Romans 9:9-13 Proves Christainity is Evil

If actions are preordained then that action is not made with free will. This logical paradox is the undoing of Christianity, but further; you dare mention my intelligence?

YOU make the claim to know everything through god no matter how contradictory the entire bible is.

For example, the dancing sun "miracle" - the sun is witnessed bybillions of people, why is it that only a few people reported it?

Making jews walk? Please. Let's see it happen on video. A 2,000 year old text is highly unreliable by all accounts.

 

There's no logical paradox there. Human never know what time is. That's the problem. Please define time first?

Einstein once put, time is not a stable physics unit, but speed/velocity is. We humans however delivered our conception of time from our perception of our environment where time progresses forward evenly and stably. This is however a scientific false. As long as it's not in a 'stable' state, time is completely beyond the comprehension of humans.

Freewill is independent of foreknowledge. Foreknowledge means God can choose to know or not to know what your decision is. When you are in hell, God has the ability to choose to completely ignore you. That's call a permanent separation. You make your own decision while God will choose to ignore whatever it is.

 

But a fictitious baloney "god" does? You don't address the point. Typical for a religious zealot.

Free will ceases the second your celestial north korea says things are preordained.

God is a fallacy and the entire structure of Christianity is a fraud based on the fact god "creates people to hate, and we're not allowed to question him."

If that's the sort of rabid nonsense you choose to believe, please, feel free; but you will be ridiculed and scorned freely, and equally, for doing so.

 

That remains your faith to believe that it is so. You don't have any proof that those eye-witnesses of God (the prophets) are lying!

I said before. Nonsense to human comprehension can be truths. The two slit experiment goes beyond even the comprehension of Einstein. However it forms the basis of quantum physics.

 

Onus is on Christians and prophets to show proof of their claim, not the other way around.

If I make a claim, this donut is healthy. I have to prove it. It's not, this donut is healthy, you have to prove it isn't.

Whoever makes the claim has to prove it with facts and evidence to support it.

You Christians have it all backwards.

You are making the claim god exists; prove the claim.

You are making the claim the prophets were telling the truth; prove the claim.

 

No. You are completely out of reality.

History as a whole are human witnessing without proof!

That's the nature of human witnessing. Or humans have 0 history at all!

The only difference is that history is about what witnessed but within your comprehension because you can speculate the same even in today's environment. You can't speculate the same even under the circumstance that a supernatural witnessing is a truth. You can't speculate by no means says that it's not true, it can be false though.

 

Again, where's your proof. You make these claims, prove them.

 

If your IQ is like this. Let me make it easier for you.

Jewish Josephus wrote a book some 2000 years ago. The book series is divided into books, chapters and sections. You you can go through each section with the same question, what is the evidence/proof of this section. Then tell us how much of the book content can be evidenced or proved!

You can actually randomly grab any history book written more than 1000 years ago (in order to be demonstrative), then go through each page and tell us how many pages out of the total pages are supported by evidence or have proof!

 

I'm not seeing how these claims problematize my concern about your analogy. I will take these one at a time for bre

1A) It goes without saying that a Christian believer believes that the Christian God exists, this is presupposed by my claim (and I would add a tautology).

1B) However, that is not to say that wrestling with the existence/nonexistence of said God is not a serious existential crisis. One only need look at the work of Soren Kierkegaard (who is thought by many scholars/theologians to be the greatest Christian philosopher in history) to see how important this crisis is for faith. According to Kierkegaard, the nonexistence of God is very much a possibility, hence this is why faith requires such an extraordinary commitment, because one risks everything for faith. To believe (to have faith) without conflict, without struggle, is too comfortable, and ultimately too vulgar - it is primarily a belief to pacify people (they believe because it makes them happy); rather, Kierkegaard argues one must see the fear and trembling (anxiety) of an Abraham walking with Isaac to the sacrificial alter, to appreciate what it means to have hope/faith in light of the very real possibility that one could be wrong and to risk everything on one's dedication to God; otherwise faith doesn't cost one anything, it's valueless - in other words, it's fraudulent. To say that Christians don't question the existence of God is for Kierkegaard is to undermine what it means to be Christian - indeed without this doubt, he argues one can not be authentically Christian.

