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

[diver52]

The story construct? If I walk up to a woman holding her child, put a gun to the child's head and tell her I'm going to pull the trigger. Then tell her it's just a joke to show what a great sense of humor I have. Do you think it matters how the newspaper portrays it?

God demands a man kill his own son as a human sacrifice to himself. I really don't get how anyone can look at that, call it good and decide such a being is worth worship. I understand that people do, but I just don't get it.

Sense of humor? Joking? There are no jokes or humor in the story!

Let's try it this way. Construct a story in modern times where abortion is a simple fact of life, "everyone" is doing it; indeed it seems to be expected under certain circumstances. People are so immersed in it they believe God is okay with it as well, that He understands. Imagine a young lady of today who has been convinced that abortion is called for: Family, friends, it seems even God, is okay with it. Then, she looks up/looks around, and sees another alternative. She feels God is staying her hand, telling her to do something different, not to do what the rest of society is doing. She goes and tells her astonished (and probably unbelieving family and friends) that God does not want her to have an abortion.

Try understanding the society/culture that was pervasive in Abraham's day, the pressures he was under, that he should be held to the same standards as everyone else. Abraham broke away. That is the story of the binding of Isaac.

Exactly. There is no humor in my example. No matter how you construct the story, I would be a monster. That is my point. No matter how you construct the story of Abraham, no matter how you justify it, what God actually did was not an act of love. Just the opposite.

Would you like to move on to another story? The theme repeats itself. So while there are indeed many passages which claim God is love you will find there is not a single example where God interacts directly with humanity that he exhibits anything akin to love.

Hence my difficulty in getting why anyone would find comfort in this. Obviously people do.

 

[BreezeWood]

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!"

That is an external locus of control answer. You are literally blaming God for your failure.

Think about it. You are describing an exchange between the creator of existence and yourself, right? And you believe it is a good plan to blame your failure on him?

yes

Good luck with that. You might want to read Job 40 for a preview of how that's going to go.

.

Good luck with that. You might want to read Job 40 for a preview of how that's going to go.

you are a joke, reading your 4th century book of the roman empire is how christians entitle themselves against the very issues addressed in the 1st century for the remediation of the individual for their own purposeful entitlements.

your book is a political fabrication to stymie the truth for purposes christians chose for their own self directed motivations. no different than your chosen dialogue.

 

[diver52]

Let me try explaining it like this. It is irrational to use accounts of a people who believed that God is good to prove God isn’t good.

It shows that the person who is trying to use those accounts does not understand those accounts.

What I am using are the stories which tell of God's actions and judging those actions. Of course, if we accept as a given that those stories are just stories then we have a different situation. Are we taking that as a given?

 

[ding]

The point is that God demanded human sacrifice. He put a father through that kind of hell and for what purpose? Amusement? If you read the story, God didn't even stay Abraham's hand. An angel did that. God really comes off as a complete ass in this story.

Jews seem to understand the story and why it was written the way it was. Every year, during one of their high holidays, this story is told its various meanings and lessons discussed.

I understand you do not care for the story construct. You don't care for how God is portrayed. How would you construct the story? Good stories are centered around conflicts and resolutions. What would your conflicts and resolutions be? Would your story be handed down for thousands of years?

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.

You don't get it because you don't understand the accounts because you haven't reconciled the beliefs of the ancient Jews to those accounts. You probably don't even know how the ancient Jews felt about or saw God. Because I can assure you it wasn't fear. Read Psalms. Read Proverbs.

I have. I don't care how anyone else feels or felt about God. I am responsible for my own conclusions, not theirs.

Then how is that your poor opinion of God’s goodness is diametrically opposed to the ancient Jews opinion that God is good?

Well, I do not simply accept that the ancient Jews held that opinion universally. The people who wrote the Bible seem to have, but those were also the people who made their living telling people that God was good. So their motivation might be a tad skewed. But even taken your statement as a given, it changes nothing. I am responsible for my opinions. That responsibility does not go away because it differs from other people's.

Let me toss it back to you. The ancient Egyptians felt the same way about their gods, how do you explain your not accepting them in the same manner?

Because I don’t accept the premise that just because there are multiple perceptions of God that there are multiple Gods or no God.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you use to call him. He only cares that you call him.

