerve of him thinking he already know what will happen. So the disciples that believed they had free choice to decide what they would or wouldn’t do told Jesus that ..we would never deny you lord….that would be impossible…right. So jesus again, thinking it is all planned out told them that they would deny him.

    yeah, those silly disciples are just like you and think it is up to them to decide what they will or will not due. So they told him something like this “lord, we will not deny you” and they really believed it.

    What happened DAVIDC99? Did you read the story?

    Let me help you….THEY DENIED HIM!

    Did you catch the logic, did you catch the evidence from scripture, did you catch the many examples that “yet all is of God” and that includes molesting children.

    Go to my blog and see the rest but my guess is you are afraid. i will dedicate it to you.

    Reply
  • 38. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 13, 2009 at 11:26 am

    I must say I appreciate TrueLogic’s efforts in documenting all of this stuff. I have noticed those phrases in the bible where God actually claims to be brought evil in one way or another. But, I never made a study of it.

    It is very interesting to consider.

    Reply
    • 39. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 1:08 pm

      According to DavidC99 I am ignorant and apparently, he knows the word of God, but doesn’t like to provide scripture or explanation or logic to support it.

      He doesn’t know why God has done evil or what it all implies about the overall message of his God. He is one of those hell fire and second death preaching types. He actually believes his bible or God tells him that men will literally be tortured in their flesh and be like that for eternity.

      But we must always remember that his version of God is no more real than any other. We must also remember that his Jesus is a copy of many other God’s that came before Jesus. Some of them had a mother named mary, and a father named Joseph, visited by three, followed by twelve and so on. His Jesus is not original.

      Although i do not believe in the man made gods, the bible can be shown to be a beautiful thing and actually make sense. his version is nothing like that and doesn’t follow the context of the bible as a whole. it doesn’t follow logic in any way either.

      anyway, posted Part 1 of my comments to him on my blog, it is basically what I stated here, a little shorter.

      Part two will show he has no free will which is demoonstrated by part 1 as well. part three will show how ALL men will be saved. Part 4 will show how no men will literally be tortured with fire for an eternity.

      Christians hate it but even Jesus Christ didn’t have free will and he could do “nothing” but for the father. Christian seem to think they have power greater than Jesus.

      anyway, check out the posts on my blog if you want another point of view. of course, there a many views but some include logic and some are not objective on their views.

      some of us have freedom to express and question without worry of torture by fire.

      Reply
      • 40. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 14, 2009 at 2:58 am

        Will do

  • 41. truelogic  |  November 13, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    I can of course provide many examples of how Jesus didn’t even have free will, below are a few. there are many, many more examples

    “For I came down from heaven, not to do Mine Own will, but the will of Him that sent me” (John 6:38).

    “Jesus said unto them, My meat is TO DO THE WILL OF HIM THAT SENT ME, and to finish His work” (John 4:34).

    Jesus didn’t speak his own words.

    “Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I DO NOTHING OF MYSELF: but as My Father has taught Me, I speak these things” (John 8:28).

    “For I have not spoken of Myself; but the Father which sent Me, He gave me commandment WHAT I should say, and WHAT I should speak” (John 12:49).

    “Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, but the Father that dwells in Me, He does the works” (John 14:10).

    Reply
  • 42. Sirius  |  November 13, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    truelogic,

    submission to the will of God isn’t the same thing as a lack of free will; in fact, it demonstrates quite the opposite.

    Thaddeus,

    I presume that you desire an honest response to your objection, but I’ve also tangled with fellows who were simply looking for justifications for their unbelief [or when put positively, reasons not to believe].; they were painting the staied glass window black and then complaining that it never let in any light, as it were.

    So before I consider wasting my time casting pearls I must ask with all candor [and no malice]: Are you genuinely interested in the answers or is this simply a mental exercise to justify your lack of faith in the Bible?

    Regards,
    Sirius Knott
    On behalf of http://Creationletter.com & http://DefendingGenesis.org

    Reply
    • 43. truelogic  |  November 15, 2009 at 11:48 am

      Fact is, I have provided a post on my blog that clearly shows according to scripture you have no free will.

      But hey, I guess if I told children that they better believe in my version of God or they would be tortured for an eternity and that they needed to decide before it is too late. Yeah, I would think those children used their free will to make the decision. knowing their minds are very impressionable, especially when that adult is their mom and dad. It must be true, even if it has no evidence to support it, right. Kind of like that war in Iraq and the morality of torture the Christian right sold us…it must have been true, Fox News and Bush claimed it was and hell, Bush said god sent him on a mission.

      “yet ALL is of God” and “God operates all in all”. if God controls the function all in all, that doesn’t really leave any free will for you.

      if god planned it all, it is all through him, appointed at a specific time, according to his will, his desires, his pleasures the there really isn’t any free will for you. but you need to think there is

      Reply
      • 44. Sirius  |  November 16, 2009 at 12:49 am

        I’m sorry, but haven’t I responded to you on this drivel before, truelogic? Your ill-reasoned argument sounds terribly familiar…

        -Sirius

      • 45. truelogic  |  November 18, 2009 at 1:47 am

        “I’m sorry, but haven’t I responded to you on this drivel before, truelogic? Your ill-reasoned argument sounds terribly familiar…”
        -Sirius

        Apparently, as most religious types believe, they have spoken and therefore it is true.

        I guess Christians had he power to tell the Potter that he would not make them for anything but what they wanted him to make them, form the vessel into?

        I guess “yet NOT all is of God” and “God is NOT operating all in all”. He operates only as you define he operates and he doesn’t only the amount of his Will, Desires, Pleasures that you decide?

        You truly are more powerful than God.

        Jesus had the same problem telling the disciples that it wasn’t up to them what they would do. Jesus told them that they would deny him. Like you, they told him it would never happen, they would even die before that could happen.

        Jesus, being the son of God and all, apparently thought it was according to God’s will and not men. So he told them again, yes, you surly will DENY me. Oh, again, those “free will” believers told him that was impossible. Of course they thought it was as they thought they had free will.

        What happened, Sirus? Go figure, they denied him.

        yeah, i realize you are far better than the disciples and know more than they ever could have known living with Christ. Clearly, you have a power they didn’t have. Jesus himself could do nothing but for the father and he told others that they would do anything but for the father.

        However, Sirius and DavidC99 have the power over their God and can do ANYTHING outside of the will of God.

        praise sirus

    • 46. truelogic  |  November 18, 2009 at 1:39 am

      Sirius states it is so, therefore, it is true? It demonstrates “quite the opposite”? Funny, you neglected to state how it demonstrates quite the opposite.

      We are all basically born Agnostic and don’t know if there is a God or not. If we are born to a Muslim family we will likely grow up to believe in that version of God with all their claims about right and wrong and the character of God. If we are born Christian or Jew, or in a family that follows Buddha or Krishna, the FACT is that we would likely believe in those Gods respectively. That is a FACT.

      Free Will to believe or programmed to believe?

      Now, take the Christian religion for example. They teach their children that if they do not believe like mommy or daddy that the most horrible, unimaginable, unfathomable pain will be inflected onto their LITERAL bodies for eternity with fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. One of the most horrible examples of Child abuse I could imagine. The impressionable mind of a child and that child’s free will to decide after all the facts are in, taken away. Stolen, of his free choice.

      That is one example of how a majority of Christian don’t have free will. Of course, they are now believing this to be trued and are therefore Forced to have free will and believe in ONLY their God. How absurd!!

      Then of course my blog has posted much on the topic recently and it is clear that if God: is the potter that forms the clay for any purpose he wants, his will, his desires, his pleasures are done, he is all powerful, all knowing and planned all things according to his will to happen at an approved time, that men can not have faith of their own free will, cannot come to God of their own, cannot choose god of their own, can do “nothing” but for the father and if as God’s word apparently states, “yet ALL is of God” and “God operates all in all” then clearly, you have no free will. But hey, that is Scripture, what does your God know about his powers and plans. Clearly, you have the power to know him in a way that he states you can not know him. Apparently, you are a God ourself, so you seem to think.

      My blog has a post in Part 1 or maybe it is Part 2 to David that makes it Scripturally and logically clear, you have no free will if God is real and if you are a Christian.

      You are FORCED through God’s hand or brainwashing. Brainwashing is a practice Christian must use in order to get their Children to follow:

      “Those who control what young people are taught, and what they experience — what they see, hear, think, and believe — will determine the future course for the nation.”
      — James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family
      (Again, the brainwashing of our kids)

      Reply
  • 47. Sirius  |  November 13, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    correction: that should read “stained glass”

    Reply
  • 48. DavidC99  |  November 13, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    Not true. I just haven’t seen any good evidence for God.

    You haven’t looked for it.

    This is nonsense. Imagine somebody kills another person. He claims the God-defense. Explain on what basis you would accept his defense. That is, provide an imaginary account of how his claim could possibly match what the bible actually says.