That being said, even if many Christians don't doubt the existence of God this is ultimately irrelevant to the point - the belief in the existence of God is a different type of belief than the belief in gravity or even the belief in one's parents. For example, if you believe that the existence of God is the same as belief in other observable phenomena (which you must in order for your analogy to work), then presumably you would support the mental institutionalization of all atheists and non-Christians , since it would be insane for them not to believe, just as you would presumably support the institutionalization of people who don't believe in gravity or the existence of people standing right in front of them, etc. If you don't believe that atheists or non-Christians are insane, then the belief in God differs fundamentally from a belief in one's parents.

2) This very same argument is applied to your notion of communication - the objective demonstration of this is absolutely relevant since it differs fundamentally from other forms of communication - the fact that believers think they are talking to God is not disputed, what is challenged here is that this type of communication is the same as how one interacts with one's parents. It's not. Hence the analogy breaks down.

Furthermore, even if your point here was accurate (and as my comments above suggest I reject this), your comments wouldn't successfully refute the objection of a weak analogy since I don't need all of the criteria to be true in order problematize the argument, I only need one to show there is a significant difference between the two; hence, you have to show why all of the concerns put forth are wrong (not just one or two).

My second point above (point B) doesn't reference the debate concerning the existence of God. Nor does it challenge the idea that Christians have decided that Christianity is truth or that "best" is taken by them to be defined by the Bible. In fact, these ideas are fundamental for my critique, otherwise my argument wouldn't make sense. I'm raising an objection about these ideas - i.e. that they are problematic:

How do you know that God has one's best interests at heart? Are you relying on some evidence to support this? Furthermore, what does "best" mean here? And doesn't this require a view of understandable morality [separate from the Bible] in order to evaluate? Otherwise, no matter what God wants for you it would be good. But if this is true, then there are criteria for judging God's actions - the grounding of morality then necessarily must lie outside of God's mere wants or desires.​

But notice that the question I am posing still remains - how does one know that right and wrong are defined rightly by the Bible? What makes those commands right (or wrong)? Why do you believe God is good (other than just being told so)?

 

If we are discussing the biblical God then it's appropriate to use his name and rank.

So to put things in perspective =

Yahweh (the God of the Hebrews and the God of the armies) gives every freewill a equal chance, though He knows before hand who he is. This is because an action requires open witnessing, say from the angels. Yahweh (the God of the Hebrews and the God of the armies) will not put you in hell without you showing up as who you are, though He knows well who you are.

Yahweh (the God of the hebrews and the God of the armies) never fails, it's your intelligence which fails, and yet you have to choose to rely heavily on your unreliable IQ to make a decision on something beyond your IQ can reach. That's why it is prophesied in Genesis that the Tree of Knowledge is something which,....

I like Yahweh much better when discussing the biblical deity because there are thousands of Gods. It's easy to get them mixed up if you don't use their names and ranks. Without names it's easy to get Greek, Inca, Aztec, Norse, Chinese, Serbian, and countless other ethnocentric dieties mixed up. So if people use Yahweh (the God of the hebrews and the God of the armies) instead of just "God" it aids in understanding the comments.

 

There are various designations of the name of God in Hebrew Scriptures, among them: 1) El (generic name -associated with the priestly class and a later theological development), 2) El Shaddai, 3) Elohim, and 4) Yahweh (older more anthropomorphic claim - in most English translations this is LORD GOD in capital letters - see the differences in the two creation stories in Genesis 1 [El = translated as "God"; God speaks creation] and 2 [Yahweh = translated as "LORD GOD"; God breaths, molds, etc.]).

 

The Bible is a book written by man. Much of it can be shown to be false if you study it against the known history and archaeology of the time. The stories in the beginning are written by scribes around the 7th century BCE. Stories which have glaring errors in them. Stories which prove the scribes had no understanding of desert wanderings. The instructions given by 'god' for their life in the desert - camping and marching orders - are completely impossible. Abraham could never have bought his tomb from the Hittites. Moses never heard of the Chaldeans (Ur of the Chaldees), Abraham never met Pharaoh. 2.5+ million people never exited Egypt as a group. The Amalekites are unknown in history. Ai was a 1000 year old ruin before the Hebrews supposedly took it. Jericho had been/has been destroyed many times in it's 11,000 year old history. By men and by earthquakes. Of the 10 commandments 9 are to be found in earlier codes and the instructions for food diet - what is good and what is not - were again found in other earlier cultures. The scribes of the 7th century on simply took what was known and adapted them for their religion. There are so many exaggerations it's impossible to accept this book as anything more than an interesting book. The most amusing one is where the Northern Kingdom (Israel) is said to have gathered 800,000 soldiers to fight the Southern Kingdom (Judah) who had 500,000 soldiers. Probably more that the total population of Palestine of the time. That includes women, children and men outside the 20-50 year age group for soldiers. Look at the history and country. It could never have supported such a number. Not even the mighty Babylonian and Assyrian armies could amass a 10th of that number between them.