So in effect I do accept their perception of God.

 

[ding]

Let me try explaining it like this. It is irrational to use accounts of a people who believed that God is good to prove God isn’t good.

It shows that the person who is trying to use those accounts does not understand those accounts.

What I am using are the stories which tell of God's actions and judging those actions. Of course, if we accept as a given that those stories are just stories then we have a different situation. Are we taking that as a given?

Out of context and ignoring all the verses where they sing his praise.

 

[ding]

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!"

That is an external locus of control answer. You are literally blaming God for your failure.

Think about it. You are describing an exchange between the creator of existence and yourself, right? And you believe it is a good plan to blame your failure on him?

yes

Good luck with that. You might want to read Job 40 for a preview of how that's going to go.

.

Good luck with that. You might want to read Job 40 for a preview of how that's going to go.

you are a joke, reading your 4th century book of the roman empire is how christians entitle themselves against the very issues addressed in the 1st century for the remediation of the individual for their own purposeful entitlements.

your book is a political fabrication to stymie the truth for purposes christians chose for their own self directed motivations. no different than your chosen dialogue.

I couldn’t care less what a Marxist believes about me. You are on a mission to subordinate religion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

I didn't claim to know you. I claimed to know what you said. And you have contradicted yourself out of convenience. And you got called on it. And now you're throwing a fit.

 

[diver52]

The point is that God demanded human sacrifice. He put a father through that kind of hell and for what purpose? Amusement? If you read the story, God didn't even stay Abraham's hand. An angel did that. God really comes off as a complete ass in this story.

Jews seem to understand the story and why it was written the way it was. Every year, during one of their high holidays, this story is told its various meanings and lessons discussed.

I understand you do not care for the story construct. You don't care for how God is portrayed. How would you construct the story? Good stories are centered around conflicts and resolutions. What would your conflicts and resolutions be? Would your story be handed down for thousands of years?

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.

You don't get it because you don't understand the accounts because you haven't reconciled the beliefs of the ancient Jews to those accounts. You probably don't even know how the ancient Jews felt about or saw God. Because I can assure you it wasn't fear. Read Psalms. Read Proverbs.

I have. I don't care how anyone else feels or felt about God. I am responsible for my own conclusions, not theirs.

Then how is that your poor opinion of God’s goodness is diametrically opposed to the ancient Jews opinion that God is good?

Well, I do not simply accept that the ancient Jews held that opinion universally. The people who wrote the Bible seem to have, but those were also the people who made their living telling people that God was good. So their motivation might be a tad skewed. But even taken your statement as a given, it changes nothing. I am responsible for my opinions. That responsibility does not go away because it differs from other people's.

Let me toss it back to you. The ancient Egyptians felt the same way about their gods, how do you explain your not accepting them in the same manner?

Because I don’t accept the premise that just because there are multiple perceptions of God that there are multiple Gods or no God.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you use to call him. He only cares that you call him.

So in effect I do accept their perception of God.

Then I give you the same response. I don't accept the premise.

 

[diver52]

Let me try explaining it like this. It is irrational to use accounts of a people who believed that God is good to prove God isn’t good.

It shows that the person who is trying to use those accounts does not understand those accounts.

What I am using are the stories which tell of God's actions and judging those actions. Of course, if we accept as a given that those stories are just stories then we have a different situation. Are we taking that as a given?

Out of context and ignoring all the verses where they sing his praise.

I could not care less about their songs. I have taken nothing out of context. My position is based entirely and solely upon the supposed actions of God.

 

[Meriweather]

Exactly. There is no humor in my example. No matter how you construct the story, I would be a monster. That is my point. No matter how you construct the story of Abraham, no matter how you justify it, what God actually did was not an act of love. Just the opposite.

Would you like to move on to another story? The theme repeats itself. So while there are indeed many passages which claim God is love you will find there is not a single example where God interacts directly with humanity that he exhibits anything akin to love.

Hence my difficulty in getting why anyone would find comfort in this. Obviously people do.

This does not address the point I was making about the story construct. The setting is that Abraham felt an obligation to sacrifice his son. Without that setting, there is no story--and possibly no Jewish nation. You object to the setting, but in that age and place, it was a given that gods demanded child sacrifice. This is the society in which Abraham lived--and he had just proclaimed a new God--the new idea that there was one God of all.

