religious discrimination

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Yes, I was speaking of a literal Adam and Eve, and I believe the story of sin entering the world through Adam is history.. .I personally believe the "forbidden fruit" is allegorical, but disobedience to God was literal, and that sin is where the knowledge of evil came from.

Then we are speaking of literal world history.  It is difficult enough that you expect Scripture to be accepted as true, based only on faith.  Expecting people to take world history, as expressed by that Scripture, also on faith alone -- is truly unreasonable.  IMO

    

[cuchulain]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Satan was not a flawed creation, he just had the same free will that you agree humans have. So God created Satan, who independently decided to sin. This does not make God responsible, it makes the entity of which sin emanates responsible. "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." (Ezekiel 28:15). If sin is a product of choice, it didn't come from God, but is directly produced by those who freely chose it. You can't say that a person has free choice, and simultaneous assign those choices to a creator, especially when there is no sin in God.  

God knew when he created Satan that Satan would choose to sin, and choose to lead mankind to sin.  Thus, God knew as a direct result of his creation that Satan and Man would have the flaw of sin as a direct result.  You use this as evidence of free will independent of God, I use it as evidence that we have free will because God does not exist.  God cannot exist and be free from Sin if he created circumstances that he knew would lead to sin.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

52 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

God knew when he created Satan that Satan would choose to sin, and choose to lead mankind to sin.  Thus, God knew as a direct result of his creation that Satan and Man would have the flaw of sin as a direct result.  You use this as evidence of free will independent of God, I use it as evidence that we have free will because God does not exist.  God cannot exist and be free from Sin if he created circumstances that he knew would lead to sin.

In fairness, I think that this only shows that God is not all good.  It is not proof -- by itself -- of God's nonexistence. 

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

In fairness, I think that this only shows that God is not all good.  It is not proof -- by itself -- of God's nonexistence. 

Quite right, I stand corrected.   God cannot exist as posited...that is, all knowing, all powerful, and all good at the same time.  I should have been more specific, sometimes I fail at that.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

Quite right, I stand corrected.   God cannot exist as posited...that is, all knowing, all powerful, and all good at the same time.  I should have been more specific, sometimes I fail at that.

The failure is not yours.  We have no common reference points for God.  I keep observing that we have no common working definition of God.  People think that I'm being silly.

Because we do not have a working definition of God -- we are talking about the existence of something that can't be defined.

It is odd how bent out of shape people get on this point.  Raging about the existence or nonexistence of something that can't be defined.

 

[Songster]

God has been "defined" in this forum many times. And you've repeatedly claimed the definition was lacking. Just because you don't accept the definition, doesn't mean that the object in question doesn't exist. It just means that God has not granted the proper words to one, or complete understanding to the other.

[Dan56]

17 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Then we are speaking of literal world history.  It is difficult enough that you expect Scripture to be accepted as true, based only on faith.  Expecting people to take world history, as expressed by that Scripture, also on faith alone -- is truly unreasonable.  IMO 

Do you believe that all history books depict the literal truth? For years people believed Columbus discovered America. Much of the ancient history that we read about is taken on faith, there's nothing absolute about any of it.   

16 hours ago, cuchulain said:

 God cannot exist and be free from Sin if he created circumstances that he knew would lead to sin.

I disagree.. God created free thinking individuals for a purpose. Being omniscient doesn't make God guilty of what we choose to do. Just as a man marries his wife despite his knowledge that some women cheat, it doesn't make him guilty of her infidelity. That's the purpose, to separate the faithful from the unfaithful. "For thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4:11). 

12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

The failure is not yours.  We have no common reference points for God.  I keep observing that we have no common working definition of God.  People think that I'm being silly.

Because we do not have a working definition of God -- we are talking about the existence of something that can't be defined.

It is odd how bent out of shape people get on this point.  Raging about the existence or nonexistence of something that can't be defined.

 

A common working definition of God is recorded in the bible, How can mere mortals define God to anyone's satisfaction? "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9)

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Do you believe that all history books depict the literal truth? For years people believed Columbus discovered America. Much of the ancient history that we read about is taken on faith, there's nothing absolute about any of it.   

