Hypothetical question for my fellow atheists

[hobelim]

I'll let what you just posted sink in to your own head for a while....

Yeah. Meant what I said.

Terrific, but do you see any of the implications of your clueless musings?

Take some more time.

Yeah. The implication is that Christianity isn't special. That like all religious texts, the bible is just a book written by men. And there's nothing clueless about it.

The implication is that whatever Samuel commanded Saul and whatever Saul did or did't do has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

Christians claim to believe in God as revealed by Jesus, even if they never understood a word that he said. They already know that half the story hasn't been told and look forward to the time when all the truth will be revealed.

Second, what is clueless is your dismissing the teachings of the past because they are like fairy tales and fables written by men without having the sense to learn what they are about.

If they were all so dumb, how is it that their teachings remain above your grasp?

What is the implication of that fact?

Now you're back to dismissing half of the Bible. You keep going around in these same circles. Either Justify the actions of the God of the bible, or find a way to dismiss those parts of the bible that contradict the God of love and inclusion that I want to spin.

I mean, that's fine, just don't pretend that it is rational. Either the bible is the bible - all of it - and it is all part of the same story, or it isn't. Either God commanded genocide, or he didn't. Either the bible is a reliable source of information, or it isn't. You can't insist that it is a reliable source of information, and, in the next breath say, "Buuut, parts of it don't count,"

First of all I am not dismissing the OT. I am dismissing your superficial literal interpretation of those stories missing the point just as completely as the most deranged fundamentalist lunatic out there.

And of course,just like in the NT, there is a lot of redactions and shit inserted by unknown editors that has to be sorted out.

When Jesus said of his return, that he would say,

" But as for those enemies of mine who would not have me for their king, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence."

he was not saying that when he returned he was going to instruct people to commit genocide against the Jews.


If you want to learn what he was teaching, all you have to do is ask.

 

[hobelim]

. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code

In scripture the subject of the command to not murder is not about homicide. It is a command to not mislead others into defying the commands of God to live a holy life which results in the death promised for failure to comply.

Thats what Jesus meant by saying that Satan was a murderer from the beginning. It was a reference to the talking serpent who screwed up Adam and Eves experience of life causing their death and expulsion from paradise where God is and there are trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eye and good to eat, including the tree of life.

You see, this is why discussing the Bible with you is useless. According to you, nothing means what it means. Murder doesn't mean murder. Dog doesn't really mean dog. I'm just waiting for you to tell me that "babies, and infants" really meant "those who are still new to the army".

Right, in scripture murder isn't about homicide, death isn't about mortality, dogs aren't about household pets, but , in scripture, babies are intellectually underdeveloped people who have never grown any teeth with which to chew on real meat whether they are in the army, jogging around the streets of your neighborhood, selling you cold cuts, or teaching your children.

Oh yeah! Almost forgot. meat isn't about food...

So remember.....

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!

 

[BreezeWood]

Okay. I'll humour you. How do you propose to understand "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys," as anything other than, "If it moves kill it. If it doesn't move, kill it just in case,"?

you might consider this is a carnivorous Garden, do you pause to explain your own existance - with all that you claim why do you hang around, I'm sure you've eaten a steak or two.

its been dry lately, whole societies in the minor tributaries are being left to die by the evaporating beds they live in - the awful desert religions may be the very reason such occurrences happen to rid the Garden of their presence no matter who is killed to accomplish their demise as to foretell no being is more sacred than any other be as it may.

So, God isn't inclusive. Some people just deserve to die. And you wonder why I consider your God barbaric, and reprehensible.

.

So, God isn't inclusive. Some people just deserve to die. And you wonder why I consider your God barbaric, and reprehensible.

... as to foretell no being is more sacred than any other be as it may.

And you wonder why I consider your God barbaric, and reprehensible.


the desert religions should not be the litmus test for your debate against the Almighty nor to others that do not do the same as your example. the genome of life has an origin for which their is unquestionably a designing apparatus, evolution that some would care to discover and maintain as is - at all cost - and not let life be ruled by an insubordinate naysayer.

 

[RWNJ]

Where does the Bible present any moral laws that do not involve us? Does the Bible offer a single command that we care not the centre of? Your post is absurd. Of course all morality centres on how WE behave, because we know of no other reasoning beings in the universe. Incidentally, even if we did, it would still be about us. Because morality is individual. it is personal. That is the point of morality; it is a code of rules that dictate how I treat you, or the world around me.

