Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i am not certain god exists. i believe in his existence because it is more comforting and because being wrong in this case has absolutely no impact on my life. there will be no god of the atheists after i die to send me to atheist hell because i believed in something that didn't exist after all.

[b] Most theists I know claim that they are betting on thei ding to the life you lived, not the name you gave your god.


the last was answered above

[/b]
Sorry for butting in late here, I was just wandering around the threads and came across this post, forgetting it was 1/2 way through the thread. Hopefully I am not just repeating someone elses point...

...i believe in his existence because it is more comforting and because being wrong in this case has absolutely no impact on my life. there will be no god of the atheists after i die to send me to atheist hell because i believed in something that didn't exist after all.

This is Pascal's wager and it is not very sensible, you still loose by believing, you have just wasted time and effort on it as well:

Let's assume the atheist is wrong and God does exist, however he is not the God you are worshipping. He is in fact, a god who damns all who do not follow his book to the letter or who have not been baptised (or an equivalent of it) to eternal torment. Then you loose because you worship the wrong God. There are variants of both Christianity and Islam, and probably many other religions, that teach that any who do not follow their particular religion are damned. The chances of you having hit the right one are miniscule.

Further, given that there is no objective evidence for the existance of any god at all, maybe God exists but deliberately hid himself. He values critical thinking and will punish anyone who believes without scientific evidence. Then only the likes of Dawkins would be saved and you loose because you worship an illogical concept. Oh the beautiful irony!

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We have clearly misunderstood each other completely.
I asked some questions about what Christians do believe, and your reply what what the Vatican doesn't believe. I consider that irrelevant. I really cant see how that is "deciding what theists have to believe in". I simply don't care whether they don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, or what they t ...[text shortened]... eems willing to speak against it.
Your continual evasion of the question speaks volumes.

morals and laws are what society creates for the individuals to live acceptable lives from society's point of view.

what was moral then may not be moral now. maybe in a hundred years the people will call us monsters for eating meat. change is present in every organism including religion. if one changes the religion it doesn't mean one is betraying god but rather adjusting the dogma to current society. after all, even god introduced change when he sent Jesus.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We have clearly misunderstood each other completely.
I asked some questions about what Christians do believe, and your reply what what the Vatican doesn't believe. I consider that irrelevant. I really cant see how that is "deciding what theists have to believe in". I simply don't care whether they don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, or what they t eems willing to speak against it.
Your continual evasion of the question speaks volumes.

I don't see any questions that haven't been answered. Can you do a list of the precise questions you wanted answered?

I want an explanation as to whether or not the common form of punishment of stoning was considered moral by God at the time and if not why nobody (including God) seems willing to speak against it.
I already mentioned that the Vatican has an encyclical speaking expressly against the death penalty. What is more explicit than that?

Your continual evasion of the question speaks volumes.
Since I didn't evade anything, your glossing over my previous answer speaks volumes.

Originally posted by Penguin

Sorry for butting in late here, I was just wandering around the threads and came across this post, forgetting it was 1/2 way through the thread. Hopefully I am not just repeating someone elses point...

...i believe in his existence because it is more comforting and because being wrong in this case has absolutely no impact on my life. there will b ...[text shortened]... d you loose because you worship an illogical concept. Oh the beautiful irony!

--- Penguin.

by your argument, maybe the only god that exists is one that would have us sacrifice children to him. i wouldn't have followed that god under any circumstance.

if i am to waste my time in believing without proof, i believe in the God i would be most proud to follow.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
by your argument, maybe the only god that exists is one that would have us sacrifice children to him. i wouldn't have followed that god under any circumstance.

if i am to waste my time in believing without proof, i believe in the God i would be most proud to follow.

if i am to waste my time in believing without proof

I'd rather put it withoout objective evidence but you have essentially hit the nail on the head there: believe what you want but be under no illusions that you have any real chance of being right if there is no real evidence to base your beliefs on.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Apparently to justify having distasteful stuff in the Bible. As I said, it is all about refusing to openly admit that it could in fact be wrong. You keep telling us to discard the idea that Christians are literalists yet you keep pointing us to literalists. Why? Why cant you show us some references to people who essentially admit that much of the OT is wrong.

I will admit that much of the OT is wrong. Will that do?

If the OT was spot on there would have been no need for an NT.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Gee whiz scottie, it's like you think what you read today would have meant the same thing when it was written thousands of years ago.

If you want to interpret stuff, you have to be creative and above all there has to be some point to your interpretation. Here's an example: http://www.trinitymcc.com/worship/sermon_God_gays3.htm

Not a bad effort. ...[text shortened]... esus and the woman caught in adultery, which pretty much addresses all the 'stoning' laws?

Gee whiz scottie, it's like you think what you read today would have meant the same thing when it was written thousands of years ago.

I never thought I'd say this to you Bosse, but, "SECRET DECODER RING TIME"!!!!