I disagree.. God created free thinking individuals for a purpose. Being omniscient doesn't make God guilty of what we choose to do. Just as a man marries his wife despite his knowledge that some women cheat, it doesn't make him guilty of her infidelity. That's the purpose, to separate the faithful from the unfaithful. "For thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4:11). 

A common working definition of God is recorded in the bible, How can mere mortals define God to anyone's satisfaction? "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9)

Real history books are subject to correction as more and better information comes to light.  If the  history in the Bible were subject to this process of revision and correction --  by this time, it would be reduced to a pamphlet.  Would you go along with having the Bible corrected?  Subject to objective verification?

Which part of this is a definition?  At most, it reflects an an ancient author's poetic style.  

 

Edited October 21, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

History books do not claim infallibility, nor does the man who gets married knowing some women cheat.  Nor do they claim omniscience.  Not omnipotence.  See, there's the difference you are lacking in all these analogies, Dan.  It is claimed that God has the ability and simply chooses not to use it.  It is never claimed, for example, that I as a father am all powerful and all knowing, especially when trying to raise my kids.  No history book claims perfection that I am aware of, yet the bible makes such a claim and(for me) falls short.  

[mererdog]

22 hours ago, cuchulain said:

No history book claims perfection that I am aware of, yet the bible makes such a claim and(for me) falls short.  

Actually, the Bible does not claim to be perfect. People make that claim about the Bible, but you see how that is different in important ways?

[Dan56]

On 10/21/2016 at 9:50 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Real history books are subject to correction as more and better information comes to light.  If the  history in the Bible were subject to this process of revision and correction --  by this time, it would be reduced to a pamphlet.  Would you go along with having the Bible corrected?  Subject to objective verification?

Which part of this is a definition?  At most, it reflects an an ancient author's poetic style.

 

How would you revise or correct the exodus from Egypt recorded by Moses? How would you correct the books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel without undermining the authors? The only verification comes from those who wrote the books, and those who witnessed what they wrote about. You can no more correct the bible and reduce it to a pamphlet anymore than you could correct Lincolns Gettysburg address and reduce it to a single sentence. 

[cuchulain]

On 10/23/2016 at 0:34 AM, Dan56 said:

How would you revise or correct the exodus from Egypt recorded by Moses? How would you correct the books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel without undermining the authors? The only verification comes from those who wrote the books, and those who witnessed what they wrote about. You can no more correct the bible and reduce it to a pamphlet anymore than you could correct Lincolns Gettysburg address and reduce it to a single sentence. 

The Gettysburg address was much more documented, and by contemporary writers.  It needs no revision to be accurate, and the author certainly didn't claim omniscience.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 10/23/2016 at 1:34 AM, Dan56 said:

1.  How would you revise or correct the exodus from Egypt recorded by Moses?  2.   How would you correct the books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel without undermining the authors? The only verification comes from those who wrote the books, and those who witnessed what they wrote about. You can no more correct the bible and reduce it to a pamphlet anymore than you could correct Lincolns Gettysburg address and reduce it to a single sentence. 

1.  That would indeed be difficult, since the Exodus never happened -- and Mosses himself is a fictional character.     

2.  Without undermining the authors?           That would indeed be difficult.     

 

Since you asked.      IMO

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

16 hours ago, cuchulain said:

The Gettysburg address was much more documented, and by contemporary writers.  It needs no revision to be accurate, and the author certainly didn't claim omniscience.

So you trust contemporary writers more than ancient ones? Two or three million people left Egypt with Moses, none of which revised what he documented,  And if the authors were inspired by an omniscient God,  It certainly needs no revision to be accurate.  

13 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

1.  That would indeed be difficult, since the Exodus never happened -- and Mosses himself is a fictional character.     

2.  Without undermining the authors?           That would indeed be difficult.     

 

Since you asked.      IMO

 

You can't possibly know if Moses was fictional.. Nor can you know that the exodus never happened because you weren't there. I'm guessing you think William Shakespeare was fictional too? You guys selectively choose what history you think is valid. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

11 hours ago, Dan56 said:

So you trust contemporary writers more than ancient ones? Two or three million people left Egypt with Moses, none of which revised what he documented,  And if the authors were inspired by an omniscient God,  It certainly needs no revision to be accurate.  