    I already explained it. It’s not objectively nonsense. It’s only considered nonsense by you because you’re blind. This is something which requires spiritual discernment, not physical discernment. I would be judging a person’s actions and claims based on what the Bible says. It says that, for example, a man in his own home can kill a thief that is searching through his house. If that’s the scenario presented, then I would vote for acquittal.

    On the other hand, if someone murders a person in the streets, and claims that he was just randomly told to do it, there does not appear any justification there. He must be able to prove, by way of the Bible, that God approved of his actions.

    I will show you aren’t thinking deeply about this.

    I doubt you’ll be able to do any such thing.

    I haven’t committed any evil actions. I haven’t murdered anybody. I haven’t kidnapped anybody. I’ve never committed rape. But, you didn’t know that before you declared that I am wicked. So, on what basis did you claim I am wicked? And would anyone be justified in taking my life on that basis?

    You are wicked because you deny God the service of which he so rightfully deserves. You deny his existence, live for yourself or others instead of him, and you are actively spending time combating his Word. While all men are technically worthy of death in a sense, the death penalty is usually reserved for particular, extraordinary crimes, such as murder.

    I mentioned those countries as examples of places where people can be killed for being wicked. I suppose I should have made pointed questions about this rather than leaving it hanging to be interpreted in any way. Do you advocate a similar approach here in the U.S.? Do you advocate a theocracy where people can be put to death for being wicked?

    Comparing the Bible to the Islamic mindset of who should be put to death is not smart. I do advocate the death penalty, but through courts and a judicial system, using the Bible as the basis.

    Easy for you. You think this lets you off the hook?

    What makes you think I’m on a hook in the first place? Do you think I’m indebted to give you this conversation in the first place? I gave you serious spiritual advice, and you, not seeming to know what you were given, appear to have despised it.

    I was asking you how you can prove the bible, not how I can convince myself.

    What I gave works for anyone. Don’t nitpick.

    I am of the opinion that the bible is not the word of God. I developed this opinion by studying the book and noting the errors and contradictions that it contains. Now, given that if there is a God, and God created me with the faculties of logical reasoning, I would assume it would please God that I wouldn’t conclude that a book containing errors and contradictions came from him. He would be pleased that I was using the gift of reason for its intended purpose.

    You are partially correct. God does want you to study it and consider it, but God’s Word is spiritual and not physical. The only way you can truly know what it means is not through intellectual power, but through spiritual teaching.

    You, on the other hand, have made the assumption that the book is God’s word, and have concluded, based solely on that assumption, that it therefore does not contain errors or contradictions. That is not a logical approach. It’s certainly not a proof. So my question still stands. How would you prove that the bible is from God? (Answering this question could be beneficial to you.)

    I did not assume this; you are falsely attributing beliefs and a belief structure that is foreign to me. I must protest that this appears to be a dishonest approach by you. I already explained how the Bible is to be verified.

    However, this discource follows the attempt to gloss over how to prove that the bible is God’s word. Since you didn’t provide an explanation based on reason and evidence that the bible is the word of God, anything you then say based on that assumption is invalid. It leaves open the questio of how you could demonstrate that God did indeed tell them what words to write.

    I did provide an explanation based on reason. It is your restriction and assumption that the physical forces of the world must be enough to understand the spiritual matters of the Word of God. Do you seriously think that you, as a man, could fully comprehend God? Do you think you could understand spiritual things without spiritual discernment?

    You are disregarding the spiritual and claiming it to be illogical solely because it is spiritual and not physical. Such dismissiveness is not scientific, but largely ignorant.

    Is this an admission that the bible cannot be demonstrated, based on evidence and reason, to be the word of God? If so, case closed. It has been good debating you. However, I will conclude with some commentary and questions on the rest of your statements.

    No, it’s a clear statement that it cannot be fully demonstrated from the physical to be the Word of God. There are additional bits of evidence from the physical, such as Biblical archaeology, and things of that nature, but the ultimate test is spiritual.

    I will declare victory, however, and declare “case closed” because you have admitted you will not seek God. I’ve done enough by telling you how to find him, but you refuse to seek, seemingly based on the aspect of it not being physical. Why would you not seek him, except because you don’t want to find him, acknowledge him, and serve him? If you don’t want these things, then your conversations regarding God are not done with a prepared heart in sincerity, but out of rebelliousness and wickedness.

    God deserves the service of each and every person? What possible way could people serve God? I thought God was all powerful and perfect. How could I possibly be of service?

    Correct, in the sense that you can’t be a profitable servant to God. You are merely able to do your duty, which is to do what he commands and proclaim his goodness.

    My objective was to start an interesting discussion about your assumption that the bible can be interpreted to be the literal word of God. Thank you, by the way, for participating. I do mean that.

    What about seeking truth?

    Your sense of morality is also subjective. You made the assumption, for personal, subjective reasons, that the bible is the word of God and have based all of your reasoning off of that personal, subjective assumption.

    Spiritual validation is still validation, even if it’s something that you can’t fathom. This means it’s not subjective.

    At least you admitted that you have a subjective standard of morality, but that only calls into question your entire belief system.

    Here is way the various acts of war ostensibly sanctioned by God are wrong. God said, thou shalt not murder. But, in the quote from Deuteronomy 3 he instructed the Israelites to kill every one, including the children. This is plainly a contradiction. However, you try to rationalize this by saying that the killing was sanctioned by God because the people were wicked.

    Were the children wicked? Even the Amorite infants? How so? They haven’t even approached the age of reason. They were incapable of making wicked decisions or having wicked values. The bible also has God instructing the Israelites to kill infants in other places. (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

    Also, we are talking about a god who is supposedly all powerful. If so, why would he have the Isrealites perform the act? Why wouldn’t he take care of it himself? We are not of service to God in any way since he is all powerful. We are certainly not of service when we are breaking the ten commandments. If God were perfect, he wouldn’t give us the ten commandments and then instruct one set of people to wipe out another set of people! There is no possible way you can rationalize that!

    I already explained that the commandment not to kill doesn’t apply to warfare.

    The reason I can’t test the existence and power of a king or president without consequences is because they are real. The reason I can question the existence of a god without consequences is because it is not real. It’s funny how its the humans who are always dishing out the consequences when others question the reality of their gods. When the Israelites killed the Amorites, it wasn’t a demonstration of God’s power. It was a demonstration of the military power of the Jews. It wasn’t done for God’s sake. It was done for the benefit of the Jewish tribe.

    The reason why you may not be struck down dead now is because God is merciful.

    The war’s outcome had very little to do with the military power of the Jews. They only won that war because of spiritual power.

    I agree that I am not on equal terms with God. I exist. He does not. I have no duty to worship a figment of your imagination. Your imaginations do not rightly deserve honor and reverence from me.

    You’re in rebellion against the God-given knowledge that he exists, because you hate the concept of submitting yourself to his will.

    My mission is to seek God? Who is giving me this mission? You?

    God.

    It can’t be God because I need evidence that he exists before I start running around trying to serve him. That is only rational.

    What kind of fruit loop logic is that? God has given you the mission to seek him and serve him. Whether you believe he exists or not has nothing to do with whether or not he gave you this mission.

    I would be honoring God with this pre-requisite since he created me with the faculties of logical reasoning. After all, it would be illogical for me to run around serving your imaginations. That would not please God. It might please you. But, that is definitely not my purpose here on earth. Show some respect for God before I ask him to reveal himself to me? I show God respect by using my faculties of logical reasoning, God’s supposed gift to me, by asking him to reveal himself. I am perfectly willing to show Him respect if he is real and deserving of respect.

    You would be honoring God by seeking him, something which you already said you wouldn’t do. Again, you don’t seek him because you don’t want to find him.

    Once God reveals himself to a person, that person is able to discern what comes from God and what doesn’t… I hope I have made it clear, I am waiting for God to reveal himself. Some sort of evidence would be only fair before I start trying to “serve God”. Some sort of evidence before I start trying to serve an all powerful perfection that somehow needs my service. Some sort of evidence before I start trying to serve a logical contradiction.

    You don’t wait for God; God is supposed to wait for you. *Then* you get the revelation of who he is. In the meantime, you have your conscience, creation, and the Bible all to point you in the right direction.

    Since you have decided that you don’t want to seek God, it’s not likely that you’re worth much more consideration. I explained that you’re guaranteed to find God, and you refused even to search. That is irrational behavior for someone who is willing to embrace truth.

    Reply
    • 49. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 14, 2009 at 3:05 am

      I’ll post more later. But, for your consideration, David, I am posting some definitions of the word objective:

      adj.
      1. Of or having to do with a material object.
      2. Having actual existence or reality.
      3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
      4. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

      n.
      1. Something that actually exists.

      Reply
    • 50. truelogic  |  November 18, 2009 at 1:06 am

      Evidence for God? Which God to you have evidence for, DavidC99. You love to avoid proving that your God is the ONLY true God and is more real than any other God.