If you want to interpret stuff, you have to be creative

You say that like it's a good thing. Apart from the barbarocity of their meaning, which Christianity seeming doesn't want to own (newsflash guys, if God is real you don't get to choose the bits you like - you have to take him as he is - and he has a lousy PR man), why shouldn't we accept the written words for just what they actually say? Because they're not what our 21st century values hold to be "good"??

Of course the point of your interpretation is solely to attack something that you don't even understand -- not even from a historical viewpoint.

Oooooo, saucer of milk, table 9.

I mean, surely you're aware of the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, which pretty much addresses all the 'stoning' laws?

Of course. Not very consistent this God, is he? I'm expecting "thou shalt not kill" to be overturned any time soon. He seems to like reversing laws when they're not politically correct anymore.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I will admit that much of the OT is wrong. Will that do?

If the OT was spot on there would have been no need for an NT.

I will admit that much of the OT is wrong. Will that do?

Finally! Someone with the guts to admit it!!

So, what's wrong in the NT now??

Originally posted by Palynka
Why don't you look at what the people who do believe in the Bible have to say about that?

From "The interpretation of the Bible in the Church" (Vatican):

Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But ...[text shortened]... g over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.

But you point out that literalism is counting that the events actually happenned, as described.

Neither me not Twhitehead are arguing that at all. We are arguing the point that the laws are, in places, abhorrent.

Was God the author of those laws (including through a prophet)?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]Gee whiz scottie, it's like you think what you read today would have meant the same thing when it was written thousands of years ago.

I never thought I'd say this to you Bosse, but, "SECRET DECODER RING TIME"!!!![/b]

Hyuk, hyuk, you made a funny.

🙄

Originally posted by twhitehead
I want an explanation as to whether or not the common form of punishment of stoning was considered moral by God at the time and if not why nobody (including God) seems willing to speak against it.
Your continual evasion of the question speaks volumes.

Stoning was considered a just punishment for various crimes in many ancient societies. Morals change over time, you know, and religions change with the times.

Do you know the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery? It sheds light on the difference between the Old & New Testaments.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
(newsflash guys, if God is real you don't get to choose the bits you like - you have to take him as he is - and he has a lousy PR man)

If an atheist wears a dog collar should it be called a god collar?

You have no grasp of history. You stoop to cherry-picking 'facts' to suit your foregone conclusions. You're a broken record, no better than the morons you attack.

Crank up that tune scotty boy! 'Dawkins says ... Dawkins is so right ... " 😛

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
If an atheist wears a dog collar should it be called a god collar?

You have no grasp of history. You stoop to cherry-picking 'facts' to suit your foregone conclusions. You're a broken record, no better than the morons you attack.

Crank up that tune scotty boy! 'Dawkins says ... Dawkins is so right ... " 😛

I rarely bring Dawkins into it. I haven't read God delusion, although have watched him speak on youtube a few times. I form my conclusions largely independently of what anyone else thinks.

You complain about my grasp of history, but I really think you're just moaning for the sake of it. You claim that I stoop to cherry-picking facts, yet you won't even accept the words written down in the book that you are attempting to defend.

I used to have a lot of respect for you Bosse, but I must admit that it is waning fast, especially with your continued attacks on me, and your continued failure to accept logical conclusions.

But, for the sake of old time we'll try one more time.

Did God, in the old testament, not specify that the punishment for certain behaviours was death?

In fact, I shall go slightly further.

Did God not, again in the old testament, sanction the killing of the children of enemies?

Two yes or no questions. That shouldn't be too hard.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I rarely bring Dawkins into it. I haven't read God delusion, although have watched him speak on youtube a few times. I form my conclusions largely independently of what anyone else thinks.

I used to have a lot of respect for you Bosse, but I must admit that it is waning fast, especially with your continued attacks on me, and your continued failure to accept logical conclusions..

Now you're just lying.

The feeling's mutual. GFYS.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Stoning was considered a just punishment for various crimes in many ancient societies. Morals change over time, you know, and religions change with the times.

You need to make up your mind what or who you are defending. Are you are defending some ancient society or some new Testament prophet or are you defending Christians?
My question is not I repeat not whether or not stoning was considered moral by some ancient society. My question is whether or not it was considered moral by the God of the Christians.
And why is everyone so reluctant to answer that question - even the non-Christians here seem to have a problem (mental block) doing so.

Do you know the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery? It sheds light on the difference between the Old & New Testaments.
Yes I know the story. Jesus did not say it was immoral. He recognized the fact that his preaching conflicted with Jewish laws which he claimed to uphold and which everybody believed came from God. Instead of being honest and admitting that the laws did not come from God, he chose to try and make them compatible with his preaching by making them unimplementable. Its like having a death penalty law in the constitution which you cant change so you make another law that guarantees pardons for all death row inmates.