 

I don't care whether you are a Christian zealot or an atheist, these versus clearly make a statement.

Leviticus 25:44-46

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

This is your God sanctioning slavery. Also, it is racist. I don't care what mindset you are in, it does not change these words. There are no apologetics that can cover this clear sanctioning of slavery. It is absurdly intellectually dishonest of you to ignore what these versus truly say.

Now, with this said, I am welcome, as an atheist, to discern them as your God being an evil monster. You are welcome to ignore the fact that your God sanctions slavery and is a racist, and still worship him. What you cannot do is lie and claim he does not sanction slavery and is not clearly racist.

 

"There are various designations of the name of God in Hebrew Scriptures, among them: 1) El (generic name -associated with the priestly class and a later theological development), 2) El
, 3) Elohim, and 4) Yahweh..."

So substitute any of those names names when discussing the biblical deity and you will still get an ethnocentric deity that's specific to the Jews. According to the fairy tale he's not relevant to the Gentiles, except as their chief antagonist.

People keep forgetting that the Egyptian Empire included the Levant area all the way to the Tigris River. http://www.ancient.eu/image/538/ The Israelites didn't leave Egypt; Egypt left the Israelites.

I wish people would learn what the real Ten Commandments are and stop the nonsense about them being the popular ones in Exodus chapter 20. Those are not the Ten Commandments! Besides, everyone breaks those on a regular basis. They are "laws" like all of the other ones.

It's silly to trust any numbers in the Bible or in the Babylonian Jewish Talmud. They are all exaggerations.

 

As much as you hope He is, God is not racist. God has selected one group - the Jews - as his chosen people, specifically as His "first born", and He has a covenant with them. That does not mean God is racist, it just means he has a special care for those people. God still welcomes anyone who accepts the invitation.

God does not sanction slavery. If you read the Bible, you would know that God recognizes that people are not perfect and will not live perfectly, and in ancient times God gives them rules for coping with life. Leviticus provides rules for people living in that time, much of Leviticus is due to an acceptance that people will without exception fail. Thats why Moses (Deuteronomy) said it was permissible to divorce - not because God approves of divorce, but because people cannot live up to the perfect standard and they need guidance that allows them to live as righteously as possible. Slavery was inherent in all societies at that time, it was the natural state of society, and people had to cope with it. To simply outlaw slavery was absolutely going to fail, it was impossible to stop it at that time.

And as I have posted before, the word "slavery" used in the Bible is much broader than the man in chains being beaten that modern Westerners think of. In the Old testament, slave was everything from a war trophy to an indentured servant to a hired worker. A person who wanted to work off a debt (or simply wanted a job) could sign a contract to be a "slave" for a given amount of time, the contract included food and shelter and clothing and protection for the "slave" and his/her family.

The New Testament clearly was anti-slavery. Did God change His mind? No, but human society had changed to the point that such a concept as a slave-free society was possible.

But if you read the Bible and do a modest amount of study, you would know all this. There is nothing new about it, its been in the textbooks for centuries. You can even google it if you are really lazy.

 

Well said.......
the will and mind of G-d is revealed progressively...... Messiah Yeshua - Jesus stated quite emphatically that although the Sermon on the Mount was awesome...... in the future...... he would speak and teach even more clearly and plainly.

John 16:25

These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father."


The being of light of NDE fame, G-d or Satan?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-being-of-light-of-nde-fame-g-d-or-satan.445248/

 

In 1A you state that to Christians, God exists. Then in 1B, you state that Christians should and do question the existence of God. You contradict yourself. Christians have already determined that God exists, they have moved past the point of an atheist.