      Again, a Muslim or a Krishna can make the statement that you have not truly looked for the evidence of their God and therefore that is why you don’t believe it. A person that believes in Scientology could do the same and it could just as easily be an Alien life form that created us. Have you not looked for evidence and proven that only your God could be real.

      Prove it? I PROMISE you that you can’t prove your God is any more real than any other God (superstition, myth, cult).

      Reply
  • 51. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 14, 2009 at 9:05 am

    David, here’s another definition so we can keep our meanings straight.

    Subjective

    adj.
    1. a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
    1. b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
    2. Moodily introspective.
    3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
    4. Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer’s mind.
    5. Medicine. Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.

    Reply
  • 52. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 14, 2009 at 10:48 am

    OK David. I posted a couple of definitions for you because you seem to have them mixed up.

    Here is why your god and your spiritual experiences are not objective.

    Is your god of or having to do with a material object? No.
    Does your god have actual existence or reality? No.
    Is your perception of your god uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices? i.e., Are you an objective critic? No.
    Is your defence of the existence of god — based on observable phenomena? — presented factually? — an objective appraisal? No.
    Is your god something that actually exists? No.

    Therefore, your god and your spiritual experiences are not objective.

    But, are spiritual experiences proceeding from or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world? Yes.
    Are thoughts about a god
    — particular to a given person? — personal? — a subjective experience? Yes.
    Are spiritual experiences often moodily introspective in nature? Yes.
    Are spiritual experiences existing only in the mind or illusory? Yes.
    Are your descriptions of your god relating to, or designating a condition perceived by you and not by me? Yes.

    Therefore, your god and your spiritual experiences are subjective.

    This is confirmed by your own words, too.

    …God’s Word is spiritual and not physical. The only way you can truly know what it means is not through intellectual power, but through spiritual teaching.

    This is something which requires spiritual discernment, not physical discernment.

    I gave you serious spiritual advice…

    It is your restriction and assumption that the physical forces of the world must be enough to understand the spiritual matters of the Word of God. Do you seriously think that you, as a man, could fully comprehend God? Do you think you could understand spiritual things without spiritual discernment?

    You are disregarding the spiritual and claiming it to be illogical solely because it is spiritual and not physical.

    it’s a clear statement that it cannot be fully demonstrated from the physical to be the Word of God. There are additional bits of evidence from the physical, such as Biblical archaeology, and things of that nature, but the ultimate test is spiritual.

    I’ve done enough by telling you how to find him, but you refuse to seek, seemingly based on the aspect of it not being physical.

    Spiritual validation is still validation, even if it’s something that you can’t fathom.

    So in your own words we have an admission that your god and your spiritual experiences are subjective, not objective.

    Now, in an earlier post I said, Imagine somebody kills another person. He claims the God-defense. Explain on what basis you would accept his defense. That is, provide an imaginary account of how his claim could possibly match what the bible actually says. I will show you aren’t thinking deeply about this.

    You replied,

    for example, a man in his own home can kill a thief that is searching through his house. If that’s the scenario presented, then I would vote for acquittal.

    On the other hand, if someone murders a person in the streets, and claims that he was just randomly told to do it, there does not appear any justification there. He must be able to prove, by way of the Bible, that God approved of his actions.

    Here I agree with your answer. My question was based the notion that God would instruct someone to kill another person because they are “wicked” in the sense that you might claim I am wicked for not believing in your god. This would fit your statement that a random killing justified by invoking God does not appear to be justified.

    In an earlier post I said,

    You, on the other hand, have made the assumption that the book is God’s word, and have concluded, based solely on that assumption, that it therefore does not contain errors or contradictions. That is not a logical approach. It’s certainly not a proof. So my question still stands. How would you prove that the bible is from God? (Answering this question could be beneficial to you.)

    You responded,

    I did not assume this; you are falsely attributing beliefs and a belief structure that is foreign to me. I must protest that this appears to be a dishonest approach by you. I already explained how the Bible is to be verified.

    But, I just showed how your beliefs and your god are subjective. Therefore, your ‘explanation’ of how to verify the bible is absurd. I stand by what I said. This also means that I am still waiting for evidence and reasoning which you have so far failed to provide.

    In an earlier comment I said,

    Your sense of morality is also subjective. You made the assumption, for personal, subjective reasons, that the bible is the word of God and have based all of your reasoning off of that personal, subjective assumption.

    Earlier I demonstrated how this is true by quoting your statements about how to verify God’s existence. To turn your words back on you, At least you admitted that you have a subjective standard of morality, but that only calls into question your entire belief system.

    I also earlier said,

    Here is way the various acts of war ostensibly sanctioned by God are wrong. God said, “thou shalt not murder”. But, in the quote from Deuteronomy 3 he instructed the Israelites to kill every one, including the children. This is plainly a contradiction. However, you try to rationalize this by saying that the killing was sanctioned by God because the people were wicked.

    I then asked some very pertinent questions about the killing of innocent children:

    Were the children wicked? Even the Amorite infants? How so? They haven’t even approached the age of reason. They were incapable of making wicked decisions or having wicked values.

    Your response, I already explained that the commandment not to kill doesn’t apply to warfare, fails to answer my questions. Please discuss how God’s instruction to kill the children does not contradict the commandment, thou shalt not murder.

    So, if you care to try again, I am waiting for objective evidence and reasoning that would support the notion of God’s existence. I am also waiting for you to address how God’s instructions to the Israelites to murder innocent children does not contradict his commandment, thou shalt not murder. Failure to do so satisfies my claim that your god is either, not real, or evil. This would also prove my earliest point, that you cannot interpret the bible literally.

    Reply
  • 53. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 14, 2009 at 11:11 am

    Sirius,

    I understand if you are busy you may not have the time to discuss these issues. However, I invited you because you started the creation letter. You are advocating that Christians who accept science and therefore, presumably, don’t accept the Genesis account as literal truth should be opposed. In other words, you are advocating that Christians turn their backs on evidence and reason in favor of the bible’s subjective account for creation. I invited you to try to answer my question about slavery to demonstrate that a literal reading of the bible will ultimately fail the reader.

    In other words, I am asking you to defend a literal reading of the bible. If you care to try defending a literal reading, go for it. David is failing in his attempt. Also, understand that I will expand the discussion to the points already addressed about God’s instructions to the Israelites to commit murder. If you want to start by explaining how God’s instruction to murder children does not contradict his sixth commandment, that would be get to the heart of the matter.

    Reply
    • 54. Sirius  |  November 16, 2009 at 1:36 am

      Tad,

      Why should a literal interpretation of the Bible fail on the basis of whether you agree with whether the Bible allows for or condones [two separate issues, I might add] slavery or not? ie, Why should it fail on the basis of your subjective approval?

      As for whether David is failing or not, I suppose that’s a matter of opinion. How much dynamite would we need to bring down that wall of presuppositional bias you’re hiding behind, I wonder?

      Of course, if we want to bring up genuine failures, how about your failure to account for the context of the passage as understood by the original audience and the speaker – not by your current cultural understanding of the text. [My favorite misreading of this type concerns the NT word “conversation” which was clearly understandable to everyone in King James’ day as meaning your manner of lifestyle, but which today is generically taken to mean simply the way you talk or the content of said talk. Ah, cultural drift…] As David correctly [ie- correctly, as in NOT mistakenly] noted, “Thou shalt not kill” was not a blanket prohibition on all killing. Hunters could still kill for food. Armies could still kill their enemies. Government could still exact the death penalty. They certainly weren’t expected to just sit by and let someone else murder their family.

      I am forced to add here that no thinking man would assume it were otherwise, save to foist their own agenda upon us.

      The “murder of children” was an act of war. as such, it was not “murder” per se. Murder is the unlawful killing of another individual. Now, I don’t know if you’ve ever paid much attention to the Palestinian situation or ever given much thought to the actual mechanics of war except to burn your draft card or your bra or whatever, but the current situation over there hasn’t changed much over the centuries. If you leave the children alive, the children grow up to avenge their parents. They also tend to try to bring back their Daddy’s false religions, which was the given reason that God gave for said order to wipe out every man, woman and child in the Canaan campaign. Guess what? They ignored God’s order on several occasions and,predictably, they began following after false gods and were forced to contend with various hostile Canaanite civilations like the Philistines when they should have simply wiped out the lot of them like they were told to. Their childrena nd their children’s children [and so on and so forth] suffered both spiritually [and eternallly!] and physically [mortally!] for their leniency and disobedience. So I’m sorry if your 21st century hippie cultural bias is getting in the way of seeing the situation as it has ever historically existed, but God was justified in such an order, no matter how unpalatable you may find it personally. I’m sure you’re own grandchildren would have thanked you for leaving those kids alive to later rape, pillage, murder and sacrifice their children to false heathen gods. Your compassion is exemplary. I’m sure they’ll canonize you upon your death for your short-sighted cultural condemnation of a necessary act of war.

