A lot of Atheist and agnostics just don't get it

[diver52]

Which three are those. I must have missed them.

We can try Deuteronomy 7:7-8 as well: It was not because you are the largest of all nations that the Lord set his heart on you and chose you, for you are really the smallest of all nations. It was because the Lord loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your fathers, that he brought you out with his strong hand from the place of slavery and ransomed you for the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

We might also consider the realities of love and ardor. Pain and suffering walk hand-in-hand with both.

Sorry, that isn't going to fly for me. That is just something that says God loves, not an example of loving behavior. I can define myself as someone who can leap 30' straight up, but that isn't going to make my high jump a mm higher. I believe I have already quoted Jesus on this, "You shall know them by their fruits." Let's confine this to his fruits.

So pick one and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

As to the realities of love and ardor, that could be an interesting side issue. How do you think that applies?

 

[diver52]

This came up because I said I didn't get why anyone would feel comfort in this god.

Because we were made that way. It’s hardwired into us.

The reality is that billions do.

In fact, according to Darwin if there were no advantage in believing in a higher power, it would have been discarded long ago.

The benefits of faith are so overwhelming that it is irrational not to have faith.

We are hardwired to believe. I will certainly grant you that. I do not doubt for a second that belief is a survival trait in humans, as is religion. But that is not the issue. The title of the thread is that atheists and agnostics just don't get it. The "it" being Christianity. I confessed that it true for me. I just don't get it. It isn't that you believe that I don't get, it's what you believe. I have never said it was a problem that others did.

 

[diver52]

Actually, I see the story of Adam and Eve as the story of the original bad parent. They were innocent, like children. Put something directly in front of a child and tell them they can't touch it and then walk away. What do you think will happen? If God did not want them to eat of the tree, he should not have put the tree there. It was a set up.

As to knowing all good, that is impossible since "good" is an entirely subjective concept. You can only make that evaluation based upon your own standards. But morally you must evaluate and live in accordance with that evaluation. If it is wrong for him to do, it is wrong for me to do. If it is wrong for me to do, it is wrong for him. Your evaluation may differ from mine, but it is mine I must use. To use yours in favor of mine is to abdicate from personal responsibility.

Again, the focus of the story is on the people, not on God. There was a choice before mankind: To know only good and therefore be good like God; or, to know both good and evil and, like God, choose good. Fire is a good example. Mankind could choose to only know the good fire brings about: Warmth, cooking, beauty. Or, he could choose to know the inverse side as well: Injury, even fatal injury, destruction of all kinds, and torture. The story of Genesis is more about the choice mankind made and not about God being a bad parent. Clearly, God counseled His children, because while the choice was ours, He did have a preference. We had a different preference, and like all loving parents God is still with us to love and support, no matter whether the child's choice is to go to college or become a single parent.

And we are back to it. You call God good. I have asked for one example in the Bible which shows God as being good and not a single one so far as been presented. There is zero basis in the Bible to support that claim.

The claim that God is good isn’t based on the Bible. It is based on observations of the material world and logic.

Ancient man recorded this belief in the Bible but since you read it with bias you can’t see it.

You mean I didn't read it as a believer? I think you idea of biased might be a bit biased.

 

[diver52]

I have already brought up the story of Job. Let's turn that around. You tell me a story of God interacting with humans that portrays him as good.

The story of Job is not about God. It is about people coming to a new and greater understanding of God. Before was the idea that blessings came down upon good people, and the wicked were punished. However, people raised the question of why do bad things happen to good people. A new thought/teaching emerged: Bad things were not happening because people sinned. And, in the end, Job came to a greater understanding and increased knowledge of how both good and bad can bring mankind closer to God and knowledge of Him. Keep in mind, the story of Job was originally a play where different roles were assigned to different beings.

No one has asked me to put my faith in the people or to worship the people. If the intent is to understand God then the story is pointless if you are not paying attention to God. I understand that you can't do that if you want to call God good. In that story, God is anything but good.

Where did you get your concept of good from? You can’t know a line is crooked unless you have an idea of what is straight. You can’t say that something is bad or unfair without first knowing what is good or fair. So there must be goodness and fairness in the world that it is being compared to. Right? So it seems to me that you believe right and wrong are universal. Why else would you make an argument that it is illogical for God to allow suffering, if you are not arguing that God’s actions are wrong and unfair. You have literally let the cat out of the bag that you believe there is such a thing as universal goodness and fairness.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

 

[BreezeWood]

I have already brought up the story of Job. Let's turn that around. You tell me a story of God interacting with humans that portrays him as good.

The story of Job is not about God. It is about people coming to a new and greater understanding of God. Before was the idea that blessings came down upon good people, and the wicked were punished. However, people raised the question of why do bad things happen to good people. A new thought/teaching emerged: Bad things were not happening because people sinned. And, in the end, Job came to a greater understanding and increased knowledge of how both good and bad can bring mankind closer to God and knowledge of Him. Keep in mind, the story of Job was originally a play where different roles were assigned to different beings.

