Questions from an Atheist about God

[Deeje]

So basically what it all sums up to is that, I don't know, but that to me its more satisfying to accept that I don't know the answer, than trying to fit a religion into it, because someone tells me to believe it, without any evidence to back it up, besides primarily quoting from the very book that makes the claim in the first place. To me its just not good enough evidence.

Then there is no basis for a discussion. There is nowhere to even begin to build a foundation, and indecisiveness isn't a good platform for discovering the truth. (James 1:5-7) God is looking for a 'backbone' in us, not a 'wishbone', swayed by the next good idea that might enter our head.

I believe that God searches for us as much as we search for him. (John 6:44; 65) He is looking for citizens to grant them citizenship in his incoming Kingdom. We have to qualify in upholding his standards......he does not have to convince anyone of anything. Creation itself speaks for him. (Romans 1:18-23)

We are not in a position to judge him, to accuse him, or to tell him how to manage his own business. We are his creation....he is not ours. We are subject to his scrutiny.....he has no need of ours. We are either part of the problem...or part of the solution. By our decisions and conclusions, we tell God who we are. He doesn't really care what the godless think of him.

Our limited perspective hinders our perceptions, and only God can correct wrong views......if he chooses to. Sometimes he just lets us run with our own whacky ideas because we have failed to demonstrate the qualities that he is looking for anyway. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) Since there are just two roads....all of us are on either one or the other. (Matthew 7:13-14) The majority are on the wrong road according to Jesus.

God does not need us....we need him. That has to be our starting point. As I see things, if you have no starting point, there is no finish line.

Thank you for responding and have a good day.

 

[shmogie]

It depends what "side" of me you ask Meaning, if you asked in regards to me assuming there is a God and its the one described in the bible. My answer would be whatever God say is good as it is defined by him and not us. We merely have an understanding of it.

5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Which would also explain why the laws are considered holy, just and good according to Romans 7;12:
"So then, the Law itself is holy, and the rule is holy, just, and good."

Since we are ultimately judged by God and can only be saved by him, by following the commandments that God gave us, according to Jesus. It doesn't really matter much what I believe to be good or not if God doesn't agree as I see it. What makes my perception of good right, is a tough one as I really don't agree with God, so I would probably just have to submit and try to follow them the best I could according to the bible.

But if you ask me as an atheist, which might differ a lot from other atheists. Then I don't really believe good and evil exist as they are presented by some religions. To me there seem to only be subjective good and evil created by humans perception, of how we at a given time think things ought to be. And is primarily decided by past experience, our knowledge, environment and whatever personal feelings we might have. By environment it is everything from the society we live in, to our friends and family with whom we share life experiences with. But also from sharing knowledge between people we don't know, like what is done here on this forum for instance.

So what makes my perception of good, right? That is not that easy to answer, since I don't think it exists in the way you are referring to it. But rather the perception of good is what the society, at large believe is right. Therefore my personal "perception of good" is only right to me, but for the most part shared by the community I live in. Its a bit difficult to answer to be honest

But for instant is it always wrong to kill a child? Logically the answer would be yes as we judge it from our view of right and wrong. But looking at passed history, there are examples of societies where people and children have been sacrificed to the God, so for them it probably weren't considered wrong. So our perception of good and evil is just what we have decided they should be. And even today, this perception varies from country to country. So I don't see good or evil exist in the way that its often talked about.


I don't personally claim it, I think there are evidence for it in the bible. There are some Christians that believe it to be so, which is why I wrote it.


Im pretty sure that its stated in the bible, very clearly in fact, that we were created with free will. So you mean that its a wrong translation or God didn't really do it, when you say its an illusion?


So in your view God is not perfect, but also capable of error, but is prepared to deal with it as he is omnipotent?


I can see that it might not fit your view of God, but would you agree that there is some sort of valid argument here against God, if he is all good, all knowing and all powerful as he would logically have the ability to intervene if he wanted?

Yes, God could intervene if He chose, and He will.

Remember what I said, the only way to prove that free will abused is pain, suffering, and death is to actually allow those things to occur. It must be allowed till it is perfectly clear that humanity is unable to right the ship, that everything tried fails.

When it is finally corrected, by God, and part of humanity ceases to exist as a result of their free will, and the other part inherits the kingdom of God, there will be no doubt that created beings cannot be trusted to rule themselves.

