My Son said the Church he takes her and her brother to on the weekends he gets 'em gives all the kids a new Bible on their tenth birthday.

He said the flyleaf has detailed instructions on how to beat people over the head with it.

Hopefully she'll learn to have a personal relationship with her Creator instead of just practicing a religion. Hopefully she'll have an opportunity to spend a good deal of time with you...and vice versa.

Is that the Bible with stainless steel covers that resist denting?

Thanks for the vote of confidence...... but her Atheist mother is a huge force in her life.

She is a good woman and - to her credit - she doesn't oppose the kids going to church.

Carbon fiber. Lighter, higher velocity.

Gene, that is good news, indeed. I know that with you around, she wil get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Ed

For a small fee the optional 3 foot hardwood handle can be fitted.

I think I will micro inscribe the bible on baseball bats and sell them on Ebay... I'll be rich...

Kent

Very confused here.. A good woman in your eyes but in the eyes of the Almighty?

God loves her as much as He does you, but there is none good by His standards: no not one.

OK..

No brownie points just for 'believing' in God. Satan himself believes in God. For the lady to be an atheist and still be a "good woman" is just as realistic as someone who says they 'believe' in God but is still not a good person.

Now yer talkin' !!

I know a lot of folks that could use a good Grandma issued beat down.

I see her as a good woman who is entitled to her beliefs.

You'd have to ask The Almighty how He sees her............ but I bet He won't tell you.

Hope it was the King James Version.

That would come in handy when attempting to get the attention of steel headed folks.

Actually the Almighty already has told those who choose to trust him.

So many people who can make a Biblical argument from anything said. I thought my question was simple to anyone claiming to be God loving/fearing.. take your pick there... I use God loving! Apparently not so.

God is love, that is a given. He only ask for trust and obedience, that is a given. Most anything else... just an observation??

Sorry I asked. It won't happen again.

g

I'm sorry my post left you "very confused".

Honestly.

I will pray that she opens her heart and allows Him into her life.

I saw what you did there...

Ed

I hope it was the New English version, so folks could understand what it actually means... Thee and thou... you'd think we were still walking/riding horses....

Get a pic and post the flyleaf here.

I'll accept Curdog's opinion on this matter. At least I have evidence that he exists, and besides, it his wife. If she makes him happy who are we to judge?

John 15:13-14 —
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
[emphasis added]

That's a pretty big and limiting "IF" in my estimation!

Yes, and just 3 verses later he tells us what he commands us, that we love one another.

Call me old fashioned, but I actually prefer the KJ version. Just what I grew up with, though I own several other versions.
But for a young kid say 10 or 11, I agree the New English version might be easier for them to understand.
Maybe the atheist Mom will be inspired by her kiddo reading the Bible, and start to read it too. Stranger things have happened, and The Lord moves in mysterious ways!

This^^^

Just for the record....Neither Curdog, nor his son, have a wife at the present time. The Lady mentioned is my son's ex-wife and, I'll repeat myself, she is a GOOD woman.

Being an Atheist doesn't preclude being a good person when judging by the world's standard. And THAT is the only standard available to me.

"For who can know the heart of a man......... " ?

Pretty much agree there on the ex wife issue.

After all we are told to mind our own and not judge.

A person can be good, regardless of relationship with or without a spiritual being of choice.

I've always hated to hear of Christians taking the high moral ground, looking down at everyone else. This attitude implies superiority, which just reveals reliance on self rather than Christ.

Atheists in particular should be able to feel the love of Christ through any Christians. We often emphasize the judgement of God and forget that it's the love of God that draws men to repentance.

Not so much old fashioned as much as what you learned with.

I grew up in a LCMS school... I had this cool bible, had 4 texts IIRC< IE versions of wording in the same book. It was really cool to read KJV and then compare to other wording and actually helped make sense of the wording to me as a kid in the 70s.
But the pastor there hated that bible and was even of the opinion, if not LCMS, you were going to hell. Much like the church did not want you to attend if you didn't have suit and tie on. It made for some intersting conversations at school needless to say since we had all faiths involved at school.

IMHO if you believe, then God guides the folks that print these bibles. And we dont' use kings english etc... anymore. Plus the bible was not written in Kings English to start with anyway... so its all been translated over the years.

But folks can get really anal, when IMHO, the thing to do is step back and look at the intent of the Bibles words. Not so much the specifics. Was written as a guideline IMHO and there is a difference between that and a procedure.

Jeff

Guys, A little both off topic and back on.....I think it is amazing that some Churches still give out Bibles to youngsters. What I think it even better is an organization called Priority One. It's not all over the country but it is fairly large in certain areas. I used to live in Shreveport LA and the chapter their is run by a great man. What they do is both introduce and remind high school aged men about Christ. They have great results. Peer pressure at that age is overwhelming. I would bet that 1 or 2 friends sharing Christ with a teenager is more influential than any parent, atheist or not....

I know some will balk at the "men" portion of my post but look them up. They explain why they "target" high school men. And they don't exclude sharing Christ with women.

Look them up in your area. Not sure if this is allowed but here is their website....www.priorityone.org

A mod can delete the link if they need to.

Gavin

oh, I don't think you have to worry about that....

I didn't think so but this day and age one never knows! I'm pretty new here but love this site!

Welcome! Glad to have you here!

The child is fortunate to have a loving and understanding mother. And the child is fortunate to have curdog4570 for a grandfather, especially if the two of em' get to spend a fair amount of time together. If he says the child's mother is a 'good woman'...chances are...oh, overwhelmingly so...that she is.

For those looking for a Bible as a gift or for another one to read, try the New Living Translation. It's accurate and uses modern day language that allows the reader to understand the text. I also have the big print version...not that I'm old mind you but it's that I like to be able to see the words.

