Zone1 Question for Christians

[zaangalewa]

Atheism is generally defined as not being convinced that a god exists.

That's wrong. Your formula "a god" is not monotheism - it is polytheism. With this formula you say "I am not a polytheist so all monotheists are wrong" - what's only a propagandistic nonsense statement. Indeed are "god" and "gods" ("a god" is part of the expression "gods") two totally different expressions.

Atheism is just simple the belief god - and other spiritual powers - do not exist but are only man made ideas. The problem for atheists is it in this view to the world that atheism is also only a man made idea.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you think it drives god nervous not to exist? God is creator - not creation. Before this universe was created you was not - nothing was - but since it is created you are. And now you are able to dance on ice - if you like to do so.

I have no idea of what your concept of god might get nervous about, any more than I know if unicorns get nervous when they cross a busy highway. I have never danced on ice, but if I ever decide to do that, it won't be because of or in spite of a god.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's wrong. Your formula "a god" is not monotheism - it is polytheism. With this formula you say "I am not a polytheist so all monotheists are wrong" - what's only a propagandistic nonsense statement. Indeed are "god" and "gods" ("a god" is part of the expression "gods") two totally different expressions.

Atheism is just simple the belief god - and other spiritual powers - do not exist but are only man made ideas. The problem for atheists is it in this view to the world that atheism is also only a man made idea.

You are certainly allowed to believe anything you want, I personally am not convinced a god or gods exist, any more than unicorns. I suppose there is a possibility that they exist, but I have no reason to believe they do. Unless you can prove I am lying about my beliefs, that shows atheism is true. (according to your previous post)

 

[zaangalewa]

I have no idea of what your concept of god might get nervous about

Then learn to think.

, any more than I know if unicorns get nervous when they cross a busy highway.

You don't understand what the unicorn stands for in the Christian mythology. A very interesting problem. And to be honest: Why fight some weird people unicorns? Do they hate fantasy? Do they hate their children? Do they hate life? Do they love destruction, supression and death?

I have never danced on ice,

Bad luck. It's an interesting experience. Hard and nice the same time. And my first shy innocent love was a wonderful ice princess. She and her freckles are still in my heart and memory.

but if I ever decide to do that, it won't be because of or in spite of a god.

I had to laugh now about your naivity. How would an US-American say? ¿"Think big! Think bigger!"?

 

[zaangalewa]

You are certainly allowed to believe anything you want,

... hmmm ... Who allows me this? Who gives me the ability to think, to feel and to trust and to believe at all? Who gives me not only the freedpm to do whatever I like to do but also control over all powers and who taught me to fight myselve so I am able to be happy?

I personally am not convinced a god or gods exist,

The word "convinced" makes not any big sense in this context. The allmighty and allknowing god sent his son to the world - his wonderful palace was a manger for animals and his glorious throne was a cross for criminals. It is not to be convinced from an allmighty and allknowing god which makes this story plausible - it is our knowledge about human beings which makes this story plausible.

any more than unicorns. I suppose there is a possibility that they exist,

Also "the nothing" exists - a "tabula rasa" for example where nothing is written on is for other letters a nothing. You are very narrow minded. Perhaps you should try ot get a bigger perspecive also on the risk that you will not be able to understanf everything in this bigger perspective. For a straight "E" is a diagonal "A" perhaps a mystery and a round "O" an impossibility.

but I have no reason to believe they do.

You also have no reason to live, isn't it? Your life is a gift and anything else than "self-made".

Unless you can prove I am lying about my beliefs, that shows atheism is true. (according to your previous post)

I opened a window and showed you something. Now you try to fight with the clearer view and fresher air, I fear.

 

[BULLDOG]

... hmmm ... Who allows me this? Who gives me the ability to think, to feel and to trust and to believe at all? Who gives me not only the freedpm to do whatever I like to do but also control over all powers and who learned me to fight me myselve?




The word "convinced" makes not any big sense in this context. The allmighty and allknowing god sent his son to the world - his wonderful palace was a manger for animals and his glorious throne was a cross for criminals. It is not to be convinced from an allmighty and allknowing god which makes this story plausible - it is our knowledge about human beings which makes this story plausible.



Also "the nothing" exists - a "tabula rasa" for example where nothing is written on is for other letters a nothing. You are very narrow minded. Perhaps you should try ot get a bigger perspecive also on the risk that you will not be able to understanf everything in this bigger perspective. For a straight "E" is a diagonal "A" perhaps a mystery and a round "O" an impossibility.



You also have no reason to live, isn't it? Your life is a gift and anything else than "self-made".