All the pain suffered will be like the only ever so slight bump on the perfectly smooth road into eternity.

 

[Jollybear]

But wouldn't you agree that simply because a person understand something, it doesn't necessarily make them capable of making a right choice about it?

I want to explain how I see it, obviously correct me if you disagree.

But Adam and Eve lived in Garden of Eden with God wandering round talking with them on a regular basis, at least that is the impression I get when I read the story. So I wouldn't consider it wrong to assume that up until the meeting with the serpent, they have never experience anything but perfection and good without even knowing it, as they are in the presence of God and the story doesn't mention that they are in any way unhappy there.

So when Eve meet the serpent, why would she assume that it weren't like the rest of the stuff that she had experienced? Unable to see the difference between good and evil, would actually, as I see it, mean that there is no way for her to see that God is better than Satan and therefore have no reason to assume that he is trying to do something evil. So even though Adam and Eve understand what God and Satan is saying, doesn't make them capable of making a right choice.

If God wanted to show them that danger is danger regardless of them being ignorant, why place them in Garden of Eden, where there is no danger to learn from and when he then decide to teach them a lesson, he let Satan have a go at them and when they then obviously fail, he decide to punish them and all humans forever.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so again if anything of what I wrote here you think is way off, please clarify what. But I have to say that I still fail to make the connection between God choices and justifications here and how it would be considered good?

Ok, let me clarify.

God told adam/eve to not eat or touch the fruit in the middle of the garden or they would die.

So, they did understand Gods order and they understood the consequences God prewarned.

Now, serpent comes along and twists Gods words saying "did God really say you must not eat of any tree in the garden?"

Right there eve should have had a red flag go up simply by the fact that the serpent is misrepresenting what God actually told her.

However, to her credit, she does correct the serpent by saying "no, God said we may eat of any fruit in the garden, except from the tree in the middle, or youl die".

Serpent replies "surely you wont die, for God knows that youl be like God, knowing good and evil."

Ok, they understood also what the serpent told them too.

But now they have a choice about who to trust is telling them the truth. Is God? Or is the serpent telling the truth? God says they will die, serpent says they wont. Hmmm, whos lying?

They dont know whos lying.

But, reason and intuition should have told them who was lying. Because

1, the serpent misrepresented what God actually said.

2, it was God who created them, thus revealing his power, the serpent did not create them.

However, despite this reasoning and intuition, they still did not know. And they chose to trust the wrong one.

Now, why does God still allow the consequences of death to take effect in there bodies since they wer ignorent?

1, because God must show that his word is true. He said they would die if they eat it. Well, if they did not die, then it look like the serpent would have told the truth now, wouldent it? So, God cannot keep them alive due to his word and his consistency. As a parrent you gain respect by consistency of discapline.

2, God did not abandone them in there huge mistake. He did forgive and work with them through it.

Ok, your thoughts?

 

[Deeje]

But now they have a choice about who to trust is telling them the truth. Is God? Or is the serpent telling the truth? God says they will die, serpent says they wont. Hmmm, whos lying?

They dont know whos lying.

But, reason and intuition should have told them who was lying. Because

1, the serpent misrepresented what God actually said.

2, it was God who created them, thus revealing his power, the serpent did not create them.

However, despite this reasoning and intuition, they still did not know. And they chose to trust the wrong one.

You raise some good points....
In analysing the scenario a little further, it is clear why the devil trageted the woman when she was alone. She was the newest and least experienced of the two. God had educated Adam but Eve was to be educated by her husband as family head. They in turn would educate their children.

The fact that she knew about the prohibition said a lot for Adam's priorities....he had waited a long time for a mate of his own, so he did not want to lose her due to any negligence on his part.

But the devil caught them both off guard. The woman was alone and fell for a carefully planned deception. When Adam returned and saw what she had done, in being offered the forbidden fruit, he had choices. The devil had deliberately targeted the woman to get to the man. His main tactic to this day, is "divide and conquer". Nowhere was this more apparent than in the Edenic scenario.

If satan had targeted the man first, he may well have been given short shrift. But aiming his seemingly innocent questions, followed by slanderous accusations about God's motives, the woman was ill equipped to provide answers, so she fell for the deception. But Adam did not.
According to the apostle Paul.....

"13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:13-14)

Adam was now faced with a loyalty issue....would he obey his God and lose his wife? Or would he join his wife in disobedience and die with her?