The New Living is a good one. Try The Message as well. I like it because it uses modern language but seems to be a bit more in depth.

Actually, I'm not in favor of a ten year old reading ANY version of the Bible...... and certainly no O.T. stuff.

Children's books ABOUT the bible are a much better choice in my opinion.

Once they are older, I find no fault with the N.I.V.

There is hope for you yet!

I can understand that but I don't think you will find anything there worse than what's on popular TV. It may be a bit boring to young children but I read the OT to my kids and break it down for them. There are quite a few good things to be learned there.

That is very true. There will be a lot of good people go to hell though, unfortunately.

Really? Do you hold a seat on the decision board?

Pretty sure there is only one seat on that board.

Sure are a bunch'a folks who think they know what's in the mind of the one who holds the seat.

I'm mighty glad they're here to tell every one else that they know.

It is hard enough to reconcile the Jewish view of God in the Old Testament with God as explained by Jesus of Nazareth when talking to an educated adult. I wouldn't attempt it with a child.

"Jesus loves me, this I know" is age appropriate "Theology" for a child.

Matter of fact...... it SHOULD be the foundation of all Christians' beliefs.

You'll find the answers in a book called The Holy Bible, hardly private information.

Well, i have no money on God being a liar.

You admit your religions calls for good people to suffer an eternity of torment.

How is this moral?

You havent the least comprehension of how to replicate your smallest hair or what the term "good" really means outside the taste of cookies context.

What does one's ability to perform genetic engineering have to do with one's ability to judge right and wrong, and if an action improves or hinders well being?

If you create a boat for fishing and it wont float, whats to keep you from destroying it and building another one?

He blessed you by giving you life, a flesh body and a spirit, His spirit. You can chose to live in the spirit or the flesh. The flesh gets old and returns to dust. The spirit isnt yours to do with as you wish, while the flesh is.

You want to blame Him who gave you life for not making you immortal? You dont even appreciate the life He gave you. You want the life you give yourself. Ok, give yourself life forever, if you can.

The torment is merely the absence of God.

Each person chooses to accept of reject God.

Those good persons who reject God, do so freely.

I see no issue regarding lack of fairness or justice.

BMT

Let's examine just how broken your morality really is.

You can't see the difference between rebuilding an inanimate object and killing a person. If we extend your example, it's moral for you to murder your children and have new one's because the originals disappointing you.

On what basis do you claim I blame God for anything? How can I blame something when there is no evidence it even exists?

As for if I appreciate or enjoy my life, on what basis do you claim to know that I don't appreciate it?

Lotta 'Christians' seem to enjoy reminding others that they (others) are goin' to hell. They even quote Bible verses while they're spewin' their hatred of 'others' here, and toward 'others' here. They also quote Bible verses to justify them 'judging' others, despite what Jesus Himself said about judging others. I'm certain a lotta people get a kick out of the hypocrisy of it all. Understandably.

Agreed. I truly believe people will exist eternally with or without God. People were created to exist forever. We will either exist eternally separated from God, or exist eternally with God. To be eternally separated from God is hell. To be eternally in union with Him is eternal life in Heaven. I truly believe heaven and hell are real places of eternal existence.

That said, havin' a personal relationship...while you're here on this earth...with the God that made ya' is a pretty good way to live. That's enough motivation in and of itself to do it.

Really?

That's not what the Bible says:

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." -- John 15:6
"The Lord Jesus ... in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God ... who shall be punished with everlasting destruction." -- 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God ...he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone ... And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever." -- Revelation 14:10-11
"The fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." -- Revelation 21:8

I havent seen where anyone here hates anyone but would want all to be saved.

i judge no one, but myself.

I clicked just to check how many responses it would take until some Christian called out another or started some kinda chit.

7

That's pretty good! Y'all must be working on that tolerance and what not!

Yes, but Jesus suffered the cross and separation from God so that you won't have to suffer any of the things you list. If anyone rejects his punishment in their stead, then it's their own fault.

It would be like a man dying in the cold when all the while someone was pleading with him to go into the new home that had been bought for him.

Removed

Fixed it for ya'all.

you're not taking in it the right context

I understand Roger.

I was taking a cheap shot at religion as a whole. Curdogs thread is a dumb place to do it.

Apologies, CD.

Don't worry,

I just started a new thread that mentions genetics, evolution, and stem cell research. It should't take long before it generates a couple of interesting theist posts.

I imagine they will give you plenty of opportunity soon.

Religion is dead without a relationship with Jesus Christ.

No problem. The O P is a funny thing my son posted on his Facebook page.

Hell - an eternal place of damnation - is most assuredly speculative for creatures who cannot even begin to understand the "eternal" part.

Some , maybe most , folks will get into Heaven by backing away from Hell.

But attempting to live a life based on Spiritual [not religious] principles has its own reward right here on earth. It coincidentally [perhaps] meets the Biblical requirement for entrance into whatever Heaven there may be in an afterlife.

It beats "backing away from Hell".

And so are men.

Really?

I seem pretty alive.

I just jabbed my self with a pin just to make sure I'm still kickin'. Sure enough it hurt and I bled a little.

Free will. Your choice.

What are the requirements for Heaven in your view? In my view there is only one.

Die?

Kent

"What are the requirements for Heaven in your view? In my view there is only one."

Damn, Man......... You seem to be so anxious to make a point that you read whatever you NEED to read to make your point.

THIS " the Biblical requirement " is what I WROTE.

Read it again if you don't believe me.

I wasn't trying to be confrontational. I was actually trying to get to know you and what your doctrine is. The quote about being spiritual and getting into Heaven by backing away from hell made me wonder. People have a lot of different definitions about what spiritual means.

I used a singular word. You responded as if I used a plural word.

That seems more dishonest than confrontational to me.

If you honestly can't differentiate between religiosity and spirituality, I can't help you understand it.