The moral code is made by the creator, the one you hate

The moral code is made the the creator, for whom there is no evidence? And which moral code? The one in the bible? The Q'uran? The Etta? The Bhagavad Gita? You see there are many religious moral codes, and practically none of them are in agreement. So, which one was it that was written by the creator, for which there is no evidence?

Your opening question was what if God (Creator) revealed Himself to us. Well, since he's the creator, he establishes the moral code. Ever think most of us may be wrong?

Except, following your line of thought, part of that moral code the Creator created is Do. Not. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code. As for "most of us are wrong", I would ask, in what way? We got the code wrong? How? Do not murder seems pretty rational to me. Genocide? Not so much.

Unless it is moral for the Creator only

Everything that God has done has been moral. Take the flood, for instance. According to the Bible, Noah and his family were the ONLY ones on the entire planet who obeyed God. The rest of the people were wicked. I mean, seriously wicked. So what was God supposed to do? Some will say, "But what about all of the innocent children who died?" Scripture tells us that there is an age of accountability, when someone is finally able to recognize right from wrong. The problem is that every one of those innocent children were being raised by wicked parents. God was actually doing them a favor by killing them, since they would have gone to Heaven. He saved them from going to Hell. So was the flood really an act of wickedness? I don't think so. Everyone who knew better deserved to die. The innocents went home to God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My answer is somewhat like yours. I would believe in the existence of God and Jesus, but I would still not believe that it is necessary to worship them or to perform any of the ritualism in the Bible.

What do you believe would be necessary?

That's a tough question. I would probably require multiple meetings, a tour of the facilities, a few demonstrations, probably some time travel, maybe more.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To be so arrogant to assume that this show is a result of accident/coincidence/evolution is a declaration of ignorance. BIGTIME

No, throwing up your hands and saying, "We cannot know! Must be God!" is the ULTIMATE "declaration of ignorance".

 

[Czernobog]

. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code

In scripture the subject of the command to not murder is not about homicide. It is a command to not mislead others into defying the commands of God to live a holy life which results in the death promised for failure to comply.

Thats what Jesus meant by saying that Satan was a murderer from the beginning. It was a reference to the talking serpent who screwed up Adam and Eves experience of life causing their death and expulsion from paradise where God is and there are trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eye and good to eat, including the tree of life.

You see, this is why discussing the Bible with you is useless. According to you, nothing means what it means. Murder doesn't mean murder. Dog doesn't really mean dog. I'm just waiting for you to tell me that "babies, and infants" really meant "those who are still new to the army".

Right, in scripture murder isn't about homicide, death isn't about mortality, dogs aren't about household pets, but , in scripture, babies are intellectually underdeveloped people who have never grown any teeth with which to chew on real meat whether they are in the army, jogging around the streets of your neighborhood, selling you cold cuts, or teaching your children.

Oh yeah! Almost forgot. meat isn't about food...

So remember.....

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!

And there you go. Nothing means what it means, so the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. You just assign new meanings to words, so they fit with your preconceived notions. In short the bible is gibberish. Whatever. For the rest of the world words have established meanings, and they mean what they mean.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code

In scripture the subject of the command to not murder is not about homicide. It is a command to not mislead others into defying the commands of God to live a holy life which results in the death promised for failure to comply.

Thats what Jesus meant by saying that Satan was a murderer from the beginning. It was a reference to the talking serpent who screwed up Adam and Eves experience of life causing their death and expulsion from paradise where God is and there are trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eye and good to eat, including the tree of life.

You see, this is why discussing the Bible with you is useless. According to you, nothing means what it means. Murder doesn't mean murder. Dog doesn't really mean dog. I'm just waiting for you to tell me that "babies, and infants" really meant "those who are still new to the army".

Right, in scripture murder isn't about homicide, death isn't about mortality, dogs aren't about household pets, but , in scripture, babies are intellectually underdeveloped people who have never grown any teeth with which to chew on real meat whether they are in the army, jogging around the streets of your neighborhood, selling you cold cuts, or teaching your children.

Oh yeah! Almost forgot. meat isn't about food...

So remember.....

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!

And there you go. Nothing means what it means, so the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. You just assign new meanings to words, so they fit with your preconceived notions. In short the bible is gibberish. Whatever. For the rest of the world words have established meanings, and they mean what they mean.

"Nothing means what it means, so the Bible means whatever you want it to mean.

haha... now you've done it...

 

[hobelim]

. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code

In scripture the subject of the command to not murder is not about homicide. It is a command to not mislead others into defying the commands of God to live a holy life which results in the death promised for failure to comply.

Thats what Jesus meant by saying that Satan was a murderer from the beginning. It was a reference to the talking serpent who screwed up Adam and Eves experience of life causing their death and expulsion from paradise where God is and there are trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eye and good to eat, including the tree of life.