      Wow. That brings up another point: In a Fallen world, where sin exists and people do tend to do the things they ought not to and fail to do the things they should [the positive and negative definitions of sin, btw], war and slavery do exist. They probably always will. If God then says nothing about slavery and pretends it does not exist, He allows people to do what they want. And I’m sure, given your problem with the “murder” of children that you would never countenance God’s order to summarily execute all prisoners. I’m sure you would say, “Just let the prisoners go. We’ll build more Twin Towers. They promise to be good, right?” Oh. Wait. That might be bad. We could let them rot in jail, I suppose, but what good does that do us or them? I suppose you’re against prison labor camps and road crew too, eh? Much better to give them cable and access to the internet, celebrate their murderous poetry and musical offerings and, well, you get the idea. And what is forced prison labor except slavery by any other word?

      On a different note, I’ve noticed that you seem to think you don’t need Jesus in order to be saved. Are you a Christian?

      -Sirius Knott

      Reply
      • 55. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 16, 2009 at 10:03 pm

        Sirius,

        I replied at the end of the comment stream.

      • 56. truelogic  |  November 18, 2009 at 1:25 am

        Murder of Children in war is not murder because murder is the unlawful killing of an individual.

        Lawful would be defined by a society. To those religious types that caused the death of 9/11 your logic would say that it was no murder, because from their perspective they were at war with America, therefore it was not Murder. They declared war on us.

        On the other hand, in Iraq, we declared war on them based on many lies, wmd, ties to 9/11 and then since all those claims fell through, because we wanted to bring freedom and take out a bad man. To you, it is not murder because you may have support it and deemed it war. Torture is thus not torture since it was done for war. Even if the war was clearly illegal, criminal act to invade a country that had done nothing to us but happens to have terrorist living in that country. Wow.

        I can tell you that if you or another country went to ‘war’ with my neighbor and killed them it would be murder. If you happened to kill someone in my family in your war against them, I would consider it murder and I could promise you that you would then see me as a terrorist towards you as I would surly come to get you.

        So, we in the USA went to war against terrorist. In the process innocent people were killed. People not associated with terrorist and that father that lost a son likely views it as murder. It is murder but you can twist it as you wish.

        Like the Christians of the old country and even our early America, they MURDERED in the name of God. Yes, if they wanted your property or didn’t like you they only needed to call you a witch. To them it was not Murder as they did it in the name of God and God directed it, his word did and some claimed God pesonally spoke to them and thus it as Good.

        Kind of like George Bush who told us God agreed with his plan in Iraq. Then he also stated “God sent him on a mission” in Iraq.

        That does not make it moral or Good. It makes such acts more vile and excuses and gives those that commit acts like 9/11 to make more excuse for their God approving moral murder.

        WTF?

        It appears those of us without a God happen to have more respect for life.

  • 57. DavidC99  |  November 14, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    Thaddeus:

    Does your god have actual existence or reality? No.

    This is an actual lie. You are merely denying reality. My God is definitely real, and I can assure you that he’s not happy with you.

    In your statement to Sirius, you wrote:

    In other words, I am asking you to defend a literal reading of the bible. If you care to try defending a literal reading, go for it. David is failing in his attempt.

    Again, you lie. Not only did I defend it properly, but it irritated you enough to write an entire post on why you were not ready for my answers. In fact, you were so unhappy with the responses that you received from me, that you compared my intellect to that of a little child’s, insulting me as being “some sort of moral retard.” Did I strike a nerve simply by agreeing with God?

    I gave you a way for you, yourself, to repeat a spiritual experience in finding God, so that it is not just my own experience, but yours as well. Repeatability is something which science demands, and I laid out the entire thing for you to find God and be righteous in his sight. You have refused it, because you don’t want to find God, but rather you want to rebel in his sight and deny his existence. You are then being intellectually dishonest by refusing to search for God and yet demanding evidence for something of this nature.

    You’re like a stupid scientist who says that someone else’s experiments are subjective, because the results were only observed by the original experimenter and not by him. All this scientist has to do is repeat the same steps to achieve the same results. His refusal to do this, and his demand to be shown the results without the experiment doesn’t make him scientific; it makes him foolish.

    You’re probably look for others to answer this topic, because you failed to properly convince me to back down from a literal reading.

    Your response, “I already explained that the commandment not to kill doesn’t apply to warfare,” fails to answer my questions. Please discuss how God’s instruction to kill the children does not contradict the commandment, “thou shalt not murder.”

    Now you’re just denying the answers I provide. It’s one thing not to like an answer; it’s another to deny that it is an answer in the first place. But since you deny God, you must deny truth.

    Since you’re being irrational, it may be time I cease commenting here.

    Reply
  • 58. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 14, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    David,

    There is a website called godchecker. It lists various gods from around the world. Here are just a few:

    SHANGO
    BUMBA
    ELEGUA
    ESHU
    OBATALA
    ABASSI
    OLORUN
    YEMAYA
    ANANSI
    ORISHAS
    ALCHERA
    RAINBOW-SNAKE
    WANDJINA
    DREAMTIME
    ALTJIRA
    ADNOARTINA
    BAIAME
    ULURU
    EINGANA
    YARA-MA-YHA-WHO
    QUETZALCOATL
    HUITZILOPOCHTLI
    CHANTICO
    OMETECUHTLI
    TEZCATLIPOCA
    ACOLMIZTLI
    COATLICUE
    TLALOC
    PIQUETE-ZINA
    CHALCHIUHTLICUE
    BONDYE
    BARON-SAMEDI
    LOA
    ORICHAS
    OGOUN
    AIDA-WEDO
    ERZULIE
    BARON-CIMETIERE
    MAMAN-BRIGITTE
    DAMBALLAH

    Are these gods the same as your god? Yes or no? Are the beliefs the same? Yes or no?

    You said,

    I gave you a way for you, yourself, to repeat a spiritual experience in finding God, so that it is not just my own experience, but yours as well.

    If it is so repeatable, how come people all over the world have tried it and come up with so many gods? They don’t all come to your god. People follow your advice, they think and pray and come to very different conclusions. In my case, I did follow your advice when I was younger. I sought God, I prayed. I went on a spiritual journey that led me to be comfortable and confident that there is no god who is looking forward to torturing me for eternity because I used my mind to reach the conclusion that He doesn’t exist. How do you know that I am not right? The fact is, you don’t. You have your beliefs and I have mine.

    Reply
    • 59. truelogic  |  November 15, 2009 at 12:05 pm

      Don’t you know, all those Gods are real. Notice the question they NEVER answer.

      Provide evidence that YOUR version of God is real and since you believe ONLY your God is real then show the others are not.

      I have promised DavidC99 and many of the Christians that come to my bog. NONE of them have provided that evidence.

      Some give me what they say is evidence. One will say, look around you, look at yourself, that is proof. Oh, really? Proof of the version of the Christian God? Of only ONE God? Their “evidence” and “proof” is the very same evidence and proof that every follower of any God can provide and often do provide. Try telling that to a follower of Krishna or Allah.

      Instead of first proving which of the Gods they claim are real, they start making claims about their God and they can’t back those claims up either since the first claim is a lie. What a web.

      Reply
      • 60. DavidC99  |  November 15, 2009 at 12:14 pm

        “I have promised DavidC99 and many of the Christians that come to my bog.”

        Um, I can’t say I ever visited his “bog.”

        Unless maybe……

  • 61. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 15, 2009 at 3:59 am

    David,

    As for who won the debate, I did. Here’s why. I set out at the beginning to show that you can’t rely on the bible as the literal word of God. I showed from your book how your god contradicts himself. He says, thou shalt not murder. But, I also showed how your god told his people to commit genocide.

    You justified this by claiming that killing in war is “sanctioned” by god. I agree that some killing in a just war can be justified. But, I pointed out your god instructed his people to kill everyone, including the innocent. That would be children, even infants. You stand by that as moral. That is why you have lost. I showed that this is a moral contradiction. You are left with admitting you were wrong and that a literal reading of the bible leads to moral contradictions, or you can choose to ignore the contradiction and embrace a god that sanctions genocide. Unfortunately for you, you chose the latter.

    You refuse to explain, using your own reasoning, how this is not a contradiction. That is because you can’t. It is a contradiction, plain and simple. On some level, you recognize this. I can see that you do because you have chosen to not answer my very valid questions about the killing of children. You did not explain how intentionally killing children in warfare is sanctioned by your god. You can’t. You have lost.

    The real reason you have lost is because you embrace a god who condones murder, slavery, and even genocide. You stand by this god and proclaim that these acts are moral. That’s moral idiocy.