But I think you know the difference.

I don't know why you want to be hostile but I'm not going to waste any more time trying to figure it out.

Two weeks ago I was helping my younger sister redeck her pool getting the house ready to sell. It was sunday and I asked her,' don't you go to church anymore'.

Her and her husband have been involved in church forever.

'Not for two years'

Now she has worried about my soul for many years, I rejected the pulpit. Afraid of my 'spirit within' mantra.

'So what's the deal'

She asked if I've ever read the bible straight through, no cherry picking.

At least twice by the time I was 18, I told her.

'It's so different like that'

Let me guess,'Christ's life story and the Holy Spirit sound real, Paul and the rest of the bible manlike'.

She was surprised, 'Exactly'... Paul was more about Paul'

But it doesn't exclude those in pews from God.

'No'

And it doesn't exclude our LDS cousins who sit in pews?

'No'

And you are doing big works with prayer.

'Yes'

And with the spirit inside you, there is only one direction you'll end up. The other isn't even conscious.

'Yes'

And we talked for hours.

Those afraid of hell back away diverting their attention two ways... those who turned their backs and walk with the Spirit... wouldn't even know if they walked through Hell to get to heaven.

Kent

I guess you don't want to learn anything.

Kent

"And with the spirit inside you, there is only one direction you'll end up. The other isn't even conscious."

There's a lot more of US than the "Pharisees" are comfortable with.

Your sister had help figuring things out....... and it came from a SOURCE within her.

YOU couldn't have taught her that in a thousand years of trying.

. If a criminal with a gun to your kids head tell you to give him you wallet or he will kill him/her, and you comply, do you really believe you exhibited Free Will? A threat of eternal torture for the crime of not believing, or being made by God in such a way that you cannot believe constitutes Free Will in your mind???

If God truly intended to give us Free Will he wouldn't need the coercion, threats, and a infinite punishment for a finite crime.

He tells the Truth. He gives us life. You have been blessed. You can follow the flesh or Him. He gave you freedom. Choose His or your kingdom. If your life isnt a miracle and a blessing worth living, why didnt you do away with it years ago? He gave you s blessing and still you quibble about it. What have you given Him, except greif. You think you are so great He should put up with your stinking sin in His presence? Sin can not coexist with no sin. Clean water can not be mixed with dirty water and still be clean. You are unclean. You have not accepted you are a sinner nor have you asked to be cleansed by the blood of Christ -blood He shed for you and only for the asking, but your pride makes you worse than a stiff necked jew. For the prize of everlasting life you refuse to bow your head and bend your knee because of the pride that leads to you fall.

What dying dove wouldnt bow its head for everlasting life if it had your chance. Instead you point out the Satan given shortcomings you percieved in Him.

Job was more strong in his efforts with Him. You are the walking dead - dust for a little bit while still held together by His spit.

This is the funniest use of a Bible you will ever hear..


http://www.hark.com/clips/ykvjhzrrsr-old-lady-attack-voicemail

As you can see, when we take the time to dissect you long diatribe, it's nothing more then a long series of logical fallacies. It's interesting to me how it appears you were able to complete your medical training without a course in logic.

What ever you say. Evidence is for the physical, not the metaphysical.

So you admit you have no evidence, and therefore no reasonable basis to believe what you believe?

You inhabit a creation. Do you have evidence that something [creation] can come from nothing?

You are surrounded by the "effect", but deny a "cause".

If you admit to the possibility of a "first cause", what evidence do you have that the "cause" ceased to exist at the time of creation?

Logic demands that you admit to a cause. What "logic" demands that the cause cares not for ITS creation?

Bumped for my friend, A.S. to respond.

I have evidence my friend and you know what it is. I gave my daughter a big hug last night after my wife and I spent the evening in her home.

Thanks for the bump my friend. I hope this Sunday morning doesn't' find you under a foot of fresh snow.

You've attempted to do a couple things above, so lets walk through them.

You've essentially moved on to a conversational version of the "Cosmological Argument". You begin by stating "You inhabit a creation". What I know is that I live in a Universe. To say it is a "creation" is a fallacy of presupposition, that presupposes a creator that has not been established by evidence.

Next you ask if I have any evidence this Universe came from nothing. Here, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. If Science is unable to prove a specific model for the creation of the Universe, it gets you no close to your proposition that "God did it". Regardless, we do have evidence, and at this moment the model it seems to best support is the Lawrence Krauss model of "A Universe from Nothing".

Next you ask about the first cause, which has it's own problems. Your assumption that the infinite regress of cause and effect ends with your God is just a case of "special pleading". One argument for the cosmological argument is that the universe is too complex to create itself. However intelligence is extremely complex, and an intelligence that can create the universe, micromanage it, all the lives of all the beings within it, through listening to and answering their prayer, would be exponentially more complex then the universe itself, and hence, to complex to cause itself, which leads to the question, "Who created God". Again, the only way I've seen this question avoided is through more "special pleading", and this special pleading also avoids the question of "which god".

As for logic "demanding I admit to a cause", it does no such thing, since you statement is a based on a fallacy known as a "hasty generalization", pairs of virtual particles pop in and our of existence all the time. Islamic apologist go even further, and reject Augustine;s argument all together, because in thir words, "Observation, however shows simply that the alleged effect happens alongside the cause rather through it ... and accordingly, such a correlation is not logically necessary but is rather the outcome of a correlation is not logically necessary but is rather the outcome of mere psychological disposition or habit."

As for what logic demands of God, it demands evidence that he exists, and a presupposition is not evidence.

Scott, I hope you daughter is doing well, and you guys are staying out of this weather. I plan to escape for a bit with one or two of mine shortly.

Thank you my friend, we are doing well. Sun is shining with blue sky and almost no wind. It is 43 now. I am enjoying soaking up some vitamin D with my bald head. Maybe you should come out for a fair weather visit.