No one has asked me to put my faith in the people or to worship the people. If the intent is to understand God then the story is pointless if you are not paying attention to God. I understand that you can't do that if you want to call God good. In that story, God is anything but good.

Where did you get your concept of good from? You can’t know a line is crooked unless you have an idea of what is straight. You can’t say that something is bad or unfair without first knowing what is good or fair. So there must be goodness and fairness in the world that it is being compared to. Right? So it seems to me that you believe right and wrong are universal. Why else would you make an argument that it is illogical for God to allow suffering, if you are not arguing that God’s actions are wrong and unfair. You have literally let the cat out of the bag that you believe there is such a thing as universal goodness and fairness.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

- the only place anyone can.

not so ...

good being a metaphysical constant necessitates your concept tenuous by your nature rather than that of its reality.

 

[Meriweather]

So pick one and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

I've already picked four, and you dismissed them all. Your turn to choose.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've already picked four

No, you didnt. You picked four examples of something SAYING god loves, which is merely reiteration of your claim. That was already pointed out to you.

 

[justinacolmena]

they cannot perceive the Spirit that calls forth, comforts and keeps those who remain in faith and believe.

There's Rajneeshee preaching everybody outside his narrow cult to be atheist or agnostic, which is more or less a situational thing, because either there's no God in any of this pseudo-religious hyper-spiritual babble, or people don't have a clue what you're talkning about.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

they cannot perceive the Spirit that calls forth, comforts and keeps those who remain in faith and believe.

There's Rajneeshee preaching everybody outside his narrow cult to be atheist or agnostic, which is more or less a situational thing, because either there's no God in any of this pseudo-religious hyper-spiritual babble, or people don't have a clue what you're talkning about.

Yes. Look at the utter nonsense he is peddling. I'm not sure if he's about to anoint me with holy water or sell me a toaster.

 

[Meriweather]

No, you didnt. You picked four examples of something SAYING god loves, which is merely reiteration of your claim. That was already pointed out to you.

Silly, I knew it before it was pointed out! People wrote the stories and people wrote the Psalms, and people noted their attitude towards God. Why should stories take more precedent than psalms and prayers, especially when modern language mangles the original intent and purpose?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

People wrote the stories and people wrote the Psalms, and people noted their attitude towards God.

Hey, wait a sec...you tried to pass off your beliefs and the entirety of your dogma as merely "theism" just a page or two ago. And now you are trotting out the disgusting old testament? It looks like i am going to have to watch you for blatant dishonesty.

 

[Meriweather]

Hey, wait a sec...you tried to pass off your beliefs and the entirety of your dogma as merely "theism" just a page or two ago. And now you are trotting out the disgusting old testament? It looks like i am going to have to watch you for blatant dishonesty.

Don't bother. You don't understand me--or the Old Testament. Several months ago I elected not to respond to you for awhile. After giving it another try the past couple of days, it is better off if you and I return to that. Hoping your discussions go well with others.

 

[diver52]

I have already brought up the story of Job. Let's turn that around. You tell me a story of God interacting with humans that portrays him as good.

The story of Job is not about God. It is about people coming to a new and greater understanding of God. Before was the idea that blessings came down upon good people, and the wicked were punished. However, people raised the question of why do bad things happen to good people. A new thought/teaching emerged: Bad things were not happening because people sinned. And, in the end, Job came to a greater understanding and increased knowledge of how both good and bad can bring mankind closer to God and knowledge of Him. Keep in mind, the story of Job was originally a play where different roles were assigned to different beings.

No one has asked me to put my faith in the people or to worship the people. If the intent is to understand God then the story is pointless if you are not paying attention to God. I understand that you can't do that if you want to call God good. In that story, God is anything but good.

Where did you get your concept of good from? You can’t know a line is crooked unless you have an idea of what is straight. You can’t say that something is bad or unfair without first knowing what is good or fair. So there must be goodness and fairness in the world that it is being compared to. Right? So it seems to me that you believe right and wrong are universal. Why else would you make an argument that it is illogical for God to allow suffering, if you are not arguing that God’s actions are wrong and unfair. You have literally let the cat out of the bag that you believe there is such a thing as universal goodness and fairness.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

- the only place anyone can.

not so ...

good being a metaphysical constant necessitates your concept tenuous by your nature rather than that of its reality.

Upon what do you base the assertion that good is a metaphysical constant?

 

[diver52]

So pick one and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

I've already picked four, and you dismissed them all. Your turn to choose.

Sure. God demands Abraham to kill his own son in an act of human sacrifice.

 

[diver52]

No, you didnt. You picked four examples of something SAYING god loves, which is merely reiteration of your claim. That was already pointed out to you.

Silly, I knew it before it was pointed out! People wrote the stories and people wrote the Psalms, and people noted their attitude towards God. Why should stories take more precedent than psalms and prayers, especially when modern language mangles the original intent and purpose?

So we are clear, I am not talking about people's attitudes. I am talking about the supposed actions of God. I can't speak to the reactions of others, then or now. I can only speak to mine.