Both knew the penalty but neither of them knew how death would come about. But suffice it to say, each one ate the fruit for a different reason. The devil targeted the man through temptation from his wife. Blame for sin entering the human condition is put squarely on Adam, not Eve. (Romans 5:12) His decision was made in full knowledge of what he was doing. This is why there was no remorse expressed and no grounds upon which to forgive them. When God confronted them, each blamed someone else for their decision....Adam even blamed God for giving him a wife......we have been passing the buck ever since.

Now, why does God still allow the consequences of death to take effect in there bodies since they wer ignorent?

1, because God must show that his word is true. He said they would die if they eat it. Well, if they did not die, then it look like the serpent would have told the truth now, wouldent it? So, God cannot keep them alive due to his word and his consistency. As a parrent you gain respect by consistency of discapline.

Excellent point. Death did not come right away because God decided to use the rebellion as an object lesson for his entire family, both in heaven and on earth. If the devil was allowed to try his best with all of us, then only those with the right strength of character and very strong faith would survive it and come off victorious. In God's strength, many have. But Jesus indicated that the majority would take the easy road. (Matthew 7:13-14) Its a dead end.

2, God did not abandone them in there huge mistake. He did forgive and work with them through it.

I have to disagree with this point. Neither of them made a "mistake". As perfect humans with no defect of sin, they made considered jusdments and took action dependent on their own evaluations at the time. How could God forgive any of his free willed creatures for abusing his love and goodness. All were aware of God's loving and generous personality, but failed to honour him as their Sovereign....failing to do the will of their God. At the end of the day, it is the basis for the judgment of all of us, especially those of us who call Jesus our "Lord". (Matthew 7:21-23)

Jesus did not come to redeem Adam and his wife......they had no basis for forgiveness.......he came to rescue their children, brought into this situation through no fault on their part. Sin is part of our present nature, but it is not an excuse to deliberately do what God says is wrong. The world under satan's control is still trying to get people to break God's commands. He can't make us do anything but he can create the circumstances to make it easy. To lure us with material things and covetousness. (1 John 5:19; 1 John 2:15-17) This world is passing away.....so the question is...will we pass away with it?

God gives us all the weapons and armour needed to fend off satan's attacks, but sometimes it's the subtle things that get us in the end....like moral issues. The world at present has lost its moral compass......from the extremes of fundamentalist fanatics, to the "anything goes, Jesus loves everyone" approach. Neither of which is what God asked of us. Somewhere in the balanced middle is where we should be aiming for.....don't you think?

 

[Jollybear]

You raise some good points....
In analysing the scenario a little further, it is clear why the devil trageted the woman when she was alone. She was the newest and least experienced of the two. God had educated Adam but Eve was to be educated by her husband as family head. They in turn would educate their children.

The fact that she knew about the prohibition said a lot for Adam's priorities....he had waited a long time for a mate of his own, so he did not want to lose her due to any negligence on his part.

But the devil caught them both off guard. The woman was alone and fell for a carefully planned deception. When Adam returned and saw what she had done, in being offered the forbidden fruit, he had choices. The devil had deliberately targeted the woman to get to the man. His main tactic to this day, is "divide and conquer". Nowhere was this more apparent than in the Edenic scenario.

If satan had targeted the man first, he may well have been given short shrift. But aiming his seemingly innocent questions, followed by slanderous accusations about God's motives, the woman was ill equipped to provide answers, so she fell for the deception. But Adam did not.
According to the apostle Paul.....

"13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:13-14)

Adam was now faced with a loyalty issue....would he obey his God and lose his wife? Or would he join his wife in disobedience and die with her?

Both knew the penalty but neither of them knew how death would come about. But suffice it to say, each one ate the fruit for a different reason. The devil targeted the man through temptation from his wife. Blame for sin entering the human condition is put squarely on Adam, not Eve. (Romans 5:12) His decision was made in full knowledge of what he was doing. This is why there was no remorse expressed and no grounds upon which to forgive them. When God confronted them, each blamed someone else for their decision....Adam even blamed God for giving him a wife......we have been passing the buck ever since.



Excellent point. Death did not come right away because God decided to use the rebellion as an object lesson for his entire family, both in heaven and on earth. If the devil was allowed to try his best with all of us, then only those with the right strength of character and very strong faith would survive it and come off victorious. In God's strength, many have. But Jesus indicated that the majority would take the easy road. (Matthew 7:13-14) Its a dead end.