No new snow. In fact, we're starting to thaw today. Gonna be a big mess.

Please notice that I didn't use "God", or "prayer", in my post. You interjected them in yours.

Science depends on observation. The "start up of the Universe" [since "creation" doesn't suit you] - by it's very nature - could only occur one time, so it doesn't lend itself to observation or experiments in duplication.

Seems like I read something the other day where some scientists argue for a static universe that "just always has been".

The only thing scientist seem to agree on is that it couldn't have been designed by a Higher Power.

Didn't think Science was in the business of proving negatives.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that a Self Existent Being actually did create "All that is", what sort of evidence could IT provide to YOU, Antelope Sniper, that would convince YOU of ITS existence?

You claim that IF you were created, you were created incapable of believing in a Higher Power.

You are essentially claiming that you were born with a portion of your mind closed. I find that an odd position.

Free will. Your choice.[/quote]

. If a criminal with a gun to your kids head tell you to give him you wallet or he will kill him/her, and you comply, do you really believe you exhibited Free Will? A threat of eternal torture for the crime of not believing, or being made by God in such a way that you cannot believe constitutes Free Will in your mind???

If God truly intended to give us Free Will he wouldn't need the coercion, threats, and a infinite punishment for a finite crime. [/quote]

A.S.
Even many who profess to be Christians really don't have a correct concept of God. They see God as a punisher and one to be appeased.Even well meaning Christians try to earn salvation by good deeds and regular church attendance.That's not the nature of God or salvation at all.

The correct way to see the situation is that by your own deeds and free will you are already Hell bound.No one is good enough on their own for Heaven. One small lie or even lack of doing the right thing disqualifies you. God's standard is so high that none can earn it. It is so high in fact that only God himself qualifies. Because of that God became a man and suffered the punishment of Hell that men deserve. Because he didn't suffer for his wrong he can grant substitution for anyone who asks. Jesus grants the gift of having suffered in place of any person who seeks salvation from him.

It's even more than just a price paid in the stead of the sinner. Being born again means a union with Christ to the point that the man or woman shares not only in the price paid but in the heart of the redeemer.That born again person has their very nature changed to desire good rather than evil.

It's not about a God who seeks to punish anyone who won't cow down. It's about a God who seeks to rescue those already lost and headed for destruction.

Free will...

We have it here, will we have it there?

What tasks, responsibilities, challenges, choices will we face?

Can we screw up and fail?

Most folks think... if I can just finish school, get this job, marry that girl, buy that house, have some kids, get that boat, get the kids out of diapers, get that truck, get that promotion, get that better house, get that grill, change jobs, get the kids out of the house, retire... die and go to heaven... my life will be complete.

Yet life wasn't complete after each stage, the challenges grew and were harder instead of easier.

Welcome to heaven.

Kent

Keep blowing smoke! The "arguments" you are using to not believe in a deity with knowable attributes is philosophical baloney. You're going to have to do better than that, as the stuff you're trotting out here isn't even held by philosophical atheists anymore.

Here's some good books for you that quite well demonstrate the probability of theism, if you're willing to actually deal with the philosophy:

Douglas Groothius "Christian Apologetics"
Richard Swinburne "The Coherence of Theism" (to be read vis-a-vis JL Mackie "The Miracle of Theism")
Anthony Flew "There is a God"

Yes, my friend, I may have added a few things. There are many flavors of Theist here on The Fire, so please just consider those comments as directed toward them and not yourself.

As for your statements about science and observation, yes science requires observation, but it does not require direct observation. As an example, we can know the orbital period of Pluto of 247.68 years, but we've only know about since 1930. Another example is dark matter. We've never directly observed dark matter, but we've observed it's effects through measuring the rotational velocity of solar systems, and it gravitational lensing, i.e. the effect of dark matter curving light as it moves through space. Gravitational lensing was first predicted, based on the hypothesis that dark matter existed, and then later observed. It is this, that science requires. That a hypothesis can make predictions that can be confirmed with observation, and those observations are repeatable, not a specific event in the past.

As for a static Universe, that went out the window with Edwin Hubble in 1923, and if you think the new mathematical model proposed by Sauyra Das of the University of Lethbridge in Cananda, supports a static universe, well, that's not quite right either. His idea is for a universe that is in effect eternal, due to time dilation, when everything was together before the universe began to expand. This leads to a universe filled with a super fluid of hypothetical partials. Because this is science, they are considering ways to test this hypothesis with real world, ahh, universe, observations, such as whether or not the observed distribution of dark matter in the universe matches with these mathematical predictions or not. Of course these would be indirect observations, since we cannot directly observe dark matter. Of course disproving this hypothesis would not help your case. Regardless if science disproves the Das Model, the Krauss Model, or M theory, it moves us no closer to your position that (the Christian) "God did it", or any other supernatural claim whether it be Zeus, Vishnu, birds fluttering their wings over a primordial ocean, or Leprechauns.

As for your last statement, once again, you just misunderstand science, and the burden of proof. Since the Christian God is constructed in a way that is is an unfalsifiable claim, the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim, not the person who disbelieves it. The classical example of this is "Russell's Teapot", where Bertram Russel proposed it would be non-nonsensical for other to believe his proposal there was a tea pot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars on the basis that is could not be disproven. Perhaps the only thing more nonsensical would be for scientist to spend a couple hundred million dollars on satellites to go look for it.

Spending a little time with my proof again today.

"Yes, my friend, I may have added a few things. There are many flavors of Theist here on The Fire, so please just consider those comments as directed toward them and not yourself."

O K..... Thanks for clearing that up.

You know, the earliest Church Fathers figured out that the Christian God could not be described except in the negative:

"THIS is not THOU, neither art THOU... THIS."