    I know that you think that as long as you stand by your god you will be saved in the end. Fine, go down that path. But, don’t invite me to seek your immoral god because I will not prostrate myself to evil. I can see that your conception of god leads to some very evil positions. I will not do it. I can see that murder, rape, genocide and slavery are all evil. I can also see that your god endorses that. I am not going to serve that, or respect it, or worship it.

    Reply
  • 62. DavidC99  |  November 15, 2009 at 4:09 am

    Here’s only a few indications of how you lost:

    1) You thought no one would defend the Bible when challenged. You were wrong.
    2) You insulted me for following the Bible. You were wrong.
    3) You pretended that the Bible contradicts itself. You were wrong.
    4) You refused to listen to reason when I explained what you thought was a contradiction was not. You were wrong.
    5) You admitted you have no objective moral standard, but you insist that you can judge me by your own subjective moral standard in an objective sense. You were wrong.
    6) When you asked for proof of God, I explained part of who he is and what you had to do to find him, and you refused to seek him, arguing that he needs to go win you over. You were wrong.
    7) You lied that God is not real. You were wrong.
    8) You had to start this repeated declaration of victory, because, in actuality, you have lost. You were wrong.

    Time and time again, you were wrong. I have clearly won this debate, and it’s not for my brilliance, but for two reasons.

    1) You’re an intellectual lightweight, and a pathetic debater.
    2) God wanted you to lose.

    And you’ll continue to lose in life with this arrogant and rebellious attitude towards God.

    Reply
    • 63. truelogic  |  November 15, 2009 at 12:31 pm

      David, was insulted? Here is what David stated to me when he thought I felt insulted: David wrote “If it bothers you, I don’t care. Suck it up. Live with it. Someone on the Internet thinks you’re ignorant. Big deal.”

      Suck it up, David, take your own advice. Big deal, someone on the internet thinks you’re ignorant. Classic.

      Just so happens I showed exact Scriptures where the Bible contradicts, David ran like a frightened child.

      What he really runs from is the FACT that he couldn’t prove his claim about his God being real and no other God could be real. I promise you David, you can’t provide the evidence to show that any other God is any less real than yours.

      Notice how Christians put the blame on others for why they can’t find their version of God. It is everyone else’s fault, always.

      Notice how David ran from Scriptures showing his God is not the God taught in his literal bible.

      Seems little David doesn’t want you to insult him but by the way he thinks you are “an intellectual lightweight, and a pathetic debater”. Wouldn’t Jesus be proud? haha.

      He hasn’t figured out that God wanted him to lose. David, can you prove God didn’t want you to lose? There must be a reason you are such a classic loser. “yet all is of God”.

      Notice, his Christian judgement of others but notice how he can’t prove it. Notice how he has no ability to look in a mirror and see which one is really pathetic.

      When we ask you to prove your version of God is real it doesn’t mean we are asking you to “explain part of who he is and what you have to do to find him”. WTF? FACT is, a muslim will tell us the same about their God.

      David, does that mean Allah is real? Oh, it seems we see the real pathetic intellectual light weight, don’t we David.

      David was so clearly shown to be wrong in all his words on my site that he ran from the debate. But funny thing, he didn’t have a problem coming back and making one off statements to others.

      I can give you evidence that demonstrates Jesus was Gay, if Jesus was real. All you need to do is ask Jesus if he was gay and he will tell you he was a gay man. I guess that proves you don’t really know him. that is the kind of logic you Christians make. it is your fault that you didn’t ask Jesus, if you were spiritually blessed like the rest of us you would already know. See how pathetic your arguments are. you spout off at the mouth about any nonsense and then blame others for why they can’t see you imaginary proof. wow.

      Reply
    • 64. truelogic  |  November 15, 2009 at 12:40 pm

      I guess it is important for David’s ego that someone other than him lost..haha. I guess that is why he runs from a true debate and don’t answer direct questions.

      What’s wrong David, you have a problems in your life. Maybe something personal you hide from others? Your behavior is one of that follows a pattern indicating you have some other personal issues.

      I would recommend readers check my blog and notice part 1 and part 2 of me exposing christian lies and I even do them in your honor DavidC99.

      truelogic’s weblog….DavidC99 ran like a Scriptural and intellectual lightweight soon after he came across me.

      Doesn’t seem to like direct questions he can’t provide proof for.

      Reply
    • 65. truelogic  |  November 16, 2009 at 12:37 am

      Notice that DavidC99 also seems to imply that Thaddeus isn’t objective or doesn’t have an objective moral standard.

      David, is REQUIRED to believe in his God or he will be tortured for an eternity of unfathomable pain by fire where their will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Really, he believes he is objective?

      David also believes if he follows this mythical word of his Version of God (all other Gods are wrong according to him, he just can’t prove it) he will be REWARDED with eternal life, happiness, never being sick again and be with the creator of all things how loves him, loves him so, so much. Maybe the love he didn’t get elsewhere?

      If Thaddeus is an agnostic or an atheist then he is not threatened with horrific torture or promised great rewards. Thaddeus is free to choose.

      Tell us David, which one is more likely to be objective? Yeah, you…right? haha. It seems your intellectual superiority isn’t so superior, David.

      The great part is that I am posting Part 3 of my posts today. I am exposing the lies of Christianity and of course David.

      David, I can give you the information to find Allah but if you can’t find him through the repeatable experiences the “science demands” then it is your problem you don’t believe. ….of course that statement is bull shit but it is no different than what you told Thaddeus with respect to your version of God..

      only a dishonest, intellectual fool would attempt to make such claims/lies without proving ANY of it. Like you told me, if someone insults you on the internet, “no big deal” live with it…

      Christian hypocrisy….DAVIDC99 exposed again

      Reply
  • 66. truelogic  |  November 16, 2009 at 8:21 am

    Thaddeus, I just posted Part 3 of my exposing the lies of Christianity for the sake of Davidc99 and to help any of those that might have been harmed by his lies.

    One can read each part separately and see they make sense. After you read them all, you start to see how it all fits nicely with Scripture and is leading to an explanation of this Christian God that is opposite of what most Christians teach. Excuse my sarcasm as that is there to help David with his ego..haha.

    Basically, since ALL is of God, including evil, and we can’t even come to god or say we believe in god out of free will (it is all of him) then we must all be saved. part 3 provides the evidence we are all saved.

    when I finish part 4, it will show that all scriptures I posted for 1, 2, 3 and 4 will show context of scriptures are not only correct, a God of love, mercy and compassion ends up being truly full of love mercy and compassion, not torturing maniac.

    however, it doesn’t change the fact that their God is not more real than any other…haha

    Reply
  • 67. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 16, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    Sirius,

    Thanks for your reply.

    Last things first. You asked,

    On a different note, I’ve noticed that you seem to think you don’t need Jesus in order to be saved. Are you a Christian?

    I was raised Catholic. As a teenager, I was challenged by a Christian of a more fundamentalist persuasion to read the bible because I was shown to be ignorant of large swaths of the book. I took up his challenge. When I did read it I noticed logical and moral contradictions as well as numerous errors. After a long emotional and intellectual struggle I became an atheist. I admit that my beliefs sometimes sway to a more agnostic interpretation.

    You noticed that I don’t seem to think I need Jesus in order to be saved. I would ask, saved from what?

    You said,

    Why should a literal interpretation of the Bible fail on the basis of whether you agree with whether the Bible allows for or condones [two separate issues, I might add] slavery or not? ie, Why should it fail on the basis of your subjective approval?

    You use the word ‘subjective’, probably because I used it in an earlier response to David. David saw that and used it to declare victory. But, David was wrong to do so. Here’s why. My admission that I have a subjective morality came from this statement. Your sense of morality is also subjective. Note the word also. What I said implicitly to David, and what I will state here explicitly is this: I am skeptical of claims to objective morality. I would like to believe that morality is objective, but I have found no reason to do so. I admit that my morality is subjective, but I am also claiming that yours and David’s morality are also subjective. The burden of proving subjectivity does not rest with me. It rests with you proving that your beliefs are objective. This is because you are claiming to have something I and some others do not see — an objective source for your morality. In two earlier posts I quoted definitions for the words objective and subjective. Since morals are not physical entities, you could show your morality as being objective by showing that it is based in fact. Since you base it on the bible, you have to show that the bible is factually from God, or that it can somehow otherwise be derived from facts. Otherwise, my claims in an earlier comment that the bible was written by men stands. And, men have subjective standards of morality.

    You said,

    Of course, if we want to bring up genuine failures, how about your failure to account for the context of the passage as understood by the original audience and the speaker — not by your current cultural understanding of the text. [My favorite misreading of this type concerns the NT word “conversation” which was clearly understandable to everyone in King James’ day as meaning your manner of lifestyle, but which today is generically taken to mean simply the way you talk or the content of said talk. Ah, cultural drift…] As David correctly [ie- correctly, as in NOT mistakenly] noted, “Thou shalt not kill” was not a blanket prohibition on all killing. Hunters could still kill for food. Armies could still kill their enemies. Government could still exact the death penalty. They certainly weren’t expected to just sit by and let someone else murder their family.