You see, this is why discussing the Bible with you is useless. According to you, nothing means what it means. Murder doesn't mean murder. Dog doesn't really mean dog. I'm just waiting for you to tell me that "babies, and infants" really meant "those who are still new to the army".

Right, in scripture murder isn't about homicide, death isn't about mortality, dogs aren't about household pets, but , in scripture, babies are intellectually underdeveloped people who have never grown any teeth with which to chew on real meat whether they are in the army, jogging around the streets of your neighborhood, selling you cold cuts, or teaching your children.

Oh yeah! Almost forgot. meat isn't about food...

So remember.....

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!

And there you go. Nothing means what it means, so the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. You just assign new meanings to words, so they fit with your preconceived notions. In short the bible is gibberish. Whatever. For the rest of the world words have established meanings, and they mean what they mean.

"Nothing means what it means, so the Bible means whatever you want it to mean.

haha... now you've done it...

lol... don't go running for a touchdown just yet.

No, the bible cannot mean whatever you want it to mean. A talking serpent may have many implications but can only be referring to one specific type of human being described by the author in great detail. Not to mention that reality and the discoveries of the sciences make for some pretty limiting constraints.

Didn't you already hear that somewhere before? Are you deaf? you have eyes, can't you read?Pay attention.

As I said there is a way to decipher the truth, a key to understanding the figurative language used.

If you don't do it, what you see is what you get... even if all you can see is nothing...


If you ever do begin to apply your mind to understand the language of the prophets , and conform to their teaching, your perception of time will change and your mind will acquire the ability to live in and see things from a timeless eternal perspective beyond the restrictions of space and time and the limitations of a physical body living in the material universe...... .

Then you'll be in heaven, where God lives, even if you are still here on earth.


As it is, your mind needs to have some work done, cleaning out the cobwebs and dead zones and such, not to mention extirpating perversions and dickhead attitudes that leak out of your mouth like a foul and smelly discharge every time that I squeeze your head.

I know it would be terrifying to dig to deeply into the depths of your own mind, so I do understand why you keep avoiding the real problem exposed by your inability to understand what ancient people wrote down in a book.

 

[Crixus]

There is no need for anyone to defend God for what people do to each other.

Except when they do it because God commanded them to. Either that, or the people who claim God commanded them to are liars. If the latter is true, then the Bible is meaningless. Or rather, it is no more significant than the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, the Q'uran, or any other book of fairy tales, and fables.

I'll let what you just posted sink in to your own head for a while....

Yeah. Meant what I said.

Terrific, but do you see any of the implications of your clueless musings?

Take some more time.

Yeah. The implication is that Christianity isn't special. That like all religious texts, the bible is just a book written by men. And there's nothing clueless about it.

Yup. Just like atheism is really anti theology. If one believes nothing and they are secure in that belief, then they typically have no reason to seek approval from others for holding that belief/ I would bet that all and all your a decent guy. May not go out of my way to hang with you, maybe I would, who knows? I say feel good about what you believe. Tell us what gives you what you need from those beliefs. Don’t just tell us believing in nothing is liberating and that religious dogma is a drag. It gets old.

 

[Czernobog]

Except when they do it because God commanded them to. Either that, or the people who claim God commanded them to are liars. If the latter is true, then the Bible is meaningless. Or rather, it is no more significant than the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, the Q'uran, or any other book of fairy tales, and fables.

I'll let what you just posted sink in to your own head for a while....

Yeah. Meant what I said.

Terrific, but do you see any of the implications of your clueless musings?

Take some more time.

Yeah. The implication is that Christianity isn't special. That like all religious texts, the bible is just a book written by men. And there's nothing clueless about it.

Yup. Just like atheism is really anti theology. If one believes nothing and they are secure in that belief, then they typically have no reason to seek approval from others for holding that belief/ I would bet that all and all your a decent guy. May not go out of my way to hang with you, maybe I would, who knows? I say feel good about what you believe. Tell us what gives you what you need from those beliefs. Don’t just tell us believing in nothing is liberating and that religious dogma is a drag. It gets old.

Has nothing to do with liberating. I am a rationalist. I have been for as long as I can remember. I get that religion can be comforting. Kind lies often are. It makes them no less lies. I have no time for lies, kind or otherwise. You ask what my atheism "gives" to me. Nothing. Why must one expect a reward for being rational? Is not the knowledge that one is living according to reason enough? This is a part of religion that I have never understood. It is almost invariably based on the carrot and the stick premise. In order to get someone to behave in a reasonable manor one must either offer reward, threaten with punishment, or do both. That really doesn't suggest a very high opinion of man, and his ability to use reason, and logic, now does it?