But I'm a looong way from arguing FOR the Christian God in discussions with you.

My eighth grade formal education left me a little shy in the math dep't, but I've learned a little about it thru reading and working with it.

So...... I'm asking you what type of evidence, mathematical or otherwise could convince YOU that there is a Creative Force which rules the Universe?

IF this All Powerful Force exists, what could IT/HE/SHE do that would convince you of it's existence?

Surely you have considered this question.

That reminds me of the guy who hated work and was so anxious to get to heaven so he wouldn't have to work ever again.

Upon dying, he found himself in a beautiful place, and, when asked about it, his "guide" assured him he could do anything he wished, and have anything he wanted. The only thing which was forbidden entirely was... work.

After considerable time passed he grew bored and asked his Guide if there was not some little chores he could do to pass the time.

Once again he was reminded that work was forbidden.

After multiple requests of the same nature, and being told the same thing each time, he blurted out:

"I'll go mad in this place. I'd rather be in Hell!"

"Oh... and where is it that you THINK you are?"

In order to call something or someone "good" there has to be an absolute standard. Without an absolute standard, no one or nothing is either good or bad.

In the same sense, to conclude something as moral or immoral, one has to have an absolute standard. Without an absolute standard, there is no way to conclude there is any differnec in an eternity in torment or an eternity of bliss.

"In order to call something or someone "good" there has to be an absolute standard. Without an absolute standard, no one or nothing is either good or bad."

I don't know about that. I've got a Mark V Weatherby in 257 WBY that I think is just real good.

I didn't have to measure it against ANY standard to develop that opinion.

Life ain't nearly as complicated as some folks make it out to be.

I find the following interesting...especially when the one gentleman makes the statement that "science in omnipotent."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrMFv6QoX0

You are only stating your opinion in the case you cited. And your opinion only has value that you place on it.

If, however, there is a God (the God of the Bible for example), then his opinion on matters dealing with morality are absolute.

My statements were generic and not directed toward you. I think it is good that you ex daughter-in-law is allowing your grand daughter to attend church.

RH, thanks for joining the conversation. There are just a few things you left out.

From the general Christian perspective (you enlightened version may very slightly),

God made the rules.
As the all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe he could make the rules any way he chose, yet, through the doctrine of Original Sin, he choose a set of rules that would dictate their destination as hell, before they are even born.

Now because God chose to set the bar at this spot, he has to create a "loophole" where he held of human sacrifice of himself, to himself, because the rules he created where unfair to begin with.

This is just a update version of the older symmetric practice of seeking vicarious redemption through scapegoating. This is where a tribe would load their sin upon a goat and drive it into the desert to die of thirst and pretend this some how absolved the tribes of their transgression. Now this in now way actually takes away the sins of the individual or tribe. Performing a humans sacrifice, or killing a goat in now way takes away your responsibility. It in no way returns the property you stole, nor returns life to the person you murdered. This not a path to moral. This is a way to escape your morality and responsibilities by accepting another immoral act. Keep in mind, regardless of how good you are, unless you accept your pieces of this human sacrifice, you will be tormented forever, just because God says so...but he loves you.

As for a desire to do good, I have a desire to do good and not evil, no Jesus required. Same with you. Previously you've claimed you were less good in the past then you are today and you credit Jesus with your transformation. Personally I believe the transformation occurred within you, and Christianity just happened to be the philosophy you choose to follow on the path to the new, better, more moral self. You could of chosen most any new guiding philosophy, and so long as you didn't fall in with zealot nutcases, the result would of been pretty much the same.

Thanks for the response A.S., it's always a pleasure to converse with you even if I don't agree. In fact it may be more pleasurable that way since simply agreeing with someone isn't much of a conversation.

I've always seen the scapegoat and animal sacrifice simply as the representation of Christ's true sacrifice to come. We are still saved by faith in that sacrifice and always have been, even if we didn't completely understand the representation. It was still faith in God receiving the substitute with salvation granted by him.

As far as the rules and the way God set them up, it is my belief that God simply wants people to freely choose to love him. There could be no love in the first place if we didn't have the choice not to love. I am confident that the system is set up the way it is because it's the best choice for the desired outcome.

Just remember my friend that it's never too late to choose.

Mister, I just responded to the BLACK part of your post, where you said that NOTHING could be judged good or bad without an absolute standard.

Adam was not created with Original Sin. Adam and Eve were created with free will.

There were not rules in the garden, there was only one prohibition.

It is interesting, in that light, that given the choice, mankind would choose to disobey.

It leads me to conclude that no matter how God structures the rules or "rule" in this case, free will will choose to disobey...and blame God for it.

This is just not true. A discussion of morality does not require an absolute standard, just that it is defined. As an example we could agree that any Parado Improvement, i.e. any action that makes at least one person better off, without making anyone worse off, as a moral action.

Like wise Curdog could conclude that his Mark V Weatherby .257 suit his purposes better then anything else for the same money. Likewise I could conclude that for my different conditions, I would like it with a different scope, or different caliber. In each case we may both be making the best decision available to us, and as our technology and resources change, (hey with these new bonded bullets, I DON'T need something bigger that recoils more then a .257), our understanding of "good" may change. If this wasn't the case, there would be one and only one standard for firearms, and no need for internet hunting forums.

Of course the unspoken part of your argument is that God is part of this absolute standard, and you cannot introduce God into the definition of Good or Moral without creating a circular argument, thereby invalidating your whole point. If by contrast you introduce a definition that does not include God, God is not necessary, and again, you invalidate your argument.

As for Curdog's .257 Bee, I'm confident it's a fine rifle. It makes him happy, an to me, that's is a good thing.