I have to disagree with this point. Neither of them made a "mistake". As perfect humans with no defect of sin, they made considered jusdments and took action dependent on their own evaluations at the time. How could God forgive any of his free willed creatures for abusing his love and goodness. All were aware of God's loving and generous personality, but failed to honour him as their Sovereign....failing to do the will of their God. At the end of the day, it is the basis for the judgment of all of us, especially those of us who call Jesus our "Lord". (Matthew 7:21-23)

Jesus did not come to redeem Adam and his wife......they had no basis for forgiveness.......he came to rescue their children, brought into this situation through no fault on their part. Sin is part of our present nature, but it is not an excuse to deliberately do what God says is wrong. The world under satan's control is still trying to get people to break God's commands. He can't make us do anything but he can create the circumstances to make it easy. To lure us with material things and covetousness. (1 John 5:19; 1 John 2:15-17) This world is passing away.....so the question is...will we pass away with it?

God gives us all the weapons and armour needed to fend off satan's attacks, but sometimes it's the subtle things that get us in the end....like moral issues. The world at present has lost its moral compass......from the extremes of fundamentalist fanatics, to the "anything goes, Jesus loves everyone" approach. Neither of which is what God asked of us. Somewhere in the balanced middle is where we should be aiming for.....don't you think?

I agree with everything you said, except i still think God forgave Adam/eve because we see God in the story working with them.

First we see God take off the fig leaves and put on them animal fers, symbolizing sacrifice = atonement = forgiveness.

We also see God working with them outside the garden of eden as well. they have children and they give credit to God for those, showing there hearts did turn back to God. It appears they teach there children about God as well.

I dont know what you think of extrabiblical ancient sources, but in anycase, there are other books that mention adam and eve where it gives more details of God working with them.

 

[Nimos]

That means I have no enemy, because I am a good neighbor.



Does God need humans or humans need God?
Is Jesus human?

That means I have no enemy, because I am a good neighbor.

I tried to figure out what others meant by this and found a debate which shares the Catholic view and Jewish view. At least the Rabbi say that the word used for "Enemy" in the Torah always mean that it is someone that is out to hurt or destroy you. Obviously its beyond me to say whether that is correct or not, as he seems to know what he is talking about and I don't understand Hebrew but the Catholic do not seem to disagree with that meaning.

Might be interesting to see for their view.

 

[Nimos]

One thing I find that is hard to explain or get across is that in story or art contradiction is not a problem but a feature. To see how in life two conflicting truths seem to be "in play" is to recognize something deep, true, yet mysterious about our experience of life.

When the Bible treats of such contradictory qualities of our experience it is doing so with a literary mastery that is often ignored. In our hyper-rational, modern literalism we fail to recognize what spiritual literature was always meant to address: mystery and revelation.

So I am in no way suggesting that the Biblical authors or audience were naive about contradictions. Rather i believe that many modern readers even and especially devout readers misread the Bible as a work describing a purely factual or literal and rational account of spiritual knowledge. I would go so far as to say that no work of spiritual knowledge which does not treat of the profound paradoxes of our experience qualifies as possessing spiritual knowledge at all.

Maybe I misunderstand you, so please clarify if that is the case, my native language is not english, so I just want to be sure I understand you correctly.

So the contradictions we see are actual teachings by God and therefore not flaws as such, so God is not really "lying" since contradictions do actually exist. But we misunderstand the spiritual litterature, because we focus to much on rational thinking today, but these old writings were meant to address mystery and revelations rather than stating truth about reality?

Is that correctly understood or can you give a straight up example of what you mean?

 

[Nimos]

I should add that given the direction of our conversation, it is a one-line cop out to say "God works in mysterious ways" in answer to the questions you are asking. But the questions you are asking also do raise the need to recognize that mystery is, in fact, involved. To dismiss that is to fail to address the topic at hand.

I don't think there is anything wrong with using the argument or assumption that God is mysteries as long as one can at least suggest why that is. To use an example of what I mean with what I wrote.

Is basically that someone say that "God is all good" and I question that, and their answer to that is that "God works in mysteries way", I don't find that is an answer that makes a lot of sense, as its simply stating something that one might believe is a fact without evidence for it, and those of us who disagree with that can't argue against it and therefore the statement becomes meaningless.

And its not only meant for me or other atheist, it is the same even for people that believe in God, as they might share different views on whether God is all knowing or not.

 

[Nimos]

Then there is no basis for a discussion. There is nowhere to even begin to build a foundation, and indecisiveness isn't a good platform for discovering the truth. (James 1:5-7) God is looking for a 'backbone' in us, not a 'wishbone', swayed by the next good idea that might enter our head.

I believe that God searches for us as much as we search for him. (John 6:44; 65) He is looking for citizens to grant them citizenship in his incoming Kingdom. We have to qualify in upholding his standards......he does not have to convince anyone of anything. Creation itself speaks for him. (Romans 1:18-23)

Our limited perspective hinders our perceptions, and only God can correct wrong views......if he chooses to. Sometimes he just lets us run with our own whacky ideas because we have failed to demonstrate the qualities that he is looking for anyway. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) Since there are just two roads....all of us are on either one or the other. (Matthew 7:13-14) The majority are on the wrong road according to Jesus.

God does not need us....we need him. That has to be our starting point. As I see things, if you have no starting point, there is no finish line.

Thank you for responding and have a good day.

Maybe its because im an atheist, but indecisiveness is probably the best place to start if you want to discover truth as I see it. Unless you can proof the existence of God, with enough evidence that it is the most logic explanation? If you can't, you are jumping to conclusion that are far from being truth and therefore trying to discover other truth based on that, is most likely not getting you closer to finding it, but rather helping you reach conclusions because that is what you desire thing to be like.

It would be like me saying, "the universe was created from nothing", since that is true, "then God does not exists". It would be reasonable, expected and also demanded, I think, that you would or should not accept my first conclusion. Even if Stephen Hawking or Einstein had written a book, saying that they believed that it were most likely the case. It would not be good evidence for whether the universe were in fact created from nothing or not, it would merely be their opinion if they have no evidence to back it up with. Wouldn't you agree with that?

So me not accepting your premise of God existing, because I don't think you have presented enough evidence to reach such conclusion is equally valid. So the discussion, since none of us can proof whether one or the other is true, would become one of what is considered most likely based on the evidence that we have available to us.

We are not in a position to judge him, to accuse him, or to tell him how to manage his own business. We are his creation....he is not ours. We are subject to his scrutiny.....he has no need of ours. We are either part of the problem...or part of the solution. By our decisions and conclusions, we tell God who we are. He doesn't really care what the godless think of him.

The way I understand you, and don't misunderstand me But to me what you are describing here is, pretty much how I would assume slaves would describe there relationship with their master, is that how you see it? Because I thought the purpose, at least how it is suggested by others, is that God want us to seek him out of free will and love. Which seems a bit like a contradiction, as you say that "He doesn't really care what the godless think of him". Well at least that is not my impression or understanding of what it means to love someone.

 

[Nimos]

Remember what I said, the only way to prove that free will abused is pain, suffering, and death is to actually allow those things to occur. It must be allowed till it is perfectly clear that humanity is unable to right the ship, that everything tried fails.

But why would you have to proof free will can be abused, I don't really get that, isn't it obvious that it can? I mean God must realize that we know that by now, I would even go as far as to say that the story about Cain and Abel should have been enough to proof that it could be abused. And would go even further and say that the moment Adam and Eve ate from the tree that they would have discovered this as well.

 

[MJFlores]

I tried to figure out what others meant by this and found a debate which shares the Catholic view and Jewish view. At least the Rabbi say that the word used for "Enemy" in the Torah always mean that it is someone that is out to hurt or destroy you. Obviously its beyond me say whether that is correct or not, as he seems to know what he is talking about and I don't understand Hebrew And the Catholic do not seem to disagree with that.

Might be interesting to see for their view.

I used to be Catholic.
What the man said is kinda misleading.

Who is my enemy?
The bible clearly identifies who is my enemy.
My enemy is the enemy of Christ [the antichrist].

1 John 2:22 New International Version (NIV)
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.

same verse another bible version:

1 John 2:22 Good News Translation (GNT)
Who, then, is the liar? It is those who say that Jesus is not the Messiah. Such people are the Enemy of Christ—they reject both the Father and the Son.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah
Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus

So should I hate the enemy of Christ like the Jews who say Jesus is not the Messiah?
Well Jesus said:

But there are other anti-Christ, other than the Jews.

 

[Deeje]

I agree with everything you said, except i still think God forgave Adam/eve because we see God in the story working with them.

God does not forgive wilful and deliberate sin. There is no expression of remorse from either Adam or his wife. When there is no remorse, there can be no forgiveness. The list of righteous servants of God begins with Abel, not Adam.

First we see God take off the fig leaves and put on them animal fers, symbolizing sacrifice = atonement = forgiveness.

There is no mention of animals being sacrificed to provide the garments provided by God. The first mention of a sacrifice to God was made by Abel and his brother Cain, not Adam and Eve. That ended in Abel's murder.

It was shame that prompted the first pair to become aware of their naked state....sin did that.

The garments of animal skins replaced the loin coverings that the pair had made for themselves. The garments worn by God's people even in the heat of the Middle East were modest....something reflected by the law concerning God's moral laws. If God made long garments as a way to combat immoral thoughts, then loin coverings are not appropriate attire for Christians either...even today.

The long garments would also have protected the humans from the rugged terrain into which they had been banished. Thorns and thistles would be part of their landscape now. These actions in no way expressed forgiveness on God's part.....he was just assuring that they would survive the harsh conditions that awaited them.

We also see God working with them outside the garden of eden as well. they have children and they give credit to God for those, showing there hearts did turn back to God. It appears they teach there children about God as well.

Adam called his wife "Eve" because she had to become the mother of everyone living. They had to eke out an existence on cursed ground, eating 'bread in the sweat of their face' instead of the beautiful ripe fruit that was there for the picking in the garden. What a change in lifestyle! God's efforts were directed towards Adam's children, not the rebels.

It's the same with the rebel angels that followed satan. There can be no forgiveness for them either. The lake of fire is reserved for them.....eternal destruction.

I dont know what you think of extrabiblical ancient sources, but in anycase, there are other books that mention adam and eve where it gives more details of God working with them.

The Bible is the most trustworthy source for me. God's assistance to Adam and his wife did not change anything about their sentence. They were evicted from the garden, and God's mandate ...."to be fruitful and fill the earth" was fulfilled only after sin entered the human race. (Romans 5:12) Death was all they could look forward to.

It was their children who were now the focus of God's attention....not the rebels. These two were responsible for the death of the entire human race descended from them.....unrepentantly.....how could God forgive them?

God had to send his own precious son to save them.

 

[Deeje]

Maybe its because im an atheist, but indecisiveness is probably the best place to start if you want to discover truth as I see it. Unless you can proof the existence of God, with enough evidence that it is the most logic explanation? If you can't you are jumping to conclusion that are far from being truth and therefore trying to discover other truth based on that, is most likely not getting you closer to it, but rather helping you reach conclusions basically because that is what you desire.

It would be like me saying, "the universe was created from nothing", since that is true, "then God does not exists". It would be reasonable, expected and also demanded, I think, that you would or should not accept my first conclusion. Even if Stephen Hawking or Einstein had written a book, saying that they believed that it were most likely the case. It would not be good evidence for whether the universe were in fact created from nothing or not, it would merely be their opinion if they have no evidence to back it up with. Wouldn't you agree with that?

I think evidence is what you want to make of it. I see evidence for God everywhere. If you don't, then there is nothing I can do about that. I have a real relationship with my God and I believe that he knew me long before I knew him. Our friendship actually began in childhood. I have all the "proof" I need for his existence and his ongoing presence in my life. I believe he found me, not that I found him.

So me not accepting your premise of God existing, because I don't think you have presented enough evidence to reach such conclusion is equally valid. So the discussion, since none of us can proof whether one or the other is true. It becomes one of what is considered most likely based on the evidence that we have available to us.

I do not have to prove God's existence to you or anyone else.....neither does he. That way he knows who are capable of faith.....and who are not.

The way I understand you, and don't misunderstand me But to me what you are describing here is, pretty much how I would assume slaves would describe there relationship with their master, is that how you see it? Because I thought the purpose, at least how it is suggested by others, is that God want us to seek him out of free will and love. Which seems a bit like a contradiction, as you say that "He doesn't really care what the godless think of him". Well at least that is not my impression or understanding of what it means to love someone.

