Darwin vs DNA

[LOki]

Here is the def. for faith - Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Here's belief - a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.

Remove all the propositional phrases, and faith and belief boil down to confidence.

The dictionary definition of empirical evidence is evidence relating to or based on experience or observation.

Which ever you place your confidence in, the ever changing empirical evidence, or the unwavering word of God, the fact is:
Without the sciences you would have no empirical evidence. No data to perceive or have confidence in. The earth would still be flat. There would be no telescope to prove that time was a dimension. No Einstein to put it all together...

On the other hand:
Without the sciences, readers of the Bible would still know the earth was round, and that there are 4 dimensions that we are subject to here on the orb.

Oh, so contentious! Compare your definitions with those I use.

Also, how about your definition of rational belief?

Oh NO! Not rational belief!
Now what you have is rational describing the belief you support. So we are back to belief, only worse. Now we have a combination of knowledge + your opinion of knowledge.
Rational belief fails to define rational. What may be rational to you may be completely irrational to another. And is subject to constant change.
It is worse than knowledge for the sake of knowledge, it's knowledge plus your own understanding.
The Bible tells us not to do that. It will lead us astray.
Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.



God's dimensions existed for Jesus to use and for us to find, "empirically" 2,000 years later.
Heb. 13:8 ....yesterday today and tomorrow
Malachi 3:6
"For I am the LORD, I do not change..............

With a belief in God you have the answers and they are constant. Opinions, beliefs, thoughts don't change them.
The four dimensions referred to in the Bible were still 4, even when Einstein could only find 3. Then 4. Then 10. Then an infinite amount, the rolled up ones........

No need for science or man's rationale. Just faith. < a belief.

So sad.

It turns out that you're just another intellectually dishonest retard trying to conflate the terms reason and faith in hopes of claiming that your superstition is rational.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Loki continues his proof of assertion that thing itself is true without proof.

You can assert, falsely, all you want. You are a Loki of Faith.

You guys are engaged in proof of asserting. You keep asserting that God does not exist without any proof. Thus if you have no proof, then you have faith that it is so.

Nope. Asserting that God does not exist requires no faith. Asserting that God does not exist can be an expression of a rational belief--a belief founded upon and validated by evidence and valid logic. Faith is not rational, and Asserting that God exists can ONLY be an expression of faith.

Your attempts to conflate reason and faith are illegitimate, and intellectually dishonest.

 

[LOki]

Explain to us why it is that you require "proof" of the validity of my beliefs regarding God, when you didn't even require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic--let alone "proof"--to consider your own belief in God valid?

Loki continues his proof of assertion that thing itself is true without proof.

You can assert, falsely, all you want. You are a Loki of Faith.

You guys are engaged in proof of asserting. You keep asserting that God does not exist without any proof. Thus if you have no proof, then you have faith that it is so.

Nope. Asserting that God does not exist requires no faith. Asserting that God does not exist can be an expression of a rational belief--a belief founded upon and validated by evidence and valid logic. Faith is not rational, and Asserting that God exists can ONLY be an expression of faith.

Your attempts to conflate reason and faith are illegitimate, and intellectually dishonest.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Hence his actual gripe with my definition of faith ...

Faith is the conviction of unqualified certainty of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Furthermore, faith is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and valid logic; the resolute strength of that denial is the "validating" quality of faith.​

Again, this shouldn't be terribly controversial; among the faithful, there is no uncertainty in the existence of their "God" thing, or any of the various powers He has or the deeds He has performed. Convictions such as these are held with unconditional certainty, and are achieved by an act of will that requires no reference to, no support in, no establishment upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it requires only unwavering commitment.​

...it's meaningful, precise, and accurate.

PErsonally, my gripe with your definition of faith is that it's your own. I believe I already posted some dictionary definitions, none of which specify nearly so many qualifications as this definition that you've come up with.

What we're discussing here isn't what faith means to you personally.

My usage is rather objective I think. The accounting I provided for it has never been disputed--not even by the faithful. My use of the term, while making it clearly distinct from simple belief, is fully consistent with the dictionary definition, and it is fully consistent with the nature of the conviction of unqualified certainty of the reality of things that the faithful apply it to.

You don't even contest it, you're contesting me.

Actually, when I said none of the dictionary definitions that I posted specify nearly so many qualifications for a belief to be faith as your definition did, that actually was me contesting your definition.

Granted, your description of faith is pretty accurate in terms of the level of faith displayed by religious zealots, but a belief doesn't have to meet all of those terms to be called faith. At least not according to the dictionary.

You said, in the post before the one I'm quoting, that only SOME atheists believe there is definitely no God, others simply believe there is no proof of a God. According to my definitions, one who sees no proof of an explanation (God, no God, etc) is known as an agnostic, while an atheist is. . . one who believes there is definitely no God.

I'm willing to concede that there is some definition of atheist wherein a firm belief in a lack of a deity isn't necessarily the case, and based only on your say-so.

On the other hand, I've actually posted dictionary definitions of the word faith that don't require a complete lack of evidence or an unwillingness to alter one's belief, yet you're adamant that only by achieving those characteristics can a belief be called faith.

Well, clearly you're on your own there.

 

[LOki]

PErsonally, my gripe with your definition of faith is that it's your own. I believe I already posted some dictionary definitions, none of which specify nearly so many qualifications as this definition that you've come up with.

What we're discussing here isn't what faith means to you personally.

My usage is rather objective I think. The accounting I provided for it has never been disputed--not even by the faithful. My use of the term, while making it clearly distinct from simple belief, is fully consistent with the dictionary definition, and it is fully consistent with the nature of the conviction of unqualified certainty of the reality of things that the faithful apply it to.

You don't even contest it, you're contesting me.

Actually, when I said none of the dictionary definitions that I posted specify nearly so many qualifications for a belief to be faith as your definition did, that actually was me contesting your definition.

Granted, your description of faith is pretty accurate in terms of the level of faith displayed by religious zealots, but a belief doesn't have to meet all of those terms to be called faith. At least not according to the dictionary.

You said, in the post before the one I'm quoting, that only SOME atheists believe there is definitely no God, others simply believe there is no proof of a God. According to my definitions, one who sees no proof of an explanation (God, no God, etc) is known as an agnostic, while an atheist is. . . one who believes there is definitely no God.

I'm willing to concede that there is some definition of atheist wherein a firm belief in a lack of a deity isn't necessarily the case, and based only on your say-so.

On the other hand, I've actually posted dictionary definitions of the word faith that don't require a complete lack of evidence or an unwillingness to alter one's belief, yet you're adamant that only by achieving those characteristics can a belief be called faith.

Well, clearly you're on your own there.

The point is to be precise, meaningful and accurate. Or are you just refusing to see that point. There's a reason that intellectually dishonest retards won't accept the point, and that's because is serves their purposes to conflate the terms belief, reason/rational, and faith.

When your terms are meaningfully accurate and used precisely, semantic error is controlled. The intellectually dishonest leverage the uncontrolled semantic error appurtenant to vague terminology as a rhetoric tool to illicitly assert validity to their fundamentally incoherent claims. For my purposes, I don't care how you define terms as long as they are precise AND meaningful AND accurate. Submit your own. But you'll find that when you do, the discussion will come to the exact same conclusions because words are symbols for real things--whether those things are material or conceptual--superstitions cannot survive the truthful light of objective reality.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

My usage is rather objective I think. The accounting I provided for it has never been disputed--not even by the faithful. My use of the term, while making it clearly distinct from simple belief, is fully consistent with the dictionary definition, and it is fully consistent with the nature of the conviction of unqualified certainty of the reality of things that the faithful apply it to.

You don't even contest it, you're contesting me.

Actually, when I said none of the dictionary definitions that I posted specify nearly so many qualifications for a belief to be faith as your definition did, that actually was me contesting your definition.

Granted, your description of faith is pretty accurate in terms of the level of faith displayed by religious zealots, but a belief doesn't have to meet all of those terms to be called faith. At least not according to the dictionary.

You said, in the post before the one I'm quoting, that only SOME atheists believe there is definitely no God, others simply believe there is no proof of a God. According to my definitions, one who sees no proof of an explanation (God, no God, etc) is known as an agnostic, while an atheist is. . . one who believes there is definitely no God.

I'm willing to concede that there is some definition of atheist wherein a firm belief in a lack of a deity isn't necessarily the case, and based only on your say-so.

On the other hand, I've actually posted dictionary definitions of the word faith that don't require a complete lack of evidence or an unwillingness to alter one's belief, yet you're adamant that only by achieving those characteristics can a belief be called faith.

Well, clearly you're on your own there.

The point is to be precise, meaningful and accurate. Or are you just refusing to see that point. There's a reason that intellectually dishonest retards won't accept the point, and that's because is serves their purposes to conflate the terms belief, reason/rational, and faith.

For my purposes, I don't care how you define terms as long as they are precise, meaningful AND accurate. Submit your own. But you'll find that when you do, the discussion will come to the exact same conclusions.

No offense, but precision has to be measured against some standard. When you throw darts, you have a target with a bullseye. How close you get to that bullseye determines how accurate and precise your throw was.

In this case, I don't see what you're measuring your accuracy and precision against in this definition. The standard bullseye would be the actual definition of the word you're using. The standard for an actual definition is the dictionary.

I can't help but assume that your standard for accuracy is your own idea of faith.

In an argument with other people, your own idea of faith is notwithstanding. You don't get to redefine a word because you feel that the dictionary is wrong.

 

[LOki]

Actually, when I said none of the dictionary definitions that I posted specify nearly so many qualifications for a belief to be faith as your definition did, that actually was me contesting your definition.

Granted, your description of faith is pretty accurate in terms of the level of faith displayed by religious zealots, but a belief doesn't have to meet all of those terms to be called faith. At least not according to the dictionary.

You said, in the post before the one I'm quoting, that only SOME atheists believe there is definitely no God, others simply believe there is no proof of a God. According to my definitions, one who sees no proof of an explanation (God, no God, etc) is known as an agnostic, while an atheist is. . . one who believes there is definitely no God.

I'm willing to concede that there is some definition of atheist wherein a firm belief in a lack of a deity isn't necessarily the case, and based only on your say-so.

On the other hand, I've actually posted dictionary definitions of the word faith that don't require a complete lack of evidence or an unwillingness to alter one's belief, yet you're adamant that only by achieving those characteristics can a belief be called faith.

Well, clearly you're on your own there.

The point is to be precise, meaningful and accurate. Or are you just refusing to see that point. There's a reason that intellectually dishonest retards won't accept the point, and that's because is serves their purposes to conflate the terms belief, reason/rational, and faith.

For my purposes, I don't care how you define terms as long as they are precise, meaningful AND accurate. Submit your own. But you'll find that when you do, the discussion will come to the exact same conclusions.

No offense, but precision has to be measured against some standard. When you throw darts, you have a target with a bullseye. How close you get to that bullseye determines how accurate and precise your throw was.

In this case, I don't see what you're measuring your accuracy and precision against in this definition. The standard bullseye would be the actual definition of the word you're using. The standard for an actual definition is the dictionary.

I can't help but assume that your standard for accuracy is your own idea of faith.

In an argument with other people, your own idea of faith is notwithstanding. You don't get to redefine a word because you feel that the dictionary is wrong.

I made an accounting for it. YOU even validated it (thank you).

And don't be retarded, please, there's plenty around--I DIDN'T SAY THE DICTIONARY WAS FUCKING WRONG!

Also, lest you continue to think that the meanings of the terms as I use them is some arbitrary contrivance of my own, it might be worth investigating this discussion on the board from a few years ago.

 

[newpolitics]

You guys are engaged in proof of asserting. You keep asserting that God does not exist without any proof. Thus if you have no proof, then you have faith that it is so.

It will never take faith to disbelieve a claim that has no evidence, AND that I didn't make. If this was the case, we would all have so much faith not believing in every conceivable possible being that exists, that our heads would explode. It would take faith to disbelieve santa claus, the tooth fairy, a black tea pot orbiting the sun, the lochness monster, the flying spaghetti monster, leprechausn, etc... ad infinitum. There has to be some logic to arguments otherwise you will get runaway absurdities such as this, which is what you are creating, because you have never studied logic, and you should. Sincerely.

 

[JakeStarkey]

newpolitics, put your fantasies on someone else.

No one is buying your man behind the curtain. You are a believer, son.

 

[newpolitics]

newpolitics, put your fantasies on someone else.

No one is buying your man behind the curtain. You are a believer, son.

I'm not buying you're invisible man in the sky theory. And who are you calling son? Try to not to sound like such a tool.

Besides, who is putting who's fantasies where? You believe in something as believable as the spaghetti monster. How ironic you are.

 

[newpolitics]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs3RKZjSzYg]Response to: "Atheists have faith, just like theists." - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CandySlice]

Your lack of knowledge regarding the bible is not my problem, it's yours.

Like most religionists, you have not taken the time or expended the effort to understand the genesis tale, which I addressed elsewhere, and the underlying contradictions.

Well, let's look at the source material, why don't we (KJV):

Genesis 2:
------------------
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?


Moving on:

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence, evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.


continuing:

Genesis 3
-----------------------
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

________________________________________

Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive,and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good,but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

B. Satan

C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a "nothing" doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof".

A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

It is quite a dilemma, isn’t it? For god, who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden and thus commanded Adam and Eve -- "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die" (they didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic)

This is the kind of information I was interested in discussing to begin with. We've gotten pretty far afield with all this faith/science stuff which evidently can go on forever and who needs that?

I love your analysis but could I interject one thing? I understood that the entity that tempted eve was made a snake to crawl upon the earth all his days as punishment for this evil deed. Implying it wasn't a snake until after the damage had been done.

Help me out with that one.

That's really a great observation and I can only offer my subjective views as the gods have chosen not to publish subsequent chapters of genesis... no blockbuster summer movie Part II... no Return of Genesis.

We know that Satan is never mentioned in genesis. If Satan disguised his appearance so as to appear as a serpent to Eve, was god deceptive? I would answer yes. If the serpent was to be punished for its act, it begs the question as to why god would have allowed such deception to occur. In the context of the genesis tale, one could make a case that the serpent actually was Satan but that begs the argument of an all-powerful, omni-everything god.

I suppose what I'm really trying to convey is that I don't have an affirmative answer and given the abbreviated nature of genesis, I can only presume some aspects.

Agreed, just one of many places in the edited Bible where the story falls apart at the seams. They just don't stand up under scrutiny.

But I love the idea of 'The Return of Genesis'. Maybe we can hold out for G3-The Fellowship of the Ark.

 

[The Irish Ram]

God is not perfect and imperfect at the same time. He does not change. We covered that.

A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

describes you narrative, not your point. If you make up A and A is B then surely C will be D or E when you're done...??..

It is quite a dilemma, isn’t it? For god, who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden and thus commanded Adam and Eve -- "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die" (they didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic)

If they didn't die, do you have an address or cell phone # for them? I'd like to talk to Eve.........

No, no dilemma as far as the source material, except in your mind.
Nowhere will you find God, in the Bible, hating knowledge. He supplies knowledge, and instructs us to pray for the wisdom to understand knowledge.
It is not the tree of knowledge as you mistakenly refer to it to prove your nonsensical theory. It is knowledge of good, and something new, EVIL. Which ended their reign in the 'Garden of Good, No Evil Allowed'. Their fault, not God's. Even so, He clothed them, and they went on to lead "productive" lives. And then they died, just like God said. If you are looking for the liar, it was the serpent when he convinced Eve that she would be promoted to God if she ate. There's your liar.

If you are going to look at the "source material" do so with integrity. Don't tell us the one thing God hates is knowledge.
Proverbs 2:10-11 for wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul; discretion will watch over you, understanding will guard you..........
James 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God,who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.
Daniel 2:21 .....he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding;
Proverbs 1:5 Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance,

Remember lead paint? Remember TV commercials that told our children not to eat it? Did we tell them that because we are evil and created lead paint to trick them and get them to disobey? Or did we warn them to keep them safe?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Oh, so contentious! Compare your definitions with those I use.

Also, how about your definition of rational belief?

Oh NO! Not rational belief!
Now what you have is rational describing the belief you support. So we are back to belief, only worse. Now we have a combination of knowledge + your opinion of knowledge.
Rational belief fails to define rational. What may be rational to you may be completely irrational to another. And is subject to constant change.
It is worse than knowledge for the sake of knowledge, it's knowledge plus your own understanding.
The Bible tells us not to do that. It will lead us astray.
Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.



God's dimensions existed for Jesus to use and for us to find, "empirically" 2,000 years later.
Heb. 13:8 ....yesterday today and tomorrow
Malachi 3:6
"For I am the LORD, I do not change..............

With a belief in God you have the answers and they are constant. Opinions, beliefs, thoughts don't change them.
The four dimensions referred to in the Bible were still 4, even when Einstein could only find 3. Then 4. Then 10. Then an infinite amount, the rolled up ones........

No need for science or man's rationale. Just faith. < a belief.

So sad.
It turns out that you're just another intellectually dishonest retard trying to conflate the terms reason and faith in hopes of claiming that your superstition is rational.

Loki, what a disappointing response.
I don't define the terms, I just have a rational belief that wiki never lies.
If you are trying to elevate your position, wouldn't a more rational approach, be to respond to the post instead of the poster?

 

[LOki]

Oh NO! Not rational belief!
Now what you have is rational describing the belief you support. So we are back to belief, only worse. Now we have a combination of knowledge + your opinion of knowledge.
Rational belief fails to define rational. What may be rational to you may be completely irrational to another. And is subject to constant change.
It is worse than knowledge for the sake of knowledge, it's knowledge plus your own understanding.
The Bible tells us not to do that. It will lead us astray.
Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.



God's dimensions existed for Jesus to use and for us to find, "empirically" 2,000 years later.
Heb. 13:8 ....yesterday today and tomorrow
Malachi 3:6
"For I am the LORD, I do not change..............

With a belief in God you have the answers and they are constant. Opinions, beliefs, thoughts don't change them.
The four dimensions referred to in the Bible were still 4, even when Einstein could only find 3. Then 4. Then 10. Then an infinite amount, the rolled up ones........

No need for science or man's rationale. Just faith. < a belief.

So sad.
It turns out that you're just another intellectually dishonest retard trying to conflate the terms reason and faith in hopes of claiming that your superstition is rational.

Loki, what a disappointing response.
I don't define the terms, I just have a rational belief that wiki never lies.
If you are trying to elevate your position, wouldn't a more rational approach, be to respond to the post instead of the poster?

Ok. I'll respond to your post.

What "God"? You keep referencing this "God" thing, and I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on, and on about this "God" thing, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God".

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Maker of Heaven and Earth. Mover of mountains. Creator of man. Our eternal blessing. Daddy.
and
Right, they didn't count the first time or the fifty first time.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Candy,

Agreed, just one of many places in the edited Bible where the story falls apart at the seams.

Was it you that mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls? The ones that prove the Old Testament has not been edited? Isn't that one of those info things you search for because you have an open mind?

 

[LOki]

The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Maker of Heaven and Earth. Mover of mountains. Creator of man. Our eternal blessing. Daddy.
and
Right, they didn't count the first time or the fifty first time.

If your "God" thing is invalid for the same reasons that every other self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of some "God" is invalid, why do you submit it?

If I have misunderstood you, please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

 

[Hollie]

God is not perfect and imperfect at the same time. He does not change. We covered that.

First, the issue of context is always brought up in such discussions. On the one hand, we are told "you must take the bible as a whole" and on the other hand we are told that there are various contexts that should be employed. A good “for instance” of this is with the parables. In some instances, the parables of Jesus are meant literally, and in others they are not. The parable of the good Samaritan should be taken literally, but the "faith as a mustard seed moving a mountain" is a metaphor, not to be taken literally.

What guides these standards is, "of the Holy Spirit" -- once you have Christ, these guidelines become clear. Of course, you need to be clear on what is being said in the bible in order to receive Christ properly. Which you cannot do until you receive Christ and thus are given the tools to understand properly. I think it's pretty evident the vicious circle one is forced into with that approach.

A second lever of apologia is to employ the idea that words have very different meanings. For instance:

"In the Bible, the word "tempt" has two primary meanings."

While there are certainly instances of words in human language that may have two meanings, consider the idea that such a thing would be part of god's way of communicating his message. It's just as easy for god to be clear, but instead he chooses words that could be interpreted in different or similar ways. Why? To "tempt" us (meaning "test"?)

Okay, he's god, and he can do anything he wants. But what he obviously does not want is for us to have his message in a clear and primary sort of way.

describes you narrative, not your point. If you make up A and A is B then surely C will be D or E when you're done...??..

Actually, my commentary is in connection with the Genesis tale. There are a number of contradictions that I’m trying to understand.
Can it be conceded that lying is definable as changing one's mind capriciously? Allow me to paste a few of god's "mind changes" per the source material:

ON SEEING GOD
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18

ON THE POWER OF GOD
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19 Note: not "would not" but could not.

ON MAKING GRAVEN IMAGES
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water". (Lev. 26:1)

"[And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying...] And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them." (Exodus 25:18)

ON PUNISHING CRIME
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

ON TEMPTATION
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1

ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26

ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9

"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29

and finally, on the premise VR offers in the first place (interestingly, this is the same verse VR uses to support god not lying though he doesn't include all of it. This sort of surprised me):

ON GOD CHANGING HIS MIND
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." (Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17)

"And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people." (Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35)

No contradictions at all!

If they didn't die, do you have an address or cell phone # for them? I'd like to talk to Eve.........

No, no dilemma as far as the source material, except in your mind.
Nowhere will you find God, in the Bible, hating knowledge. He supplies knowledge, and instructs us to pray for the wisdom to understand knowledge.
It is not the tree of knowledge as you mistakenly refer to it to prove your nonsensical theory. It is knowledge of good, and something new, EVIL. Which ended their reign in the 'Garden of Good, No Evil Allowed'. Their fault, not God's. Even so, He clothed them, and they went on to lead "productive" lives. And then they died, just like God said. If you are looking for the liar, it was the serpent when he convinced Eve that she would be promoted to God if she ate. There's your liar.

If you are going to look at the "source material" do so with integrity. Don't tell us the one thing God hates is knowledge.
Proverbs 2:10-11 for wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul; discretion will watch over you, understanding will guard you..........
James 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God,who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.
Daniel 2:21 .....he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding;
Proverbs 1:5 Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance,

Remember lead paint? Remember TV commercials that told our children not to eat it? Did we tell them that because we are evil and created lead paint to trick them and get them to disobey? Or did we warn them to keep them safe?

If you follow the metaphor of genesis, one can make a case that the writers of the bible are prohibiting Adam and Eve from gaining knowledge by prohibiting them from eating from the tree (the tree of knowledge of good and evil). Remember the story?
It would be a sigh of relief if god was inviting man to discover, but then why purposely throw out a total fabrication and purposely misguide him? Why not say nothing about it, if your intent is to let man discover it for himself? A lack of an origins story would have been far more motivation than the "add water and stir" poetry of Genesis-- as evidenced by the thousands of years scientific inquiry stagnated or suffered at the hands of religious bigotry (lamentation of the destruction of the Library at Alexandria-- what incredible works were lost thanks to Christian fear and bigotry!).

Biblically/scripturally speaking, god doesn't want us to discover-- he couldn't care less, and in fact punishes men for trying to attain knowledge he considers threatening (Tree of Knowledge, Tower of Babel) -- and in fact he tells us to not worry about where our meals will come from (the lilies of the field). No, Jehovah wants faith and adoration. That's it. There's not a single instance of Jesus saying,

"Consider your beliefs. Think them through. Scrutinize, and doubt claims of absolute authority without proof and support". In fact, he says precisely the opposite.

Matthew 8:13 - And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

Matthew 9:28 - And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.

Matthew 18:6 - But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mark 9:23 - Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Mark 9:24 - And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

Mark 11:23 - For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

Mark 11:24 - Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

1 Corinthians 13:7 - Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

(etc, etc, etc)

(Brought to you by: Alliterations 'R' Us)

 

[JakeStarkey]

The atheists are fakers: they have faith in their belief that God does not exist.

Ima, at least, is saying "the proof is not there for either side", or words to that effect.