I opened a window and showed you something. Now you try to fight with the clearer view and fresher air, I fear.

What you wrote doesn't convey anything resembling information. I get the impression that you had some point to make, so thanks for your effort, such as it was.

 

[zaangalewa]

What you wrote doesn't convey anything resembling information. I get the impression that you had some point to make, so thanks for your effort, such as it was.

hmm ... you seem to have a more serios problem than I thought first ...

What do you expect from your life?

 

[Dadoalex]

Then tell me in mathematical terms what is your problem with my statements. What do you not understand? A paradigma of science says for example that everything is true what is not falsifyable. Short: The proposition "god" is not falsifyable - so "god" is true in sense of science. And Kurt Gödel made by the way a mathematical proof for the existance of god which is very difficult to understand because Mr. Kurt Gödel used a special and seldomly used form of mathematical logic for this proof. But up to now everyone who was able to check it out said this proof is mathematically correct. A short time ago some young scientists wrote a computer progam which also found out that the proof of Gödel is correct. So without any doubt atheism is a belief and not knowledge.

I don't know where you "studied" "science" but actual factual science says that NOTHING IS REAL until it can be demonstrated beyond all doubt.

Thus gravity is a law
Thermodynamics is a law.
Evolution is a theory because we don't have all the pieces
and "God" is a fairy tale told to frighten the children and ignorant.

AND

Atheism is, of course, a belief. One cannot prove a negative.

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't know where you "studied" "science" but actual factual science says that NOTHING IS REAL until it can be demonstrated beyond all doubt.

You are wrong. This sounds onyl plausible. Science theory makes clear that an hypothese never is verifyable but only falsifyable. So as long as an hypothese is not falsifyable it is true. Example: "Light is the highest existing velocity for signals in the vacuum". With this hypothese stands and falls the theory of relativity. And never anyone found in the last ~120 years any exception from this hypothese. So the premise "Light speed is the highest speed" is as long true as no one finds a higher value. It is true since 120 years - but perhaps it is not true tomorrow any longer.

Thus gravity is a law
Thermodynamics is a law.
Evolution is a theory because we don't have all the pieces

Biological evolution is a law. What we know about biological evolution is called theory of evolution. Asides exist many other forms of the word "evolution" which are no evolution at all. For example an "evolution of cars". Machines do not evolve. Our technological knowledge grows. And our costums and preferences change. Many people overinterpret the expression "evolution". A circle for example had been always a cricle - also in the very first moment of the universe. If this would be wrong we could not use mathematics (pure spirit) for physics (pure facts).

and "God" is a fairy tale told to frighten the children and ignorant.

This formula is a hate message - that's all. You hate people who do not share you belief in atheism. The only thing what's true in this context is it that "children" is for Christians a very important religious expression. And also "poorness of the spirit" is a very important basics. Here for example says Meister Eckhart some words to this theme. It is not ignorant what he says and it is not childish what he says - nevertheless exists a danger to misunderstand him. He says not the belief in god is unimportant. Everything what he said based on his deep roots in god.

AND

Atheism is, of course, a belief. One cannot prove a negative.

What happens if your belief is wrong?

 

[Dadoalex]

You are wrong. This sounds onyl plausible. Science theory makes clear that an hypothese never is verifyable but only falsifyable. So as long as an hypothese is not falsifyable it is true. Example: "Light is the highest existing velocity for signals in the vacuum". With this hypothese stands and falls the theory of relativity. And never anyone found in the last ~120 years any exception from this hypothese. So the premise "Light speed is the highest speed" is as long true as no one finds a higher value.



Biological evolution is a law. What we know about biological evolution is called theory of evolution. Asides exist many other forms of the word "evolution" which are no evolution at all. For example an "evolution of cars". Machines do not evolve. Our technological knowledge grows. And our costums and preferences change. Many people overinterpret the expression "evolution". A circle for example had been always a cricle - also in the very first moment of the universe. If this would be wrong we could not use mathematics (pure spirit) for physics (pure facts).



This formula is a hate message - that's all. You hate people who do not share you belief in atheism. The only thing what's true in this context is it that "children" is for Christians a very important religious expression. And also "poorness of the spirit" is a very important basics. Here for example says Meister Eckhart some words to this theme. It is not ignorant what he says and it is not childish what he says - nevertheless exists a danger to misunderstand him.






What happens if your belief is wrong?

Again, your lack of knowledge is your issue.
What cannot be proven but has evidential support is a theory. evolution, THEORY of relativity
What can be proven is a law. Gravity, thermodynamics.
"God" in any context is neither theory nor law, "God" is simply wishful thinking.