    So, are you claiming that the original meaning of thou shalt not murder included an exemption for killing innocent, defenseless children? I will point out that innocent, defenseless children are no imminent threat to kill Jewish families. Otherwise, I don’t get your point. (I also notice that if the Amorites were to slaughter Jewish families, that would be murder in your words. But, if the Jews slaughter Amorite families, that falls under some sort of divine exemption.)

    You went on to say,

    The “murder of children” was an act of war. as such, it was not “murder” per se. Murder is the unlawful killing of another individual. Now, I don’t know if you’ve ever paid much attention to the Palestinian situation or ever given much thought to the actual mechanics of war except to burn your draft card or your bra or whatever, but the current situation over there hasn’t changed much over the centuries. If you leave the children alive, the children grow up to avenge their parents. They also tend to try to bring back their Daddy’s false religions, which was the given reason that God gave for said order to wipe out every man, woman and child in the Canaan campaign. Guess what? They ignored God’s order on several occasions and,predictably, they began following after false gods and were forced to contend with various hostile Canaanite civilations like the Philistines when they should have simply wiped out the lot of them like they were told to. Their childrena nd their children’s children [and so on and so forth] suffered both spiritually [and eternallly!] and physically [mortally!] for their leniency and disobedience. So I’m sorry if your 21st century hippie cultural bias is getting in the way of seeing the situation as it has ever historically existed, but God was justified in such an order, no matter how unpalatable you may find it personally. I’m sure you’re own grandchildren would have thanked you for leaving those kids alive to later rape, pillage, murder and sacrifice their children to false heathen gods. Your compassion is exemplary. I’m sure they’ll canonize you upon your death for your short-sighted cultural condemnation of a necessary act of war.

    Wow, I guess you are claiming there was an exemption for killing innocent, defenseless children. Are you also suggesting that Israel could solve its “palestinian problem” with genocide? I hope not!

    First, you said that the killing of these children was an act of war and, as such, was justified. Are all acts in wartime justifiable? I know the old saying about love and war, but that’s not your objective source of morality, is it?

    I will argue that this intentional killing of children during war does constitute murder. In order for an intentional killing to be considered lawful, this killing needs to be carried out because of an imminent threat to the Jewish people and that there were no better options for them. These are at least two arguments that a prosecutor would bring up in prosecuting a case of alleged murder.

    I will argue that murdering innocent defenseless children was unnecessary (and therefore wrong) for the Jews by pointing out that you don’t need to kill them in order prevent them from coming back in the future and exacting revenge. Let’s just assume for the moment that it was necessary to kill all of the adults. Native Americans are known to have adopted the children of their enemies after killing the adults in war. That would be a more moral option than killing the children. So, right there I have shown that other options existed. The killing of the children was unnecessary and therefore immoral. They were innocent and defenseless, and other options existed.

    Now, you are saying God was justified in giving that order. But, God was fully capable of carrying out his own intentions without asking the Jews to do so. If God is all powerful and all good he could have done so. But, instead, he has the blood of innocent, defenseless children smeared on the hands of his people, the Jews. So, here we see that God, too, has other, better options. This would make God’s decision in this matter to be immoral. Although, I admit, it wouldn’t make for much of an interesting story. I will also bring up an even better option than creating the Amorites only to slaughter them. He could have not created them at all. But, again, the story would have suffered.

    Also, you are assuming that “those kids” would have come back to “rape, pillage, and sacrifice their children to false heathen gods.” But, that was not guaranteed. You would need to show that “those kids” would have immediately tried to retaliate and that the Jewish people would have been overwhelmed by them if they had tried. Again, it was not necessary for “those kids” to have been killed. (Interesting that they cease to be “children” when you discuss the need to slaughter them. They morph into “kids”, which is a euphemism for the young offspring of goats. Could it be that subconsciously you are morally repulsed by taking up your side in this argument?)

    You also said,

    Wow. That brings up another point: In a Fallen world, where sin exists and people do tend to do the things they ought not to and fail to do the things they should [the positive and negative definitions of sin, btw], war and slavery do exist. They probably always will. If God then says nothing about slavery and pretends it does not exist, He allows people to do what they want. And I’m sure, given your problem with the “murder” of children that you would never countenance God’s order to summarily execute all prisoners. I’m sure you would say, “Just let the prisoners go. We’ll build more Twin Towers. They promise to be good, right?” Oh. Wait. That might be bad. We could let them rot in jail, I suppose, but what good does that do us or them? I suppose you’re against prison labor camps and road crew too, eh? Much better to give them cable and access to the internet, celebrate their murderous poetry and musical offerings and, well, you get the idea. And what is forced prison labor except slavery by any other word?

    Here you are making a lot of wrong assumptions about me that are, at best, tangentially related to the topic of genocide.

    Now, to summarize — I claim to be skeptical of your claims to have an objective morality. The burden of proof rests with you to show that your basis of morality is factually based. You need to show that God authored the bible, using evidence and reasoning. I have also shown that other, better, options existed for the Jews who committed the genocide. Therefore, their decision to commit genocide was immoral. I have also shown that other, better options existed for your god. Therefore, your god was immoral. I also showed that the assumptions you made vis-a-vis the future behavior of “those kids” has not been substantiated. The Jews were under no imminent threat from the children of the Amorites.

    The ball is in your court, Sirius. By the way, I like your name.

    Reply
  • 68. truelogic  |  November 18, 2009 at 1:12 am

    DAVIDC99 tells us that the Bible is literal and yet I have provided a few examples to him in comments on my blog to show how completely wrong he is. The Bible is full of figurative or symbolic meanings that are not literal. Some people actually believe a man lived in the belly of a whale an that is what the story describes. They don’t understand the symbolic meaning.

    Take this lake of fire that Christians love to push and clearly they hope that it is true so all those people that disagree with them will be tortured..haha. Their explanation of their belief, however, contradicts the idea that the lake of fire is literal. They teach that the lake of fire is literal fire that burns like real fire, but they then contradict the literalness of this fire by teaching that it doesn’t actually burn up anything: It just causes INSANE PAIN. But really, can a fire that doesn’t actually burn up physical, material things, be called a literal fire? And although I’ve heard many state that this metaphor is literal, this group certainly denies the literalness of the second death because they don’t believe they ever die and lose consciousness.

    It is a physiological impossibility for a literal fire to cause pain on the nervous system of a person and yet never actually kill them and burn them up if the fire is applied etrnally. Furthermore, real fire does not cause symbolic or figurative death–real fire causes real death.

    But hey, in the world of make believe, they can create any claim and as we have witnessed from the many religions, with a sample of religions provided by Thaddeus, they all make their own claims and believe their claims are true.

    Like I have stated, not one Christian or believer in any other God has EVER proven that their God is the only real God or that their God is any more real than any other.

    Simple FACT.

    Reply
    • 69. mcoville  |  November 18, 2009 at 8:29 pm

      No one can prove to you the existence of clouds if you refuse to open your eyes.

      Reply
  • 70. Sirius  |  November 30, 2009 at 8:22 am

    @truelogic:

    Um, yes, the Bible does contain symbolic and figurative meanings. In fact, it’s a rather moldy straw man you’ve thatched together to suggest that those who hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible do not account for figures of speech, symbolism, round numbers, metaphor, etc, where the text clearly calls for it. Sorry, falselogic, but you really shouldn’t resort to such rhetorical tricks to try to make your case.

    Back to the subject: It is the context of the text as intended by the author that determined whether the meaning will be literal or not, not what you want it to be.

    As for your further claim that “not one Christian or believer in any other God has EVER proven that their God is the only real God or that their God is any more real than any other.” Ha! Ha! Hahahahahahahaha! HA!

    Can you PROVE there is no God at all? Of course not! You cannot kknow everything there is to know in the universe. You cannot rule out the possibility that God does not in fact exists. And don’t invoke the Noodly One, bro. I’ve amply fielded that one on my site and will simply take it as an unintentional admission that you CAN’T prove God doesn’t exist- cuz that’s what it is. Your atheism is based on FAITH however reasonable [or otherwise] not Proof, so kindly accept the charred stubble of your poorly-conceived straw man and don’t bother thatching it together again, thank you very much.

    Yet I have to wonder if you’ve really thought out your objection. You’re sure that Christians haven’t demonstarted that our God is more real or probable than the others.Dude, you HAVE heard of the Resurrection, right? You’ve heard of the supernatural verification of the Holy Bible, namely fulfilled prophecy, right?

    I challenge you: Read my article on Resurrection Apologetics and give me an answer for the reasonable weight of evidence: http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/resurrection-apologetics/

    But let’s be honest, you’re not going to change your mind because evidence isn’t the issue. It’s a matter of faith for you.