The people willingly included another God on the scene--called him, "The God of Abraham" and continued worshiping and sacrificing to their own gods. And how did this new God react to Abraham sacrificing his son, Isaac? This God stopped Abraham. And the story went far and wide that those who followed the God of Abraham were not permitted to sacrifice a child.

 

[Meriweather]

Would you like to move on to another story?

Sure, name another story. It seems we cannot agree that God stopping future parents from sacrificing their children to Him, was not only an act of love, but one of immense magnitude.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Would you like to move on to another story?

Sure, name another story. It seems we cannot agree that God stopping future parents from sacrificing their children to Him, was not only an act of love, but one of immense magnitude.

Of course, that is immoral and idiotic on every level, as god had them doing that in the first place. How canan adult buy this garbage?

 

[ding]

Jews seem to understand the story and why it was written the way it was. Every year, during one of their high holidays, this story is told its various meanings and lessons discussed.

I understand you do not care for the story construct. You don't care for how God is portrayed. How would you construct the story? Good stories are centered around conflicts and resolutions. What would your conflicts and resolutions be? Would your story be handed down for thousands of years?

You don't get it because you don't understand the accounts because you haven't reconciled the beliefs of the ancient Jews to those accounts. You probably don't even know how the ancient Jews felt about or saw God. Because I can assure you it wasn't fear. Read Psalms. Read Proverbs.

I have. I don't care how anyone else feels or felt about God. I am responsible for my own conclusions, not theirs.

Then how is that your poor opinion of God’s goodness is diametrically opposed to the ancient Jews opinion that God is good?

Well, I do not simply accept that the ancient Jews held that opinion universally. The people who wrote the Bible seem to have, but those were also the people who made their living telling people that God was good. So their motivation might be a tad skewed. But even taken your statement as a given, it changes nothing. I am responsible for my opinions. That responsibility does not go away because it differs from other people's.

Let me toss it back to you. The ancient Egyptians felt the same way about their gods, how do you explain your not accepting them in the same manner?

Because I don’t accept the premise that just because there are multiple perceptions of God that there are multiple Gods or no God.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you use to call him. He only cares that you call him.

So in effect I do accept their perception of God.

Then I give you the same response. I don't accept the premise.

The premise that the ancient Jews believed God is good? It’s written down in their holy texts.

 

[ding]

Let me try explaining it like this. It is irrational to use accounts of a people who believed that God is good to prove God isn’t good.

It shows that the person who is trying to use those accounts does not understand those accounts.

What I am using are the stories which tell of God's actions and judging those actions. Of course, if we accept as a given that those stories are just stories then we have a different situation. Are we taking that as a given?

Out of context and ignoring all the verses where they sing his praise.

I could not care less about their songs. I have taken nothing out of context. My position is based entirely and solely upon the supposed actions of God.

You absolutely have taken it out of context. There’s no question about that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have. I don't care how anyone else feels or felt about God. I am responsible for my own conclusions, not theirs.

Then how is that your poor opinion of God’s goodness is diametrically opposed to the ancient Jews opinion that God is good?

Well, I do not simply accept that the ancient Jews held that opinion universally. The people who wrote the Bible seem to have, but those were also the people who made their living telling people that God was good. So their motivation might be a tad skewed. But even taken your statement as a given, it changes nothing. I am responsible for my opinions. That responsibility does not go away because it differs from other people's.

Let me toss it back to you. The ancient Egyptians felt the same way about their gods, how do you explain your not accepting them in the same manner?

Because I don’t accept the premise that just because there are multiple perceptions of God that there are multiple Gods or no God.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you use to call him. He only cares that you call him.

So in effect I do accept their perception of God.

Then I give you the same response. I don't accept the premise.

The premise that the ancient Jews believed God is good? It’s written down in their holy texts.

They also believed he was vain, vengeful, and angry. That's also written down.

Thats what unhealthy codependence looks like. Hard to tell if it's an iron aged voodoo rag or a court transcript from a trailer park domestic abuse case.

 

[ding]

Then how is that your poor opinion of God’s goodness is diametrically opposed to the ancient Jews opinion that God is good?