If I'm wrong?
Who cares, I'll be dead and have no control or input over what is next.
Thus, I prepare for what's next by practicing mindfulness and the eightfold path.
BUT
What if you're wrong?
There is no heaven, there is no hell, you lived your life in a lie and have made no preparations for what is next.

If your "God" wants to send me to hell for following a Buddhist way but bring a child molestor to heaven because he said "sorry" at the end then I'm thinking hell may not be so bad.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

How do you justify the disperate remarks of Paul and Jesus

There are NONE. Produce an example. You will reject clarification, I know this already. But produce ONE

 

[Dadoalex]

I will live happy in love and peace on wrong reasons.

No, you live in fear and anger.
Fear that your way may not be the way.
Anger that not everyone accepts your way.

 

[zaangalewa]

No, you live in fear and anger.
Fear that your way may not be the way.
Anger that not everyone accepts your way.

Strange - very very strange

 

[BULLDOG]

There are NONE. Produce an example. You will reject clarification, I know this already. But produce ONE

The OP might be a convient place to start.

Does God offer the chance to go to heaven to everybody, or just his chosen few, and how do you justify what Paul wrote with the idea of a benevolent forgiving God?

 

[Dadoalex]

Strange - very very strange

What it is to be a monotheist.
For you to be right everyone else must be wrong.
Therefore non believers in your practice are a threat.
Thus the anger
YOU might be wrong in which case you'll end up in THEIR hell.
Thus the fear.

 

[zaangalewa]

What it is to be a monotheist.
For you to be right everyone else must be wrong.
Therefore non believers in your practice are a threat.
Thus the anger
YOU might be wrong in which case you'll end up in THEIR hell.
Thus the fear.

I heard fear gives soles wings. Perhaps I should try this fear thing. But let me ask Hermes first. He's a specialist for all problems in context "how to fly with wings on the feet".

 

[Meriweather]

Does God offer the chance to go to heaven to everybody, or just his chosen few, and how do you justify what Paul wrote with the idea of a benevolent forgiving God?

The crux of the matter may be those who take every word of the Bible literally and those who were taught not only to use critical thinking, but remembering the differences between today and Biblical times.

Literal thinking traps. One who accepts it limits the realities of science, history, culture, and changes in language. Or, the Bible is dismissed. End of story. Catholic school taught critical thinking, which is why Catholics see the Bible so differently. We were encouraged to use outside knowledge (what we learned in science, history, language arts) to further understand the Bible.

Facts: God is love. Redemption is open to all. "Hell" was unknown to Paul--there wasn't even a word for hell in his day.

In Biblical times, scripture wasn't about getting to the afterlife, it was about living this life. Choose not to believe in Christ? Then you are condemned to live this life without an easy yoke and a light burden. Taking every word in the Bible literally condemns one to block out the knowledge we have gained over time. Or, it condemns one to dismissing the Bible entirely.

Paul had the idea that God has a plan, and that He uses his creation in various ways to fulfill this plan. I, too, believe God has a plan, and not even a crucifixion, or people running off in different directions can prevent God's plan from reaching fruition. That Paul's theme: God's plan that will result in glory for all. Paul was in despair for the Jews of his own time who could not see Jesus as redeemer and savior. He was saying that this should not, in the long run, disturb the people who did. After all, (and he cherry-picks earlier scripture verses) to show that there are always those who turn their backs on God, but that is how God made them, to use for His own ultimate glory. He is the potter, we are clay.

Don't question it. Sure, I do. It is a failed analogy supported only by his own cherry-picking. By the way, the formal term for "cherry-picking" is called proof-texting. It means taking other things, often out of context, to support one's own position. Paul did this.

No matter how awkwardly Paul put this thoughts together, his theme is still the glory of God and the ultimate redemption for all. Therefore, I see no contradiction. Critical thinking of Paul's work. His theme is spot on. His presentation (in my opinion) is a bit off. All due to his cherry-picking/proof-texting.

And the beat goes on with your own cherry-picking/proof-texting that you caught Paul and/or the Bible in a "Gotcha!" This is a win for binary thinkers who take every word in the Bible literally. I advise not to fall into that trap/rut unless it is a comfortable rut in which to live. Return to the basics: God is love. Redemption is open to all.

 

[hadit]

Let's look at one of them, shall we? This is a CLASSIC example of ignoring context to attempt making an erroneous point.

Luke 21:5-9
5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”
7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”
8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.”