    -Sirius Knott

    Reply
  • 71. Sirius  |  November 30, 2009 at 9:27 am

    @Thaddeus”

    You said:

    I was raised Catholic. As a teenager…. blah, blah blah… After a long emotional and intellectual struggle I became an atheist. I admit that my beliefs sometimes sway to a more agnostic interpretation.

    So basically, your Christianity is associated with your childhood. You never had a personal commitment that that had to withstand any trial by fire [unless you count the one it failed], so you never were a committed Christian to begin with and you certainly aren’t now. I get it.

    You said:

    You noticed that I don’t seem to think I need Jesus in order to be saved. I would ask, saved from what?

    Um, from the deserved earnings [wages] of sin. Sin being defined by most conscious adults as willful acts contrary to Universal Moral Law and omissions of benevolence which violate one’s conscience which is based on Universal Moral Law. I understand that you deny said Universal Moral Law, which means you’ll never, ever watch my children. I and the rest of thinking humanity beg to differ. You see, in general, every culture agrees that rape, murder, theft, adultery, et cetera are immoral. You will of course invoke the Straw Man of Deviations from the General Norm, ignoring the painfully obvious fact that they are deviations from the universally acknowledged norm, aka the Universal Moral Law that pervades humanity. If you were more sophisticated in your defense of atheism, you would attempt to account for it without making yourself look simply stupid by denying it’s existence. Christendom anticipates a general pattern of morality that pervades humanity with individual and even cultural deviations. People have this tendency to rebel against what the Bible calls in Romans 2 “God’s law written on our hearts.”

    I realize that you find said Universal Moral Law unpalatable, suggesting as it does a LawGiver, someOne to whom we are all accountable. But our conscience and revelation [you know, the Bible] reveal that we have broken said Law. To wit, everyone has done things they know they shouldn’t have and have failed to do things they ought to have. There are penalties for breaking the Law if said Universal Moral Law does in fact exist. Universal Moral Law being historically recognized and philosophically established, if you care to read outside your atheistic comfort zone, the burden of proof that it does NOT exist is actually on the accuser, who has thus far brought insufficient evidence by which to charge the established position of the defendant, as it were. I realize that you were trying to accomplish the same sort of slippery end-run that folks try when they play that absurd Flying Spaghetti maneuver, but it really doesn’t work against someone who’s familiar with this debate.

    In a final note, when Christianity also acknowledges that we know what we ought to do, but we do otherwise, this is usually termed as our sin nature inherited through Adam. By this sin nature, we are all guilty before God. Just as a king brings the entire kingdom to ruin. Or a corrupted program may be copied, but said copies will not be free from said corruption. To wit, there are no innocent children, though they may be defenseless. You never have to teach a child to lie. It’s in their programming. So by sin of commission or omission or by inherited nature, we are guilty before the LawGiver.

    And that is the answer to your rather blithely sneered, “saved from what?” How did you miss this, being raised in Catholicism?

    You said:

    “Are you also suggesting that Israel could solve its “palestinian problem” with genocide? I hope not!

    The Palestinians need to get off Israel’s land and quit lying to the world about their peaceful intentions when they’re only interested in grabbing more land and, inevitably, ousting Israel. Not to put too fine a point on it, I’d say Israel needs to give them a final eviction notice and the insufferable United Nations needs to fulfill it’s own obligations by helping Israel carry out said notice.

    Having said that, we’re speaking of a historical application not a general one, so kindly burn that Straw Man and stick to the matter at hand.

    Likewise, you said:

    First, you said that the killing of these children was an act of war and, as such, was justified. Are all acts in wartime justifiable? I know the old saying about love and war, but that’s not your objective source of morality, is it?

    Moving the goalpost a bit, aren’t we? Again, we’re speaking of a specific historical application, not a general principle, so please stick to the subject. I realize that you mistakenly think morality subjective; do you also call into question the existence of objective logical fallacies? The only valid question here is whether this act was justified and, well, only God would know if there were viable alternatives. Again, you suggest that there were, but since God’s warnings of the consequences of disobedience proved true, it seems you’re grasping at hypothetical straws – and thatching them into yet more straw men! That’s quite an impressive industry you’ve got there, sir!

    You said:

    “I will argue that this intentional killing of children during war does constitute murder. In order for an intentional killing to be considered lawful, this killing needs to be carried out because of an imminent threat to the Jewish people and that there were no better options for them.” These are at least two arguments that a prosecutor would bring up in prosecuting a case of alleged murder. I will argue that murdering innocent defenseless children was unnecessary (and therefore wrong) for the Jews by pointing out that you don’t need to kill them in order prevent them from coming back in the future and exacting revenge. Let’s just assume for the moment that it was necessary to kill all of the adults. Native Americans are known to have adopted the children of their enemies after killing the adults in war. That would be a more moral option than killing the children. So, right there I have shown that other options existed. The killing of the children was unnecessary and therefore immoral. They were innocent and defenseless, and other options existed.”

    You have only demonstrated that some Native Americans chose a different option, not that other options existed for the Israelites. In doing so, you are comparing apples to oranges. You are also IGNORING HISTORY, for what God warned would occur if they DIDN’T wipe out the Canaanites actually happened because they DIDN’t wipe them out! Score one for God’s foreknowledge; zero for your hypotheticals.

    Which brings up a key point here: God is omniscient. He knows everything. You… don’t. God has access to all possible variable and outcomes. You… again… don’t. What God warned would occur if the Israelites ignored His command happened because they ignored His command. Again, so much for your hypothetical “other options.” I’m guessing you think you know better than God knowing only a small portion of the picture. How’s your gift of prophecy these days?

    I think you see my point even if you won’t acknowledge it. The burden of proof to impugn God is on you – and you simply lack the knowledge base to ever actually do so.

    You said:

    “Interesting that they cease to be “children” when you discuss the need to slaughter them. They morph into “kids”, which is a euphemism for the young offspring of goats. Could it be that subconsciously you are morally repulsed by taking up your side in this argument?”

    Um, no. We seem to be suffering a bit of a cultural disconnection. In my neck of the woods, we usually refer to our children as kids and it never, ever brings up even a subconscious reference to baby goats. Sorry to disappoint.

    I’ll just be honest with you: You do not seem at all familiar with the particulars of this debate nor do you seem particularly interested. At this point, I’m only answering your objections to show you that there are answers, whether you accept them or not. The Bible warns not to cast pearls before swine or to answer fools according to their folly.

    If you have anything else to say to me or to ask of me, you know where to find me.

    Sirius Knott

    Reply
    • 72. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  November 30, 2009 at 5:12 pm

      Sirius,

      To re-summarize my most recent comment:

      I claim to be skeptical of your claims to have an objective morality. The burden of proof rests with you to show that your basis of morality is factually based. You need to show that God authored the bible, using evidence and reasoning. I have also shown that other, better, options existed for the Jews who committed the genocide. Therefore, their decision to commit genocide was immoral. I have also shown that other, better options existed for your god. Therefore, your god was immoral. I also showed that the assumptions you made vis-a-vis the future behavior of “those kids” has not been substantiated. The Jews were under no imminent threat from the children of the Amorites.

      You did not show that you have an objective basis for your morality. To show this, you would have to show that the bible was indeed authored by God. You failed to do this.

      You said,

      You have only demonstrated that some Native Americans chose a different option, not that other options existed for the Israelites. In doing so, you are comparing apples to oranges. You are also IGNORING HISTORY, for what God warned would occur if they DIDN’T wipe out the Canaanites actually happened because they DIDN’t wipe them out! Score one for God’s foreknowledge; zero for your hypotheticals.

      Which brings up a key point here: God is omniscient. He knows everything. You… don’t. God has access to all possible variable and outcomes. You… again… don’t. What God warned would occur if the Israelites ignored His command happened because they ignored His command. Again, so much for your hypothetical “other options.” I’m guessing you think you know better than God knowing only a small portion of the picture. How’s your gift of prophecy these days?

      This is nonsense to the extent that you have failed to provide evidence and reasoning that shows God exists and authored the Bible.

      You also said:

      I think you see my point even if you won’t acknowledge it. The burden of proof to impugn God is on you — and you simply lack the knowledge base to ever actually do so.

      No. Perhaps you don’t understand the finer points of logical argumentation. I have no burden of proof since I am not claiming to see something that others do not. Neither of us can see God or provide direct evidence for him. Therefore, I do not have a burden to prove he does not exist. Just as I don’t have a burden to prove the non-existence of a spaghetti monster, or pink fairies, or the Egyptian god Horus. But, since you are claiming that your god exists and that he authored the Bible, you would need to demonstrate that. Otherwise, your argument that “God has access to all possible variable and outcomes” falls flat on its face. What God?

      On this basis, my challenge that other, better options existed for both the Israelites and God vis-a-vis the Amorites still stands.

      ————

      You said,

      So basically, your Christianity is associated with your childhood. You never had a personal commitment that that had to withstand any trial by fire [unless you count the one it failed], so you never were a committed Christian to begin with and you certainly aren’t now. I get it.