Well, I do not simply accept that the ancient Jews held that opinion universally. The people who wrote the Bible seem to have, but those were also the people who made their living telling people that God was good. So their motivation might be a tad skewed. But even taken your statement as a given, it changes nothing. I am responsible for my opinions. That responsibility does not go away because it differs from other people's.

Let me toss it back to you. The ancient Egyptians felt the same way about their gods, how do you explain your not accepting them in the same manner?

Because I don’t accept the premise that just because there are multiple perceptions of God that there are multiple Gods or no God.

There is only one Creator. He doesn’t care what name you use to call him. He only cares that you call him.

So in effect I do accept their perception of God.

Then I give you the same response. I don't accept the premise.

The premise that the ancient Jews believed God is good? It’s written down in their holy texts.

They also believed he was vain, vengeful, and angry. That's also written down.

Thats what unhealthy codependence looks like. Hard to tell if it's an iron aged voodoo rag or a court transcript from a trailer park domestic abuse case.

All taken out of context by a person who desires to see it that way.

 

[BreezeWood]

All taken out of context by a person who desires to see it that way.

howabout you bing -

the context for the religion of the roman empire throughout history ...

disguised as the events of the 1st century.

name one century your false religion has ever not been the primary force of persecution and victimization of the innocent.

 

[diver52]

Exactly. There is no humor in my example. No matter how you construct the story, I would be a monster. That is my point. No matter how you construct the story of Abraham, no matter how you justify it, what God actually did was not an act of love. Just the opposite.

Would you like to move on to another story? The theme repeats itself. So while there are indeed many passages which claim God is love you will find there is not a single example where God interacts directly with humanity that he exhibits anything akin to love.

Hence my difficulty in getting why anyone would find comfort in this. Obviously people do.

This does not address the point I was making about the story construct. The setting is that Abraham felt an obligation to sacrifice his son. Without that setting, there is no story--and possibly no Jewish nation. You object to the setting, but in that age and place, it was a given that gods demanded child sacrifice. This is the society in which Abraham lived--and he had just proclaimed a new God--the new idea that there was one God of all.

The people willingly included another God on the scene--called him, "The God of Abraham" and continued worshiping and sacrificing to their own gods. And how did this new God react to Abraham sacrificing his son, Isaac? This God stopped Abraham. And the story went far and wide that those who followed the God of Abraham were not permitted to sacrifice a child.

Your point is irrelevant to my issue. You are saying that it was ok for God to demand a human sacrifice because that was acceptable to human society at the time. Do you think that matters if we are to accept that story as an accurate portrayal of God's actions? Humanity was tribal, rural, uneducated and unsophisticated. Was God? It isn't the setting, it is the act that I have issue with. Saying God has to be given a pass on this because of the way the people acted is like saying a parent should be given a pass because their two year old can't control his emotions. You expect a child to act like a child. A parent must be held to a higher standard.

 

[diver52]

Would you like to move on to another story?

Sure, name another story. It seems we cannot agree that God stopping future parents from sacrificing their children to Him, was not only an act of love, but one of immense magnitude.

We certainly will not agree that your shooting me in the heart is an act of love because it will keep me from shooting someone else. But we can move on.

I believe the next story is Sodom. Where God destroys an entire city because he's miffed they don't meet his high standards. A city which, btw, contained children who certainly can't have been too bad. In so doing we discover the one man good enough for his standards. A drunken pedophile who offered his young daughters up for gang rape rather than put his own butt on the line to protect his guests. Oh, and let us not forget the murder of those girl's mother for the heinous crime of turning to look.

Where do we find the love here?

 

[diver52]

Let me try explaining it like this. It is irrational to use accounts of a people who believed that God is good to prove God isn’t good.

It shows that the person who is trying to use those accounts does not understand those accounts.

What I am using are the stories which tell of God's actions and judging those actions. Of course, if we accept as a given that those stories are just stories then we have a different situation. Are we taking that as a given?

Out of context and ignoring all the verses where they sing his praise.

I could not care less about their songs. I have taken nothing out of context. My position is based entirely and solely upon the supposed actions of God.

You absolutely have taken it out of context. There’s no question about that.

I agree there is no question, just that I have not taken it out of context. I keep getting reminded of that great line from the Wizard of Oz. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."