Originally posted by SuzianneYou have doubts over whether the story is true? How many people do you think survive being swallowed by fish?
By any human moral criterion. The Bible's contents prior to the Book of Job arguably demonstrate why (and how) our standards are not God's standards. I often wonder who wrote the Book of Job, and why did the Council decide to keep it in what became "our Bible". Just probably the moral story involved, the difference between the embodiment of evil a ...[text shortened]... t reminds one of one of Aesop's fables. Still, the lesson is interesting to ponder, either way.
I think you are right to see it in the same vein as one of Aesop's fables, but I don't see that the story is about the "difference between the embodiment of evil and God", the moral point is connected with his refusal to blame God for his misfortune, despite the inordinate provocation. In other words the faithful shouldn't turn from, or start hating, God simply for the misfortune in their life - nothing that happens could be as bad as what happened to Job and he didn't turn from his God. That's where the focus is, the bet between God and the Devil is just a narrative device to set the scene. So I don't think that moonbuses' criticism here quite works. On the other hand it's not hard to find ethically problematic parts of the Bible that are clearly intended as histories, for example the last of the plagues to beset Egypt - God "hardens Pharoah's heart" to cause him to prevent the Israelites from leaving and kills the first born in revenge for the Pharoah's actions, having effectively ensured that that was how the Pharoah would act, solely for the purpose of showing the world how mighty he is.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtTry explaining to Hinds or KellyJay that the whole of Genesis is 'just a narrative device' !
You have doubts over whether the story is true? How many people do you think survive being swallowed by fish?
I think you are right to see it in the same vein as one of Aesop's fables, but I don't see that the story is about the "difference between the embodiment of evil and God", the moral point is connected with his refusal to blame God for his mis ...[text shortened]... hat was how the Pharoah would act, solely for the purpose of showing the world how mighty he is.
God "hardens Pharoah's heart" to cause him to prevent the Israelites from leaving and kills the first born in revenge for the Pharoah's actions, having effectively ensured that that was how the Pharoah would act, solely for the purpose of showing the world how mighty he is.
Actually, Exodus says both. Pharoah hardened his heart and God hardened his heart. It says both.
Sometimes it appears to me that Pharoah hardened his own heart and God came in to make sure it was good and hard then. But it is one of those arguable things.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOriginally posted by DeepThought
You have doubts over whether the story is true? How many people do you think survive being swallowed by fish?
I think you are right to see it in the same vein as one of Aesop's fables, but I don't see that the story is about the "difference between the embodiment of evil and God", the moral point is connected with his refusal to blame God for his misfor ...[text shortened]... at that was how the Pharoah would act, solely for the purpose of showing the world how mighty he is.
"...the story"?
DT, ever occurred to you that it may well be an accurate literal account?
Also, ever "swallow" a minced sardine or anchovy?
Only two options: a vertical viewpoint | or a horizontal one: ----------
GB
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
"Do atheists hate the God they don't believe in?" (by Matt Slick)
"People behave according to what they believe not what they don't believe. When an atheist says that God doesn't exist or denies Him or works hard to disprove His existence, he is behaving in a manner that is consistent with what he believes. Likewise, when an atheist speaks against God by accusing Him of immorality, then he is displaying his disdain for God. Christians often encounter such displays of contempt for God when atheists cite God-ordered Old Testament events that atheists believe are morally wrong. When they do this, they are demonstrating their scorn for God by accusing Him of doing what is wrong and, therefore, being wrong. Disdain, contempt, and scorn are all synonymous with hate.
Of course, atheists will say that they can't hate what they don't believe in. But if that is the case and they actually deny that God exists (either by positive denial or passive lack-of-belief), then they are expressing denial of the Christian concept of God by not properly affirming Him. Now, if the Christian concept of God is true and God actually exists, then it would be necessarily true that the atheists are expressing their disdain/hatred for the true and living God, especially when they accuse Him of wrong doing. Either way, those atheists who work against God's existence and also accuse Him of evil are doing so based on what they believe, namely, that God does not exist and the God of Scripture is morally wrong. Again, people behave according to what they believe, not what they don't believe.
What I think is interesting is that atheists have two problems--among many. First, they cannot establish that God does not exist. Yes, I know about the problem of disproving a universal negative and demonstrating that God doesn't exist anywhere, anytime. They can't. This is why they retreat into the "lack of belief in God" position. It's safer intellectual footing for them to stand on because it is less assailable. Of course, the "I lack belief in God" position has its weaknesses, too. But I digress. Atheists cannot demonstrate that God does not exist, so they often say there is no evidence for God's existence or that the evidence presented is not sufficient. However, evidence is a subjective concept since what may be evidence for you may not be evidence for me (see What is evidence?). Plus, evidence has validity based on a person's assumptions. Therefore, it is the assumptions that need to be examined.
Second, when atheists accuse God of being immoral and express their disdain for Him, they are making moral judgments. But, they have no objective moral standard by which they can make such judgments. They can assert that it is their opinion that God is wrong, but their opinion doesn't make Him wrong. They can say that society judges God to be wrong, but what makes the society correct? There are many kinds of problems that arise when atheists assert that the God of Scripture is somehow morally wrong for doing something. Then when confronted with their inconsistencies, they continue to deny Him and accuse Him of wrongdoing. Why, if He doesn't exist to them? It seems more plausible to say they hate God, at least in a mild sense, and their disdain is manifested in their actions.
Nevertheless, to reiterate, people behave according to what they believe, not what they don't believe. Second, whenever an atheist accuses God of immorality, he is passing a condemning judgment upon God and displaying his moral contempt for Him. Therefore, in his contempt, he is revealing his hatred for the God he does not believe in." https://carm.org/do-atheists-hate-the-god-they-dont-believe-in
_________________________
Question: What do you believe?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHow do you debate or discuss yourself when you only communicate by:
[b]Spirituality
"Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after." ~Russ[/b]
1. Using one word replies, like 'why?' or 'so.'
2. Copy and paste text not of your own design.
3. Quote the opinion of someone famous.
4. Quote the opinion of someone imaginary. (Child anon. Vivian)
5. Say you will reply later,....and never do.
Where in the above is your sincere attempt to debate or discuss anything with anyone?