Yes, my Alabama friend, always enjoy it when you join the discussion as well. I think part of the reason is because you do bring a modern, enlightened vision of Christianity to the table were you are willing to interpret much of scripture in a symbolic vs. a literal way. It seems to me, that when a person is religion, that on average, the more symbolic and less literal their interpretation, the fewer bad actions is causes them to take on this earth. Recently I was reading about a new Christian sect that interpreted the Bible in a completely symbolic fashion. With the rapid growth of non-believers in this country, it will be interesting to see how this new Church develops.

Georgia Boy,

I don't think I've debated you on this topic before. Regarding the Book of Genesis, do you interpret it in as literal or figurative truth?

DD,

That's a pretty broad statement. Can you please be specific about which of my arguments you consider "baloney", and provide your counter argument.

I think we are considering what our conception of good is compared to Gods perception of good. They arent the same.

Likewise, His idea of wise and ours are two entirely different things.

Here's a good book for the Christians.

The whole Christian house of cards tumbles when the Saul/Paul card gets pulled out of the foundation.

Read "The Mythmaker," by Hyam Maccoby.

It's the final nail in the coffin of the "religion."

And I think it would be good if she were taking her to church.

The final nail will be when youre in Hell.

Without a Jesus there would be no good or evil and there would be no right or wrong. HE created you in His image and giving you a spirit as He has made you human rather than inhuman, or an animal. That's why the lost try to convince us we are nothing but another form of animal.

A wolf or cougar teaching its young to kill and wasting 25 angors goats in the process, as ive seen cougars do, is not evil or wrong.

It has no concept or perception of right and wrong because there is no right or wrong for it.

You are different from an animal. There is a right or wrong and an evil or good for you. Its the innate knowledge of same your Creator instilled in you that lets you know you are more than an animal and are, in fact, created with a conscience, and thus, in the image of Him.

I interpret it as both. I try to apply the same literary criticism as I would any other literary text. For instance, Jesus said, "I am the door..." Is he literally a door? Of course not. However, in another place He says, "No man comes to the Father but by me." So, is he the door to the Father in a literal sense? Yes.

I do not see Genesis as a book attempting to set forth scientific fact. It is an introduction, "In the beginning, God..." And a book of "types and shadows" of the one (Jesus) who was to come.

So, let's demonstrate the absurdity of your first premise, "There can be no good or evil without Jesus". The human race has been around for about 250,000 years, but Jesus only can about 2000 years ago. So for the first 248,000 years there was no good or evil? Absurd.

As for us not being animals, for a doctor, you sure don't know your biology. Humans are a species of primate, which is a category of mammal, which is a category of vertebrate, which is a category of animal. Yes, we are animals. We certainly are not plants or minerals.

As for us "behaving like animals", different animals behave in different ways. Part of being human is the ability to learn and to modify our behavior to better enable us to live together.

A wolf killing 25 goats is not bad for the goats? Really? If they were your goats you don't see the benefit in shooting the wolf before he eats the rest of our goats? That sounds like something a liberal would say.

As for the rest of your claims, you still have not presented sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a creator to move onto these further dependent claims.

Even before Jesus, God made people different than animals. He made them to be human rather than inhuman. He made them, yes, even those who came before Jesus, in the image of Him, with innate knowoedge of right and wrong and an awareness of a Supreme Being.

Why do you strive so in vain to act so obtuse?

If you err in driving and kill a child will you not feel remorse? Does a pitbull which kills a child feel remorse. If there is no Him there is no good and if there is no good there is no bad, as it is for animals. You can say you would feel remorse because of what others have tauggt and engrained in you from childhood. Where 5he hell would they get their ideas from right and wrong? Oh, yeah, i forgot, from those who taught them. Yeah, and it started at the beginning of human kind becsuse they were not inhuman. They were human because they were made in the image of Him - with a conscience - the innate knowledge from Him of right and wrong. You didnt get it from your ancestors, you got it from Him.

Im tired, broke ice for cattle all afternoon. Good night and God bless you as your needs may be. Eye

Your quotes from John make a nice illustration.

Now you do not see Genesis as scientific fact, so lets walk through the implications as it relates to Original Sin.

If the events as portrayed in Genesis are not a historical fact, there is no Adam and Eve, there is no Garden, there is no tree, and hence there is not alleged theft of a single apple for which the entirety of humanity can be blamed for, for the whole of eternity. Without a literal reading of that portion of Genesis, Original Sin goes away, because it never happened.

RH, thanks for joining the conversation. There are just a few things you left out.

From the general Christian perspective (you enlightened version may very slightly),

God made the rules.
As the all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe he could make the rules any way he chose, yet, through the doctrine of Original Sin, he choose a set of rules that would dictate their destination as hell, before they are even born.

Now because God chose to set the bar at this spot, he has to create a "loophole" where he held of human sacrifice of himself, to himself, because the rules he created where unfair to begin with.

This is just a update version of the older symmetric practice of seeking vicarious redemption through scapegoating. This is where a tribe would load their sin upon a goat and drive it into the desert to die of thirst and pretend this some how absolved the tribes of their transgression. Now this in now way actually takes away the sins of the individual or tribe. Performing a humans sacrifice, or killing a goat in now way takes away your responsibility. It in no way returns the property you stole, nor returns life to the person you murdered. This not a path to moral. This is a way to escape your morality and responsibilities by accepting another immoral act. Keep in mind, regardless of how good you are, unless you accept your pieces of this human sacrifice, you will be tormented forever, just because God says so...but he loves you.

As for a desire to do good, I have a desire to do good and not evil, no Jesus required. Same with you. Previously you've claimed you were less good in the past then you are today and you credit Jesus with your transformation. Personally I believe the transformation occurred within you, and Christianity just happened to be the philosophy you choose to follow on the path to the new, better, more moral self. You could of chosen most any new guiding philosophy, and so long as you didn't fall in with zealot nutcases, the result would of been pretty much the same.