 

[badger2]

OP's first two paragraphs reveal the dilemma of the becoming-space of time and the becoming-time of space. The illusion of not being dead once we already are is also the illusion of OP's "Christian" authorship, which cannot be proven.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In scripture the subject of the command to not murder is not about homicide. It is a command to not mislead others into defying the commands of God to live a holy life which results in the death promised for failure to comply.

Thats what Jesus meant by saying that Satan was a murderer from the beginning. It was a reference to the talking serpent who screwed up Adam and Eves experience of life causing their death and expulsion from paradise where God is and there are trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eye and good to eat, including the tree of life.

You see, this is why discussing the Bible with you is useless. According to you, nothing means what it means. Murder doesn't mean murder. Dog doesn't really mean dog. I'm just waiting for you to tell me that "babies, and infants" really meant "those who are still new to the army".

Right, in scripture murder isn't about homicide, death isn't about mortality, dogs aren't about household pets, but , in scripture, babies are intellectually underdeveloped people who have never grown any teeth with which to chew on real meat whether they are in the army, jogging around the streets of your neighborhood, selling you cold cuts, or teaching your children.

Oh yeah! Almost forgot. meat isn't about food...

So remember.....

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!

And there you go. Nothing means what it means, so the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. You just assign new meanings to words, so they fit with your preconceived notions. In short the bible is gibberish. Whatever. For the rest of the world words have established meanings, and they mean what they mean.

"Nothing means what it means, so the Bible means whatever you want it to mean.

haha... now you've done it...

lol... don't go running for a touchdown just yet.

No, the bible cannot mean whatever you want it to mean. A talking serpent may have many implications but can only be referring to one specific type of human being described by the author in great detail. Not to mention that reality and the discoveries of the sciences make for some pretty limiting constraints.

Didn't you already hear that somewhere before? Are you deaf? you have eyes, can't you read?Pay attention.

As I said there is a way to decipher the truth, a key to understanding the figurative language used.

If you don't do it, what you see is what you get... even if all you can see is nothing...


If you ever do begin to apply your mind to understand the language of the prophets , and conform to their teaching, your perception of time will change and your mind will acquire the ability to live in and see things from a timeless eternal perspective beyond the restrictions of space and time and the limitations of a physical body living in the material universe...... .

Then you'll be in heaven, where God lives, even if you are still here on earth.


As it is, your mind needs to have some work done, cleaning out the cobwebs and dead zones and such, not to mention extirpating perversions and dickhead attitudes that leak out of your mouth like a foul and smelly discharge every time that I squeeze your head.

I know it would be terrifying to dig to deeply into the depths of your own mind, so I do understand why you keep avoiding the real problem exposed by your inability to understand what ancient people wrote down in a book.

"As I said there is a way to decipher the truth, a key to understanding the figurative language used."

No, what you said is that there is exactly ONE CORRECT way, and that way is, apparently, decided by your authority (despite you trying to mask I your authority in authoritative statements, as if you are deferring to a pre-existing, infallible truth).

You were wrong when you said it, and you're still wrong.

 

[Bonzi]

Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven

No one will reign in Hell. Even the Devil will be there against his will. He will not have any power in Hell. No one will. So I would gladly serve my Creator.

Good for you.

I for one won't bow to a bloodthirsty god like the one in the bible

Why do you think He's bloodthirsty? Can you point to one massacre where they didn't deserve it?

What did infants, and babies do to deserve death?

What did they do to deserve life?

 

[Bonzi]

Trying not to get caught in a loop, here is a definition of "moral" that I believe is accurate. I'm no biblical scholar, but I'm not sure "morals" are even addressed in the Bible (per se).

morals(s): person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

to me, morality is self define.

 

[Bonzi]

Your opening question was what if God (Creator) revealed Himself to us. Well, since he's the creator, he establishes the moral code. Ever think most of us may be wrong?

Except, following your line of thought, part of that moral code the Creator created is Do. Not. Murder. Pretty sure that genocide is a violation of that code. As for "most of us are wrong", I would ask, in what way? We got the code wrong? How? Do not murder seems pretty rational to me. Genocide? Not so much.

Unless it is moral for the Creator only

Then the Creaor is not moral. Why would you willingly look for, and worship a creator whose number one command is "Dos as I say, not as I do,"?

If the assumption that God is perfect it must follow

If God is not perfect then each individual gets to determine what morality is for his/herself

And that is the problem. How can a perfect creator create such an obviously flawed moral code, as one that starts , and ends with "Do as I say, not as I do,"?