      No. Perhaps I didn’t explain this well enough. I was raised a Catholic. I began to question the errors and contradictions in the Bible as a teenager. I didn’t stop questioning them, but I also did not stop pursuing the Christian god at that moment. I continued to seek him into adulthood. I made the choice, as an adult in my early thirties, to become an atheist on the basis of the evidence that I had at hand.

      I said,

      You noticed that I don’t seem to think I need Jesus in order to be saved. I would ask, saved from what?

      You responded with the following:

      Um, from the deserved earnings [wages] of sin. Sin being defined by most conscious adults as willful acts contrary to Universal Moral Law and omissions of benevolence which violate one’s conscience which is based on Universal Moral Law. I understand that you deny said Universal Moral Law, which means you’ll never, ever watch my children. I and the rest of thinking humanity beg to differ. You see, in general, every culture agrees that rape, murder, theft, adultery, et cetera are immoral. You will of course invoke the Straw Man of Deviations from the General Norm, ignoring the painfully obvious fact that they are deviations from the universally acknowledged norm, aka the Universal Moral Law that pervades humanity. If you were more sophisticated in your defense of atheism, you would attempt to account for it without making yourself look simply stupid by denying it’s existence. Christendom anticipates a general pattern of morality that pervades humanity with individual and even cultural deviations. People have this tendency to rebel against what the Bible calls in Romans 2 “God’s law written on our hearts.”

      You are the one who is setting up straw men. I never said that rape, murder, theft, and adultery are immoral. Let’s not forget, you are the one who is defending these on a Biblical basis. If anyone needs to be kept from children, you do. I merely said that I don’t believe that we have a factual basis for morality. That would include you. You haven’t been able to show otherwise.

      Christians often claim that atheists are immoral by definition. This seems to be your claim. But, that is absurd. Who is immoral here — me for saying that genocide is wrong, or you for defending it?

      The reason that murder, rape, theft, and adultery are regarded among non-Christians — as well as most Christians — to be immoral is because these behaviors can universally be seen to be against our own self-interest. If these behaviors are tolerated they could come back to bite any one of us.

      You also said:

      In a final note, when Christianity also acknowledges that we know what we ought to do, but we do otherwise, this is usually termed as our sin nature inherited through Adam. By this sin nature, we are all guilty before God. Just as a king brings the entire kingdom to ruin. Or a corrupted program may be copied, but said copies will not be free from said corruption. To wit, there are no innocent children, though they may be defenseless. You never have to teach a child to lie. It’s in their programming. So by sin of commission or omission or by inherited nature, we are guilty before the LawGiver.

      And that is the answer to your rather blithely sneered, “saved from what?” How did you miss this, being raised in Catholicism?

      My “saved from what?” question was another way of saying that I don’t believe in your god or the promises of punishment that you claim to await me. It is another way of saying that your god is as powerless as all other imaginary objects.

      Your defense of genocide seems to rest on your claim that “there are no innocent children” who tell the truth at all times. By that standard, all children would become candidates for murder by your God or his Christian servants. Unbelievable.

      I said:

      Are you also suggesting that Israel could solve its “palestinian problem” with genocide? I hope not!

      You responded:

      The Palestinians need to get off Israel’s land and quit lying to the world about their peaceful intentions when they’re only interested in grabbing more land and, inevitably, ousting Israel. Not to put too fine a point on it, I’d say Israel needs to give them a final eviction notice and the insufferable United Nations needs to fulfill it’s own obligations by helping Israel carry out said notice.

      Since the Palestinians have lived there for millenia, on what basis do you think they should “get off Israel’s land”? Is there any difference bewteen this claim and another absurd claim that the Native Americans should have gotten off the land belonging to the European settlers?

      —-

      In summary, you have failed to show that there is an objective basis for your morality. Therefore, all of your arguments are undercut by your own failure to back up anything you claim with evidence and reasoning. My claims that your god is immoral and the actions of the Israelies were immoral when they slaughtered the Amorites still stand.

      I do not have any obligations to disprove your god, in the same way I have no obligations to disprove the existence of any other imaginary objects. However, you DO have an obligation to demonstrate that your god is real. Until you can do so, everything you claim is unsubsantiated.

      Reply
      • 73. Sirius  |  November 30, 2009 at 7:43 pm

        Thaddeus,

        I reluctantly find myself compelled to correct your misunderstanding of the debate at hand.

        1. The burden of proof is always upon anyone challenging an established position. Atheism is, well, an established minority. A belief in deity is the norm. Ergo, atheism has the burden of proof. The Flying Spaghetti dodge attempts to turn the tables on the defendant without establishing [pay attention here. I don’t want you to miss this] evidentiary support to the contrary, ei – objective rerasonable cause as to why the defense’s position should be cast in doubt. A subjective “I don’t see it,” doesn’t quite measure up. You need a weight of evidences and arguments to back that opinion.

        2. This is beside the point, since neither side can PROVE there is a God or there is not. If you ask me to prove there is no such thing, you hold your own belief to a different standard than that by which you judge yours reasonable. You can’t absolutely prove there is no God. Your Flying Spaghetti Monster dodge is an unspoken concession of this point, which misses the point entirely!

        3. Since neither side can PROVE their case, each rests on a reasonable weight of evidences and arguments. Absolute proof is impossible, so each side must decide how much evidence is enough to be reasonably convincing.

        4. Christianity submits the historical authenticity of the ressurection of Christ Jesus and fulfillment of Biblical prophecy as supernatural evidence which can be reasonably examined – a claim no one religion can make! So much for Horus!

        Therefore I defy you to take up the same challenge I issued truelogic concerning my Resurrection Apologeticsd post, which demonstrates the veracity and authority of Christ Jesus’ claims to deity and the Bible’s claim to divine revelation.

        5. It must be noted that reason does not compel acceptance, so there exists the possibility that you will reject the truth of God’s existence anyway.

        6. It must also be noted that we’re treading over well-packed earth. Don’t pretend as if no evidence for the existence of God exists, especially since this debate is not at all new.

        7. I expect cowardice on your part.

        On a different note, how does your claim that God doesn’t exist demonstrate that the Israelites and God must have had better options. Sorry, but you’ve given me a non sequitur here, by intention or accident.

        Farewell,
        Sirius Knott

    • 74. Thaddeus Dombrowski  |  December 1, 2009 at 6:20 am

      Sirius,

      I agree that I cannot prove in an absolute sense that your god does not exist. Just as you admit you cannot prove his existence. However, I have the advantage of being able to say with total credibility that I do not see your god, just as you do not see him. I do not hear your god. Neither do you. You may insist that you do “hear” him in that you may interpret the voices in your head as his voice. But, that is a subjective experience that cannot be used as a basis for evidence for anyone but yourself.

      Christianity is the established norm in the sense that ‘established’ means ‘accepted’. But, it is not accepted on the basis of hard evidence. It is accepted on the basis of faith. I don’t have that faith. To the extent that faith is needed before your god can be ‘established’ you have a chicken and egg problem when speaking to skeptics. However, I don’t lose credibility by pointing out that I can’t see or hear the god you claim exists. Because… neither do you.

      To the extent that your argument is resting on a limb made of claims that a particular imagination of yours is real, you do still have to demonstrate its reality somehow. To the extent that I am basing my claims in what is already accepted to be real I do not have that hurdle to pass.

      You said in your fourth point:

      Christianity submits the historical authenticity of the ressurection of Christ Jesus and fulfillment of Biblical prophecy as supernatural evidence which can be reasonably examined — a claim no one religion can make! So much for Horus!

      I have reasonably examined the claims for the authenticity of the ressurection of Christ Jesus and fulfillment of Biblical prophecy as supernatural evidence and found them wanting. So much for Christ!

      You have also noted that “reason does not compel acceptance.” I have noted this trait among many Christians. It is less common among atheists. Should I expect this of you?

      You said, “I expect cowardice on your part.” Why do you expect this? It is a hollow claim from a man without reasonable arguments.

      On a different note, how does your claim that God doesn’t exist demonstrate that the Israelites and God must have had better options. Sorry, but you’ve given me a non sequitur here, by intention or accident.

      To the extent that God doesn’t exist I have demonstrated that the Israelites had better options because they did not have an omniscient being feeding them moral instructions based on some sort of morality optimizing algorithm. To the extent that God doesn’t exist I am arguing that God is nothing more than a figment of the Israelites’ collective imagination. To that extent, they are using their claims of God’s existence to justify their own actions. To the extent that you buy into this, you are giving them a pass on a crime against humanity and are imagining your god to be some sort of monster. To the extent that God resides in our imaginations, couldn’t you do a better job of imagining him to be perfect? At least you wouldn’t find yourself trying to defend the indefensible.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Calendar

November 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Dec »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

Most Recent Posts


%d bloggers like this: