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

[Vandalshandle]

Agnostics don't assume the existence of God. But do they assume the existence of Satan?

No.

Even contrary to well established physical proofs of it in therapies as well as prisons, and schools?

What physical proofs are you talking about?

There are many physical proofs for the existence of the devil. For example in prisons, everything is replaced with fear and anxiety. In the cases of child abuse similarly. The two basic human emotions are fear and love, the exact opposite of each other. Fear is established by the devil, and love is established by God. Fear results in agony and death, love results in happiness and life. Physically observable and very simple. Why is it not undeniable? Because power play expectations skew it all.

My dog is league with the devil. He fears thunder.

 

[anotherlife]

Agnostics don't assume the existence of God. But do they assume the existence of Satan?

No.

Even contrary to well established physical proofs of it in therapies as well as prisons, and schools?

What physical proofs are you talking about?

The physical acts that people commit after their minds are altered.

 

[anotherlife]

Agnostics don't assume the existence of God. But do they assume the existence of Satan?

No.

Even contrary to well established physical proofs of it in therapies as well as prisons, and schools?

What physical proofs are you talking about?

There are many physical proofs for the existence of the devil. For example in prisons, everything is replaced with fear and anxiety. In the cases of child abuse similarly. The two basic human emotions are fear and love, the exact opposite of each other. Fear is established by the devil, and love is established by God. Fear results in agony and death, love results in happiness and life. Physically observable and very simple. Why is it not undeniable? Because power play expectations skew it all.

My dog is league with the devil. He fears thunder.

. Hehehe! But you can actually objectively measure the devil's power on a person, but counting how many items of love in the person's life is transformed into fear, or anxiety, or threats.

 

[basquebromance]

if you dont believe in anything, my friends, what's the point of going on with life?

go get baptized, atheists.

i dont believe God created folks with the purpose of judging them. i dont believe in God, i do believe that there is something there!

 

[diver52]

I am curious though. On what basis do you state that God is good? I find nothing in either the Old or New Testament to support that conclusion. Quite the contrary.

Both Old and New Testaments proclaim the goodness and love of God. The New Testament describes God as "Abba", meaning Father, or perhaps more accurately, Daddy.

I am fond of advising, First seek and find God--then read the Bible. I will not go into details, but I have experienced the love of God, which has given me a very strong belief that God loves everyone. Since that came at a young age, like so many I wondered why so many accounts of God's actions seem quite contrary to love and goodness. How could Biblical authors get so much wrong?

That had me delving into the history and cultures of Biblical times--and Rabbinical teachings. First, the original authors and audiences were not questioning the goodness and love of God. That was a given. Their focus was on the failure of humans to love and to be good. God's actions were seen as necessary for justice; and also pointed out how God's mercy was ever present in His justice.

The other subject I studied was science, because I believe science, as much or perhaps more so than Scripture, can also be a tremendous revelation about God.

The problem with hearing Bible stories as children is that children have an innate--and great--sense of fairness. If, as children, we are not taught what the original authors intended us to learn, as children we are going to jump to our own conclusions. Further, by the time we are teens, we have heard Bible stories so often, many of us are convinced we are well versed in the Bible and religion when nothing can be further from the truth.

Saint Theresa of Avila, author of the Interior Castle, noted that even most of us who faithfully attend religious services and pray regularly, only reach the entry way, or perhaps the first story, of that seven story Interior Castle. Getting people that far takes great effort--and people have to expend even greater effort in living their lives without also finding times to explore all the rooms on the first floor of the castle, let alone all the rooms on the other six floors. However, being aware that they are there for us can be of great encouragement and help to us.

Going back to the main point--and the most vital: Seek and find God, and the Bible takes on a whole new meaning than it does to a child who is just beginning to learn and understand.

What I notice here is while you say God is good, you provide not a single reference in the Bible where God is actually being good. I don't blame you since I never found one myself.

In any case, I am not trying to dissuade you from your beliefs. If you find comfort in them I truly am happy for you. For me, it is incomprehensible and I am not at all unhappy with it. I am just sharing my point of view with you, which in no way diminishes your point of view.

KJV

Matthew
19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?


19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mark
10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

That just says he is good, not an example where he is being good.

 

[diver52]

As I said, I really don't get how you can accept this and take comfort from it.

It is not a matter of comfort, it is a matter of understanding the point(s) the original authors were passing on. To understand, one must let go of modern English and modern culture and study ancient languages and ancient cultures.

I do understand the points. They really aren't that difficult to understand. Perhaps I just look at those points from a different angle. For example, the story of Job is generally seen as a message about consistency of faith. The focus is on Job. But if you focus instead upon God in the story, then it is about uncaring pettiness and ego. Innocent people and animals were butchered just so God could say, "I told you so."

"Animals butchered"? Are you sure about that?

Yes. Job 1:16 "While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee."

 

[diver52]

Agnostics don't assume the existence of God. But do they assume the existence of Satan?

No.

Even contrary to well established physical proofs of it in therapies as well as prisons, and schools?

What physical proofs are you talking about?

There are many physical proofs for the existence of the devil. For example in prisons, everything is replaced with fear and anxiety. In the cases of child abuse similarly. The two basic human emotions are fear and love, the exact opposite of each other. Fear is established by the devil, and love is established by God. Fear results in agony and death, love results in happiness and life. Physically observable and very simple. Why is it not undeniable? Because power play expectations skew it all.

Sorry, that only proves humans sometimes don't play well together and don't do well in confined spaces. It says nothing about the existence of any external being.

 

[diver52]

Agnostics don't assume the existence of God. But do they assume the existence of Satan?

No.

Even contrary to well established physical proofs of it in therapies as well as prisons, and schools?

What physical proofs are you talking about?

The physical acts that people commit after their minds are altered.

Not a proof at all. I might as well say the existence of cars is proof there is no god.

 

[anotherlife]

Agnostics don't assume the existence of God. But do they assume the existence of Satan?

No.

Even contrary to well established physical proofs of it in therapies as well as prisons, and schools?

What physical proofs are you talking about?

There are many physical proofs for the existence of the devil. For example in prisons, everything is replaced with fear and anxiety. In the cases of child abuse similarly. The two basic human emotions are fear and love, the exact opposite of each other. Fear is established by the devil, and love is established by God. Fear results in agony and death, love results in happiness and life. Physically observable and very simple. Why is it not undeniable? Because power play expectations skew it all.

Sorry, that only proves humans sometimes don't play well together and don't do well in confined spaces. It says nothing about the existence of any external being.

No, because nobody is in full command of what he says or feels. Something else exists. Even scientists acknowledge the uncontrollable sub conscientious. But just because individuals can't control it, doesn't mean that other forces don't.

 

[anotherlife]

Agnostics don't assume the existence of God. But do they assume the existence of Satan?

No.

Even contrary to well established physical proofs of it in therapies as well as prisons, and schools?

What physical proofs are you talking about?

The physical acts that people commit after their minds are altered.

Not a proof at all. I might as well say the existence of cars is proof there is no god.

No, this proves that there is a devil. Once the devil is thereby proven, the existence of God follows.

 

[diver52]

No.

Even contrary to well established physical proofs of it in therapies as well as prisons, and schools?

What physical proofs are you talking about?

There are many physical proofs for the existence of the devil. For example in prisons, everything is replaced with fear and anxiety. In the cases of child abuse similarly. The two basic human emotions are fear and love, the exact opposite of each other. Fear is established by the devil, and love is established by God. Fear results in agony and death, love results in happiness and life. Physically observable and very simple. Why is it not undeniable? Because power play expectations skew it all.

Sorry, that only proves humans sometimes don't play well together and don't do well in confined spaces. It says nothing about the existence of any external being.

No, because nobody is in full command of what he says or feels. Something else exists. Even scientists acknowledge the uncontrollable sub conscientious. But just because individuals can't control it, doesn't mean that other forces don't.

Which says something about humans, but nothing beyond that. You simply believe it to be so and assume the connection. I am not saying your are wrong, but what you are providing is not even close to being proof.

 

[diver52]

No.

Even contrary to well established physical proofs of it in therapies as well as prisons, and schools?

What physical proofs are you talking about?

The physical acts that people commit after their minds are altered.

Not a proof at all. I might as well say the existence of cars is proof there is no god.

No, this proves that there is a devil. Once the devil is thereby proven, the existence of God follows.

No, it does not.

 

[Meriweather]

And there lies the problem for me. I place no forgone conclusion as to the nature of God. If God acts in a particular manner, then my evaluation is based upon that action. For God to be good, then God must act good. Jesus said it well. You shall know them by their fruits.

I would have to know which story you have in mind that you feel portrays God as behaving versus God reacting to human misbehavior.

 

[ding]

For God to be good, then God must act good.

You’d have to have complete knowledge to know what is good. Unless of course you don’t believe good can come from bad. Which would defy the mechanics of natural selection.

Ancient man understood that existence is good. He conveyed this belief in the allegorical account of creation which was how they passed down knowledge 6000 years ago. Orally. From generation to generation for thousands of years. They used stories to make it easier to remember and pass down knowledge. Ancient man believed that the material world was created and that man arose from that creation. Two propositions which have been proven true. According to ancient man after every step God would look at creation and see that it is good. And it is too. We have literally hit the cosmic lottery. Existence, even with its ups and downs is superior to not existing. In fact it is the ups and the downs that make existing worthwhile. That's all ancient man is saying. That existence is good and that good comes from good.

But if you really want to know that God is good you only have to look how everyone believes they are moral even when they don’t behave morally. That’s how strongly we feel about right and wrong. When do wrong rather than admit it or abandon the concept of right and wrong we rationalize we didn’t violate it.

Man is the only animal that has a concept of good and evil. It is uniquely a human construct. That's because the concept of right and wrong is an artifact of intelligence. That is what ancient man was saying in the account of the two trees of knowledge of good and evil.

Man knows right from wrong. That’s what ancient man was saying in the account of Adam and Eve when they realized they were naked and hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew they had done wrong. It’s not a story about eating an apple.

Ancient man was saying that rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong when we violate it, we will rationalize we didn’t violate it. Adam did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

The original meaning of these accounts has been lost through time. But that’s no excuse for us to not seek it out.

 

[ding]

For God to be good, then God must act good.

Yet another argument for how we know God is good is that no one does evil for evil's sake. They only do evil for the sake of their own good. Even Hitler and Attila the Hun believed they were being moral, right?

And yet another argument for how we know God is good is that evil is not extant. It only exists as the absence of good. It's like darkness and cold. They only exist as the absence of something else. In their case, light and heat. So it isn't odd or unexpected that what we see are degrees of goodness.

 

[Hollie]

No.

Even contrary to well established physical proofs of it in therapies as well as prisons, and schools?

What physical proofs are you talking about?

The physical acts that people commit after their minds are altered.

Not a proof at all. I might as well say the existence of cars is proof there is no god.

No, this proves that there is a devil. Once the devil is thereby proven, the existence of God follows.

That’s ridiculous. You have proven only that fear and superstition is a powerful motivating tool.

Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. The concept only derives from various religious texts and tales and fables. These tales are derived to invoke fear. Fear is a powerful motivational tool. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from the toiling masses than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain.

That's why many religions use this form of mind control to gain and keep their members. The Abrahamic religions use heaven and hell, the concept of sin, a corrupted nature no one can escape, the requirement of a savior as a means to coerce behavior supportive of the religion. The religion cloaks itself under dynamics which affects behavior (teaching the doctrine of the religion is inerrant even in the face of overwhelming proof contrary to the religious doctrine), and psychological (gods with a vested interest in the behaviors of men, who can see their sins, who are able to mete out justice -- all of these are severe and inescapable mental leveragings that dictate human behavior-- i.e., psychologies.

 

[ding]

All I have to go on is what is in the Bible. At least to evaluate the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Perhaps all that is going on is an evaluation of the Bible through the lens of our modern day culture as written and portrayed in modern English. The culture and ancient language present something entirely different.

Certainly true if the Bible is simply an historical text. There is much in it which justifies behavior which would be unacceptable today. But if all it is is an historical text, then it has nothing to do with God. Personally, I consider that to be the case.

I believe it is a bit of both. Much can be learned from studying God's creation and seeking a relationship with the creator. Before you try to understand the Bible, you might want to study the only evidence we have at our disposal which is nature herself. Of which we have a decided advantage as we can study ourselves. That's important because we are beings that know and create and we can use our experiences as creators to draw upon. In this regard we are unique to the animal kingdom.

The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 800 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning. Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong. Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

 

[RodISHI]

The Adam 'human being awakened to know it has a living soul' with an Eve 'life (consciousness or that portion that teaches and shows where life is)' is naked (ashamed as it can see its own sin) after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The awakening human seems to think that it can hide itself from the spirit that gave it life. In order to save that living soul from death it is given coverings as it develops, learns, grows and the portion that lived to sin dies.

 

[diver52]

And there lies the problem for me. I place no forgone conclusion as to the nature of God. If God acts in a particular manner, then my evaluation is based upon that action. For God to be good, then God must act good. Jesus said it well. You shall know them by their fruits.

I would have to know which story you have in mind that you feel portrays God as behaving versus God reacting to human misbehavior.

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.

 

[diver52]

For God to be good, then God must act good.

You’d have to have complete knowledge to know what is good. Unless of course you don’t believe good can come from bad. Which would defy the mechanics of natural selection.

Ancient man understood that existence is good. He conveyed this belief in the allegorical account of creation which was how they passed down knowledge 6000 years ago. Orally. From generation to generation for thousands of years. They used stories to make it easier to remember and pass down knowledge. Ancient man believed that the material world was created and that man arose from that creation. Two propositions which have been proven true. According to ancient man after every step God would look at creation and see that it is good. And it is too. We have literally hit the cosmic lottery. Existence, even with its ups and downs is superior to not existing. In fact it is the ups and the downs that make existing worthwhile. That's all ancient man is saying. That existence is good and that good comes from good.

But if you really want to know that God is good you only have to look how everyone believes they are moral even when they don’t behave morally. That’s how strongly we feel about right and wrong. When do wrong rather than admit it or abandon the concept of right and wrong we rationalize we didn’t violate it.

Man is the only animal that has a concept of good and evil. It is uniquely a human construct. That's because the concept of right and wrong is an artifact of intelligence. That is what ancient man was saying in the account of the two trees of knowledge of good and evil.

Man knows right from wrong. That’s what ancient man was saying in the account of Adam and Eve when they realized they were naked and hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew they had done wrong. It’s not a story about eating an apple.

Ancient man was saying that rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong when we violate it, we will rationalize we didn’t violate it. Adam did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

The original meaning of these accounts has been lost through time. But that’s no excuse for us to not seek it out.

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.