Because God knows what is best for us. We are not equal to or with God. Think of it like a parent/child relationship

 

[Two Thumbs]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

So if you had absolute proof, that if you followed the teachings of jesus, got baptized and accepted him as your savior, that you would reside in heaven, for all eternity after death.

and that if you didn't, it's eternal hellfire.


you sir, are a complete idiot.

 

[hobelim]

You see, this is why discussing the Bible with you is useless. According to you, nothing means what it means. Murder doesn't mean murder. Dog doesn't really mean dog. I'm just waiting for you to tell me that "babies, and infants" really meant "those who are still new to the army".

Right, in scripture murder isn't about homicide, death isn't about mortality, dogs aren't about household pets, but , in scripture, babies are intellectually underdeveloped people who have never grown any teeth with which to chew on real meat whether they are in the army, jogging around the streets of your neighborhood, selling you cold cuts, or teaching your children.

Oh yeah! Almost forgot. meat isn't about food...

So remember.....

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!

And there you go. Nothing means what it means, so the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. You just assign new meanings to words, so they fit with your preconceived notions. In short the bible is gibberish. Whatever. For the rest of the world words have established meanings, and they mean what they mean.

"Nothing means what it means, so the Bible means whatever you want it to mean.

haha... now you've done it...

lol... don't go running for a touchdown just yet.

No, the bible cannot mean whatever you want it to mean. A talking serpent may have many implications but can only be referring to one specific type of human being described by the author in great detail. Not to mention that reality and the discoveries of the sciences make for some pretty limiting constraints.

Didn't you already hear that somewhere before? Are you deaf? you have eyes, can't you read?Pay attention.

As I said there is a way to decipher the truth, a key to understanding the figurative language used.

If you don't do it, what you see is what you get... even if all you can see is nothing...


If you ever do begin to apply your mind to understand the language of the prophets , and conform to their teaching, your perception of time will change and your mind will acquire the ability to live in and see things from a timeless eternal perspective beyond the restrictions of space and time and the limitations of a physical body living in the material universe...... .

Then you'll be in heaven, where God lives, even if you are still here on earth.


As it is, your mind needs to have some work done, cleaning out the cobwebs and dead zones and such, not to mention extirpating perversions and dickhead attitudes that leak out of your mouth like a foul and smelly discharge every time that I squeeze your head.

I know it would be terrifying to dig to deeply into the depths of your own mind, so I do understand why you keep avoiding the real problem exposed by your inability to understand what ancient people wrote down in a book.

"As I said there is a way to decipher the truth, a key to understanding the figurative language used."

No, what you said is that there is exactly ONE CORRECT way, and that way is, apparently, decided by your authority (despite you trying to mask I your authority in authoritative statements, as if you are deferring to a pre-existing, infallible truth).

You were wrong when you said it, and you're still wrong.

It is a preexisting truth.

There is only one way to understand and conform to the teachings of scripture that leads to the fulfillment of the promise of life whether Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, old or young, male or female, gay or straight, cop or criminal, healthy or sick, saint or sinner.

This is a claim of scripture. It has nothing to do with me. What I said is that I have found this right the way by drawing from what Jesus taught, finding what was hidden, and revealed it openly without adding subtracting or changing a single word of scripture..

Now you can stick your fingers in your ears and stomp your feet all day and say that I am wrong, but why should anyone listen to you when you openly admit that you have never taken the time or gone through the trouble of thinking deeply about any of the hidden subjects because you never even suspected that there was anything hidden there or worthwhile to discover?

When I tell you that if you go through the process of logic and reasoning using well known facts about literary expressions and actual reality as constraints to decipher the figurative expressions used you will arrive at the same conclusions, you say that you don't have to...

lol, ..Stunad.

Of course you don't have to but then of course you couldn't possibly confirm whether I am wrong or right much less know the truth.

 

[Bonzi]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

So if you had absolute proof, that if you followed the teachings of jesus, got baptized and accepted him as your savior, that you would reside in heaven, for all eternity after death.

and that if you didn't, it's eternal hellfire.


you sir, are a complete idiot.

Is that how they teach you to proselytize at your church? If so, you need a new church

 

[Two Thumbs]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

So if you had absolute proof, that if you followed the teachings of jesus, got baptized and accepted him as your savior, that you would reside in heaven, for all eternity after death.

and that if you didn't, it's eternal hellfire.


you sir, are a complete idiot.

Is that how they teach you to proselytize at your church? If so, you need a new church

I don't go to church, WAY to many hypocrites draped in the cloth