You can't possibly know if Moses was fictional.. Nor can you know that the exodus never happened because you weren't there. I'm guessing you think William Shakespeare was fictional too? You guys selectively choose what history you think is valid. 

Of course I wasn't there.  It would be difficult to attend a nonexistent event.

[cuchulain]

Dan, you have redefined history to meet YOUR parameters, I think.  See, I don't view the bible as an actual, historical account.  Neither do many atheists that I know personally, and I have never spoken with an atheist that views it as history.  And as Jonathan alluded to...the burden of proof is not on us to show that the exodus did not happen, it is on the claimant(you) to show that it actually did.  If you feel otherwise, I would like you to submit proof that Satan wasn't really pulling God's strings the whole time and that Satan isn't the author of the bible through God instead...of course, it's silly to ask for such proof, because you cannot prove that it didn't happen that way, can you?

[Dan56]

4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Dan, you have redefined history to meet YOUR parameters, I think.  See, I don't view the bible as an actual, historical account.  Neither do many atheists that I know personally, and I have never spoken with an atheist that views it as history.  And as Jonathan alluded to...the burden of proof is not on us to show that the exodus did not happen, it is on the claimant(you) to show that it actually did.  If you feel otherwise, I would like you to submit proof that Satan wasn't really pulling God's strings the whole time and that Satan isn't the author of the bible through God instead...of course, it's silly to ask for such proof, because you cannot prove that it didn't happen that way, can you?

True...  Its a belief, and the only documentation is the bible. Whether a person accepts it as being historically accurate is up to them. There is some archaeological evidence which suggest that the cities, people, and events were real, we also have the record (writings) of those who witnessed what happened. But we can't even prove whether Trump molested women or the validity of the Clinton WikiLeaks emails, so the authenticity of any past event can be questioned. And the only proof of who inspired the bible is the bible itself. For me, it validates itself through prophecy, and the inability of anyone to disprove the accuracy of stories recorded thousands of years ago, certainly lends credibility to what they wrote.   

[Pete]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

True...  Its a belief, and the only documentation is the bible. Whether a person accepts it as being historically accurate is up to them. There is some archaeological evidence which suggest that the cities, people, and events were real, we also have the record (writings) of those who witnessed what happened. But we can't even prove whether Trump molested women or the validity of the Clinton WikiLeaks emails, so the authenticity of any past event can be questioned. And the only proof of who inspired the bible is the bible itself. For me, it validates itself through prophecy, and the inability of anyone to disprove the accuracy of stories recorded thousands of years ago, certainly lends credibility to what they wrote.   

Actually objective history/archaeology do not prove the bible to be true or always agree with it.. The trouble is there are many believers who try to do archaeology who try to find any thing to support their belief rather than questioning it with objective criticism and considering other view points. They also dismiss anything that opposes them. I belong to an archaeology society and such claims are frowned upon by the senior archaeologists who look at things with an open mind. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 10/25/2016 at 3:33 AM, Dan56 said:

So you trust contemporary writers more than ancient ones? Two or three million people left Egypt with Moses, none of which revised what he documented,  And if the authors were inspired by an omniscient God,  It certainly needs no revision to be accurate.  

You can't possibly know if Moses was fictional.. Nor can you know that the exodus never happened because you weren't there. I'm guessing you think William Shakespeare was fictional too? You guys selectively choose what history you think is valid. 

Since you bring it up, there is considerable debate over the true authorship of the Shakespeare plays.  For instance, Sir Francis Bacon.  It doesn't actually matter who wrote the plays.  They are great plays regardless of who wrote them and the true authorship is less important than the content.  Can you say the same for the Bible?

            

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Dan, you have redefined history to meet YOUR parameters, I think.  See, I don't view the bible as an actual, historical account.  Neither do many atheists that I know personally, and I have never spoken with an atheist that views it as history.  And as Jonathan alluded to...the burden of proof is not on us to show that the exodus did not happen, it is on the claimant(you) to show that it actually did.  If you feel otherwise, I would like you to submit proof that Satan wasn't really pulling God's strings the whole time and that Satan isn't the author of the bible through God instead...of course, it's silly to ask for such proof, because you cannot prove that it didn't happen that way, can you?

If the Bible actually were from God; it would have been a lot easier to believe.  I'm not even talking about proof.  Just less implausible.