[/quote]

Without a Jesus there would be no good or evil and there would be no right or wrong. HE created you in His image and giving you a spirit as He has made you human rather than inhuman, or an animal. That's why the lost try to convince us we are nothing but another form of animal.

A wolf or cougar teaching its young to kill and wasting 25 angors goats in the process, as ive seen cougars do, is not evil or wrong.

It has no concept or perception of right and wrong because there is no right or wrong for it.

You are different from an animal. There is a right or wrong and an evil or good for you. Its the innate knowledge of same your Creator instilled in you that lets you know you are more than an animal and are, in fact, created with a conscience, and thus, in the image of Him.[/quote]

So, let's demonstrate the absurdity of your first premise, "There can be no good or evil without Jesus". The human race has been around for about 250,000 years, but Jesus only can about 2000 years ago. So for the first 248,000 years there was no good or evil? Absurd.

As for us not being animals, for a doctor, you sure don't know your biology. Humans are a species of primate, which is a category of mammal, which is a category of vertebrate, which is a category of animal. Yes, we are animals. We certainly are not plants or minerals.

As for us "behaving like animals", different animals behave in different ways. Part of being human is the ability to learn and to modify our behavior to better enable us to live together.

A wolf killing 25 goats is not bad for the goats? Really? If they were your goats you don't see the benefit in shooting the wolf before he eats the rest of our goats? That sounds like something a liberal would say.

As for the rest of your claims, you still have not presented sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a creator to move onto these further dependent claims. [/quote]

You begin your argument with dogma. Much like religionist do. Your number, 250,000 years is improvable, and has been pushed back to 2 to 4 million years depending on wither or not science in its omnipotence find it convenient.

Naturalist, however, do not use those terms like dogma. They use phrases like, "It is the best explanation we have."

To the naturalist, any explanation will do, as long as it does not include God.

national Version
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

It doesn't even matter if Adam and Eve are literal or not. The point is that on that day they partook of the knowledge of evil. Up until then they had only known good.Now they know both good and evil. It is the point at which evil entered into the world.

A.S.
I thought it a bit funny that you think I don't take the scripture literally. I actually do take it literally. I just don't get hung up on single points of scripture. I would much rather let all the scripture lead to a broader message.

RH, I've never taken you as a literal Young Earth Creationist?

Your implication is incorrect. I said I interpret "Genesis" as both literal and figuratively. There is more in Genesis than just the creation account.

As pertaining to the creation account, where in Genesis does it say that Adam and Eve were forbidden from eating "a single apple?" This type of supposition is very telling.

Secondly, even if it were an apple, which you can provide no scientific of philosophical evidence that it was, your argument would not be furthered.

Eternal punishment was and is the consequence of disobedience to revealed truth from an eternal God.

PS I passed Comparative Anatomy with a 90. One of the highest scores in the class.

Yall just have a twitt telling me yall are animals. TFF.

Like R Reagan replied to Sam Donaldson who said we were decendants of monkeys. RR said Sam may be decended from monkeyd but he was not.

No animal contemplates a hereafter or everlasting life. No animal contemplates building a rocket and going to the moon. Why did man, because we can, and those who cant comprehend going everlasting life have a good reason. Its because in their present mind, they have no chance.

New Living Translation
"The Lord has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts--so that their eyes cannot see, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and have me heal them."


Many are hard hearted because they disagree with the ways of Him and shy from the Truth that would convict them of their sin. Many of those find short solice trying to find fault with which to disprove Him, as did those who crucified Jesus.

I've heard the young 6000 year old earth theories. I've also heard theories that there was a first earth that fell into chaos at the fall of Lucifer. In other words, a vast amount of time took place between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. I don't really concern myself with either.

I would much rather look at the big picture of the story of Adam and Eve. it seems to me that it is the universal story of man first relying on himself rather than on God. Satan tempted man then just as he does now. Satan told man to gain knowledge so that he would be just like God, or in my view we could say a god to himself. Satan enticed man to commit the same sin that got him thrown out of Heaven. Satan decided to exalt himself so that he could be like God. Isn't that what man does even today? Isn't that the whole argument? Is God in control or are we gods to ourselves? Do we submit to God or do we control our own destiny?

AS, many bible scholars do not believe those sent to hell will suffer forever. They perceive that though the fires of hell burn forever God does not want them to suffer for ever and it is as if one is cast into a lake of fire that burns forever but the poor soul is history and dead in essentially the blink of an eye. I guess that can be a bit of solace to some who would accuse Him of being cruel.

It has been said that many reject Him because they do not want to give up their life of sin.

For those whose hearts are hardened and whose eyes are blinded it still isnt really hard or very expensive or time consuming to just say, "Lord Jesus Christ, i dont believe in you, but in the unlikely event i am wrong for the first time in my selfdirected and successful life, i ask you to come into my heart and let me know you are real. In Jesus name I pray, Amen.

I mean, one who doesnt believe could even do this in a closet so no one could see and ridicule them.

My guess is that many who profess not to believe are sfraid to do this for fear He would answer their prayer and they would henceforth fear living in the sin they prefer to live in.

That is great news given that they and you are fully supportive, This I do not doubt at all.

HUH ?

Huh, huh?

Frst, I doubt that. Many have been come to a saving knowledge of Jesus without ever reading a Bible. Second, there is no basis to remove the Pauline Gospels.

LOL!

Read the book before you say that.

It's quite clear and uses sources that Christian scholars have never acknowledged or even studied.

Exposing "Saul/Paul" the crooked creator of Christianity as a fake.

Good book.

Some folks need Theology and Paul provided that.

Some folks are drawn to Pomp and Ceremony.... the Church provided that.

Some folks are drawn to the simple truths... John, James, and Peter provided that.

Some people despise anything remotely Holy and books like you are shilling for provide that.