Here you claim the belief in something intangible is not equal to the belief in something tangible. Love and hate are intangible, you cannot measure it as if it was a physical phenomenon like gravity, yet love and hate clearly exist, have been the motivating forces for human actions throughout recorded history, and have a tremendous impact on individual people, humanity, and human society.

Something does not have to be objectively provable to every person in order to be true. God is real to many people, they see God in the world around them, they see Gods actions in their lives, their belief influences their decisions and their daily lives. Because a skeptic does not agree with these people does not change anything in those believers lives. Each has their "truth", they live accordingly.

But one is actually the Truth, one is actually right and the other wrong. There is no way to objectively determine which is true at this time, people generally recognize this fact and in some societies people make allowance for this type of disagreement and each lives peacefully with the other.

No, the analogy still works. The mechanics of the communication differ, but the reality of the communication is the driver. Because you don't like the method of communication is not relevant.

Once a person decides the Bible is the Truth (capital T), then right and wrong are defined by the Bible. If you believed God exists and the bile is the word of God, and disobeying God brings eternal damnation, would you then follow the laws in the Bible or knowingly disobey them? Of course you would follow the laws. Its that simple - once the person decides the Bible is the Truth.

Why a person comes to the point of believing God exists, and then that Christianity is the Truth, are more difficult and very subjective. Generally, although they may not act upon it, people have an inherent sense of right and wrong, and a sense of compassion and empathy. That attracts them to a particular belief about God.

 

Like Finnegan's Wake...

 

This is what you took from my summary of Kierkegaard? There is no contradiction here, one can believe/hope while one recognizes the stakes, to use a poker analogy one goes all in on God despite it's irrationality, it's post-ethical nature (see Abraham walking Isaac to the alter, a 3+ day journey). Otherwise one's faith is a fraud. Regardless, you once again didn't respond again to the other concerns about the analogy (which you must do in order to respond to the criticism).

And therefore love and hate therefore are fundamentally different than gravity- this speaks to the problem of analogy. In addition, love and hate are also different from belief in God, since they are also based on observations of behavior (a question of psychology and the philosophy of mind). You confirm my point here.

Children believe in Santa Claus too. This doesn't make it true. Notice the similarity between the child-like acceptance of Santa Claus and blind faith- believing because one is told - vs believing because one reasons it ought. The mark of a mature and serious person is one who reasons about the tradition one is a part of, about what one believes (by subjecting it to a thorough-going critique) to see if it can stand up to scrutiny - the method of living an examined life. In other words, it's not enough to just believe something is true, one has to have good reasons behind it to justify why one ought to believe.

Not when it comes to egregiously denying reality (like gravity or people), these people are institutionalized for their and our benefit. Once again your position here undermines your earlier claims (believing in God is not like believing in the existence of one's parents).

Nonsense. Your position is like saying that apples and swords are the same because they can both be swallowed. - The nature of each matters. This is Logic 101 stuff.

Whoa. So you believe and obey primarily out of fear and self-interest? Seems a bit sacrilegious and self-serving to me. This seems to remove the very possibility of one having integrity (which incidentally also seems to confirm my earlier critique/post).

First, what inherent sense of right and wrong? You just said people have differing views about these things. Even if they did, what would make these inherent views right? Now you present compassion and empathy as moral criteria by which we can know morality - so you are saying there are morally objective standards by which to evaluate moral behavior.

 

Tell that to Second Isaiah.

 

"Second Isaiah?" Is that something you just made up? Isaiah consists of one book in the Bible divided into 66 chapters. Maybe you can cite a specific chapter and verse?

 

Uh he's probably referring to the authors of the book of Isaiah. You know the parts where Isaiah talks about the anointed one ie. Cyrus the great.

 

LOL. Did I make up Second Isaiah??? Brilliant. Second Isaiah = Chapters 40-66. Calls for an understanding of God that is universal - a God for/to all people (see particularly chapters 56: 1-8 and 45:22-23).

 

You're overlooking the part in Isaiah 14:1-2 where all of the Gentiles become slaves. Yahweh = the eternal slave master.

 

Very interesting. I would like to pose a scenario:

If you want to have a child, and God Himself told you that if born, your child, based on the choices he or she makes in life, will spend their afterlife in Hell, regardless of anything you or anyone tries to teach them, would you still concieve your child?

Note: In this scenario, God leaves the choice to you.