Romans 13:11-14
11 And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.[c]

In Luke, what is Yeshua CLEARLY talking about? The destruction of the Temple and the End Times, in response to a question about when it would happen, AND He was warning about false messiahs that would come, claiming to be Him. What, OTOH, is Paul talking about? Straighten up and quit fooling around because Christ could return at any time. Be ready. Now, read both of those sections of Scripture and try to convince me that Paul was doing exactly what Yeshua warned about, being a false messiah.

I mean, you look at THIS and take it seriously as a contradiction between Paul and Yeshua? Deal with this one, then we can move on to another claimed "contradiction". I am now doubting that you ever were a devout Christian if you fell for this baloney. And, to address your complaint that I'm ignoring Scripture, obviously I am reading and comprehending far more of the Bible than you are. C'mon, man, did you really just grab the first entry after you Googled Paul and Jesus contradictions without even looking?

So, do we wrap this one up and toss it aside? There is no contradiction between Paul and Yeshua here. If there is no comment, we can move on to the next one, or we could acknowledge that this one is done.

 

[BULLDOG]

The crux of the matter may be those who take every word of the Bible literally and those who were taught not only to use critical thinking, but remembering the differences between today and Biblical times.

Literal thinking traps. One who accepts it limits the realities of science, history, culture, and changes in language. Or, the Bible is dismissed. End of story. Catholic school taught critical thinking, which is why Catholics see the Bible so differently. We were encouraged to use outside knowledge (what we learned in science, history, language arts) to further understand the Bible.

Facts: God is love. Redemption is open to all. "Hell" was unknown to Paul--there wasn't even a word for hell in his day.

In Biblical times, scripture wasn't about getting to the afterlife, it was about living this life. Choose not to believe in Christ? Then you are condemned to live this life without an easy yoke and a light burden. Taking every word in the Bible literally condemns one to block out the knowledge we have gained over time. Or, it condemns one to dismissing the Bible entirely.

Paul had the idea that God has a plan, and that He uses his creation in various ways to fulfill this plan. I, too, believe God has a plan, and not even a crucifixion, or people running off in different directions can prevent God's plan from reaching fruition. That Paul's theme: God's plan that will result in glory for all. Paul was in despair for the Jews of his own time who could not see Jesus as redeemer and savior. He was saying that this should not, in the long run, disturb the people who did. After all, (and he cherry-picks earlier scripture verses) to show that there are always those who turn their backs on God, but that is how God made them, to use for His own ultimate glory. He is the potter, we are clay.

Don't question it. Sure, I do. It is a failed analogy supported only by his own cherry-picking. By the way, the formal term for "cherry-picking" is called proof-texting. It means taking other things, often out of context, to support one's own position. Paul did this.

No matter how awkwardly Paul put this thoughts together, his theme is still the glory of God and the ultimate redemption for all. Therefore, I see no contradiction. Critical thinking of Paul's work. His theme is spot on. His presentation (in my opinion) is a bit off. All due to his cherry-picking/proof-texting.

And the beat goes on with your own cherry-picking/proof-texting that you caught Paul and/or the Bible in a "Gotcha!" This is a win for binary thinkers who take every word in the Bible literally. I advise not to fall into that trap/rut unless it is a comfortable rut in which to live. Return to the basics: God is love. Redemption is open to all.

And there's the rub. You freely admit the bible can't be taken literally. So who determinse which parts are literal, and which parts can be ignored? How can Christianity, which is supposed to be based on the teachings of Jesus, who supposedly didn't even have a word for hell, have avoidence of hell as it's main goal?
Regardless of Paul's intentions, he claimed some people never have the option of avoidng hell, This is in direct conflict with a loving, forgiving God. Again, If you can find comfort of such a hodgepodge of religious beliefs, then I'm a little jealous. I know how freeing it is to believe a benevolent loving entity is in charge, and all is as it should be. I just cant find that meening in such contradicory messages as found in the bible.

 

[BULLDOG]

So, do we wrap this one up and toss it aside? There is no contradiction between Paul and Yeshua here. If there is no comment, we can move on to the next one, or we could acknowledge that this one is done.

Impressive. You found one event that you think you can explain by examinating context as seen through your eyes. I'm not sure the subject of the temple being destroyed was even metioned in this thread, other than by you. If you want to answer the question of whether the bible is contradictory, perhaps you might stick with the contradictions that are being discussed, instead of injecting a completely different story.

Set em up, knock em down was your intention I suppose. I prefer to set up my own questions and present the contradictions that trouble me, if you don't mind.