I wouldn't waste my time. I figured it was using heresy to justify heresy. There is nothing new under the sun.

No, I won't be more specific, as you are conflating and running roughshod over many arguments at once. For example, you act as though science is not a philosophy. That's foolishness. But it allows you to make "scientific claims" over against religion without having to deal with the underlying philosophical presuppositions.

Read Groothuis for yourself, to start.

Epistemology is not your strong suit.

I'm well aware the Bible just identifies it as fruit. We referring to an apple I was just using common parlance. As for what it says about my presuppositions, it actually says nothing about the way in which I actually interpretation of the Eden narrative.

Yet somehow, you still think this one act justifies eternal punishment. I'd say it's morality and ethics that are not your strong suit.

Yes, and the Church has also gone back and forth on what happens to children who die too young to accept Jesus. I wouldn't exactly call these a ringing endorsement.

How "fair" is it of you to judge God based on what some of His creatures wrote about Him thousands of years ago?

The wise, and fair, thing for you to do is to become acquainted with Him yourself before judging Him.

I would say that judgment, in this case, the infinite supposing to pass judgement on the eternal, is beyond your pay grade.

Well, lets be clear. Since I don't believe the Christian God exists, I'm not actually judging him, I'm judging the morality of the Bronze Age goat herders who wrote the Bible.

As for who am I to judge these goat herders? I'm an educated, thinking moral human who refuses to subjugate my morality to a superstitious, animal sacrificing, human sacrificing, genocidal blood thirsty primitives that imposes infinite punishments for finite crimes.

If he did exist, the judgement would still be fair, since this is his "perfect book", "directly inspired" etc... which mean nobody wrote anything about him, that he didn't want written about him, and if the Bible is not what he wanted it to be, then he's not much of a god.

Really?

You want me sitting next to her in the pews pointing out all the preachers B.S and the parts of the Bible they like to skip?

It's not about my pay grade, it's about my Humanity.

"You want me sitting next to her in the pews pointing out all the preachers B.S and the parts of the Bible they like to skip?"

Actually........ that's MY job.

Naw..... I'll tell her like I told her Daddy at that age..... Just assume that Jesus loves you and keep your mind open where God is concerned.

As you grow, you will go back and forth in your thinking, but keep your mind open to the possibility that God exists.

Any God worth having can convince you of His existence, and once that happens, nothing, or no one, can take that conviction away. He will close your mind on the subject forever after.

But He can't/won't operate against a willfully closed mind.

Yep..... That's exactly what I'll tell her.




Once she asks me about it.

In either case, it is deficient.

Sage advice.

You are being more fair then most Christian parents. I'd say you pass the "Hitchen's Test" for not trying to actively brain wash her into believing, and trying to let her make up her own mind.

Good for you!!

And ultimately, good for her.

Excellent advice. She's a fortunate young lady.

It worked with her father and aunt. Eleven years at U.T. at Austin exposed my son to a lot of liberal and Atheistic brainwashing, and it worked............ for a while. We just avoided all talk of spiritual matters during those years. Then he developed his own relationship with - and concept of - God.

A person who has never allowed themselves to believe in the possibility of a universe with no God, or, more specifically, allowed themselves to visit the possibility that Jesus Christ is NOT the personification of God may not have the conviction necessary to overcome a real trial of faith.

I believe EVERY person must come to some sort of understanding - AS AN ADULT - with the God that made him if he is to enjoy all that life has to offer.

An Atheist may be reasonably content, but he will never experience that "Peace which passes all understanding" until, or unless,he comes to terms with his Creator.

Of course, you can't miss what you never had. [editorial "you"]

Those Christians who view their relationship with Christ as a way to avoid Hell are in the same boat as the Atheist as far as that "Peace" is concerned.

Excellent post, Gene!

I am sitting about eight feet from a person who has that "Peace which passes all understanding". My Mom. She is battling liver cancer right now and is an inspiration to all who meet her.
Her faith is something to behold.

It is unfortunate that so many people will not open their minds to accept even the possibility that God is not only real, but DOES have personal relationships with us.

Ed

Well stated! I am not a follower of Christ because I fear Hell, I am a Christian because I love Christ.

Christ didn't come and use fear to make us obey. He gave brotherly advice.

He didn't come to be worshiped but to share our humanity.

He could have commanded both.

Religion demands both and that we grovel in repentance...

God is probably sick of the whining and wish those would get up, quit apologizing and act like men who can control themselves.

Kent

You are not describing the Christ of the Bible. If you read his sermons, he preached more on hell then on heaven. He called the Scribes and Pharisees "hypocrites." He even referred to them as "whited sepulchers full of dead mens' bones."

Those who heard him speak did not comment on his brotherly advise, they commented that he spoke as one "having authority."
He took a whip and drove the money chargers out of the temple.

Christ himself said that he came "to call sinners to repentance."

If I misunderstood your meaning, please excuse.

GB is correct.

Hell is not a Jewish concept. Hell was introduced at the time of Christ.

Wrong, as is most everything you claim about Christianity and Judaism.

Deut 32:22

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

2 Sam 22:6

6 The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me;
KJV

Job 11:8

8 It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?
KJV

Job 26:6

6 Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering.
KJV

Prov 27:20

20 Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied.
KJV

Prov 5:5

5 Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell.
KJV

Isa 14:9

9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
KJV



There's another couple dozen,or so. More than in the New Testament.

As I recall - maybe incorrectly - Jesus talked about Satan more than other N.T. persons did, as well as talking about hell.

It appears to me that His message WAS directed at calling sinners to repentance, just like John the Baptist, but He also gave us The Sermon on the Mount.

I've always been intrigued by the title He chose for Himself.... The Son of Man.

And, Yeah, ...... I know He wasn't the first to claim that title.

Amen brother.....well done.