 

[BreezeWood]

The story of Job is not about God. It is about people coming to a new and greater understanding of God. Before was the idea that blessings came down upon good people, and the wicked were punished. However, people raised the question of why do bad things happen to good people. A new thought/teaching emerged: Bad things were not happening because people sinned. And, in the end, Job came to a greater understanding and increased knowledge of how both good and bad can bring mankind closer to God and knowledge of Him. Keep in mind, the story of Job was originally a play where different roles were assigned to different beings.

No one has asked me to put my faith in the people or to worship the people. If the intent is to understand God then the story is pointless if you are not paying attention to God. I understand that you can't do that if you want to call God good. In that story, God is anything but good.

Where did you get your concept of good from? You can’t know a line is crooked unless you have an idea of what is straight. You can’t say that something is bad or unfair without first knowing what is good or fair. So there must be goodness and fairness in the world that it is being compared to. Right? So it seems to me that you believe right and wrong are universal. Why else would you make an argument that it is illogical for God to allow suffering, if you are not arguing that God’s actions are wrong and unfair. You have literally let the cat out of the bag that you believe there is such a thing as universal goodness and fairness.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

- the only place anyone can.

not so ...

good being a metaphysical constant necessitates your concept tenuous by your nature rather than that of its reality.

Upon what do you base the assertion that good is a metaphysical constant?

.

Upon what do you base the assertion that good is a metaphysical constant?

by the prescribed religion of antiquity - the triumph of good vs evil - as the means for remission to the Everlasting. from whence we came.

and the functioning order of evolutionary, physiological change over time. physiology being a metaphysical substance.

 

[diver52]

No one has asked me to put my faith in the people or to worship the people. If the intent is to understand God then the story is pointless if you are not paying attention to God. I understand that you can't do that if you want to call God good. In that story, God is anything but good.

Where did you get your concept of good from? You can’t know a line is crooked unless you have an idea of what is straight. You can’t say that something is bad or unfair without first knowing what is good or fair. So there must be goodness and fairness in the world that it is being compared to. Right? So it seems to me that you believe right and wrong are universal. Why else would you make an argument that it is illogical for God to allow suffering, if you are not arguing that God’s actions are wrong and unfair. You have literally let the cat out of the bag that you believe there is such a thing as universal goodness and fairness.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

- the only place anyone can.

not so ...

good being a metaphysical constant necessitates your concept tenuous by your nature rather than that of its reality.

Upon what do you base the assertion that good is a metaphysical constant?

.

Upon what do you base the assertion that good is a metaphysical constant?

by the prescribed religion of antiquity - the triumph of good vs evil - as the means for remission to the Everlasting. from whence we came.

and the functioning order of evolutionary, physiological change over time. physiology being a metaphysical substance.

Then I completely disagree. Good is not a constant, has never been a constant and likely will never be a constant. It is entirely subjective.

I still have not a clue what you mean by "the Everlasting".

 

[basquebromance]

I'm an amiable low voltage atheist. i dont want to convert anybody. when i get to heaven and God asks why i didn't believe, i'm gonna say: "sir, you didn't give me enough evidence!"

 

[Meriweather]

Sure. God demands Abraham to kill his own son in an act of human sacrifice.

Q: How does the story end? What is its point?
A: Isaac lives. Yes, we must be willing to die for God, but what God asks is that we live for Him.

One of the Jewish legends surrounding Abraham is that as a child he grew up in a family that carved totems (carvings of animals thought to hold the spirit/powers of that animal) and many gods and goddesses. But, as Abraham grew he became convinced there were not many gods, or a god for each person, but one God of all. For Abraham, gods demanding child sacrifice, was customary, traditional. It was happening all around him. Interestingly enough, the god, Moloch, who is known for demanding child sacrifice had horns on his head--just like a ram does. What did God wish to have die--the human being or the thing with horns on its head? It certainly was not the child.

What we see in the story is new insight coming upon Abraham. It wasn't until he lifted his eyes--and really looked around--that he saw a sacrifice that was acceptable to God.

People of Israel (i.e. descendants of Jacob who became known as Israel because he wrestled with God) are known as a people who wrestle with God. We see this in the story of Abraham. He was promised many descendants; he was told to take his son up; then he was told to take him down. This is not a story of God being capricious. Rather it is a story of God showing Abraham the reality in the world around him--and how to recognize and choose a different path, the road less traveled in Abraham's own time.

In the process, Abraham has a story that his child-sacrificing neighbors could not argue against. Abraham just wasn't some godless wimp without the strength to make the ultimate sacrifice. He was the man to whom God revealed that He wanted children to live for Him--not become sacrifices to Him.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm an amiable low voltage atheist. i dont want to convert anybody. when i get to heaven and God asks why i didn't believe, i'm gonna say: "sir, you didn't give me enough evidence!"

What evidence would satisfy you? What would your answer be to the question, "Did you look beyond evidence? After all, I am Spirit."