Am I a slave? YES! And it is my privilege to serve the Universal Sovereign in whatever capacity he deems appropriate. I serve him of my own free will because I love him with all my heart. His love has already been demonstrated to me in what he has done in the past, what he is doing now, and what that means for the future. His love is expressed in his will....but life is not unconditional. If a person does not need God, then why should God need them? He has set the criteria for life....it is up to us to qualify. God doesn't need us at all....it is we who need him.

 

[1213]

…1. Is it possible for a person to distinguish between right and wrong, without knowing the difference between good and evil?

a. If the answer is no: How do you justify that God punishes Adam and Eve when they don't know the difference between them? And what reason would Eve have to assume that the snake is trying to deceive her?

b. If the answer is yes: Can you give an example of it?

Right and wrong, or good and bad seems to be very subjective matters. I think it was enough for Adam and Eve to know what will happen, if they eat the fruit. Also, if they didn’t understand something, they had chance to ask directly from God anything, so there is really no excuse to act “without knowing”. The goodness of the act was not meaningful and actually it depends much of the point of view.

2. It is written in the Bible Genesis "3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made."

Why do you believe God made the serpent more crafty than all the other animals? Why is it important for it to be highlighted in the text?

I don’t really know why people wanted to add it to the text. Perhaps humans added it so that it would look that their own choice was not so bad? Also, I don’t know why serpent was made craftier. Luckily for me, it is not any problem.

3. The above text say that God created the serpent and its believed that this is Satan why do you think God allowed Satan do to evil in the Garden of eden?

But is it really evil to tell person what he wants to hear? I think Eve had already decided that she wants to eat the fruit, the serpent only gave here the excuse. People knew what God had told, but they rather listened the serpent’s version. I think it was not bad to allow the serpent to be there, because people had also the right information and could have asked more from God, if they would have wanted to be loyal to God, who had given everything to them.

But obviously serpent didn’t do nice thing for the people, because he told the truth in such way that it deceived people, like Tony in Scarface who says, “I always tell the truth even when I lie”. Many atheists actually use the same tactic and I recommend to be careful with their claims.

I think the serpent was allowed to be there, because he didn’t actually lie. God had not said only that they will die, God had said that with death they shall die.

4. The following is from Genesis 1 6,6: "6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled."

if God knows everything and can do anything he wants, how is it possible for him to regret, wouldn't he be able to foresee this?

When regret means that person is sorry, it doesn’t necessary mean that person thinks what he chose was not good in the beginning. It also doesn’t mean God didn’t know what happens, because God had also prepared salvation in the beginning.

5. God is commonly referred to as being ultimately good and unable to lie. In Deuteronomy 21,18-21 the law says the following: "18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him,19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."

Given the ability to distinguish good from evil, do you think this is a good way of dealing with such issue or a bad way?

Why do you believe that God, which is all good, thought that death were the best solution to this problem?

Do you agree with the statement that a son per definition should obey their parents, regardless of how the parents might behave?

Do you consider the punishment of death for being stubborn and rebellious towards your parents, justified or a murder?

a. If you consider it murder, doesn't it conflict with one of the ten commandments?

b. If you believe it is justifiable, why do you think that such law is not in effect today, at least in most countries and would you support such law, knowing that God is only good and unable to do evil?

Murder means unjust/unlawful killing and it is against the ten commandments. Killing itself is not necessary wrong, if there is good lawful reason for it, in the Bible.

In the case of God, He has given life, therefore He has right to decide how long life He gives. There is no reason why He must give eternal life for all.

People have not given life, therefore they have no right to decide how long it lasts.

I think there is no Biblical reason to think son should obey and do evil things. In the Bible, the son is evil and therefore deserves death penalty. I think death penalty is not wrong, if given to evil unrighteous people, because those would make life eternal suffering for all, if they would be allowed to live eternally.

6. Also in Deuteronomy 25, 11 it says the following: "11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

Of all the things God can do, why do you think this topic were so important that it needed to be added to the law? And do you think that the punishment for it is justifiable?

Difficult to say, what is the value of hand versus private parts. In that age private parts could have been even more valuable than a hand. Perhaps more correct would have been to give their children to the person who lost the ability to get own offspring? I think the price Bible gives is fair. However, I think the one who gives the judgment, should evaluate the situation and be merciful, if there is good reason for it. I think it is important to understand that the Bible gives the allowed judgment, but it was judges job to decide the right judgment in different situations.

7. Deuteronomy 22, 28-29 it says the following: "28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Do you believe that a women or father experiencing something as described above, would agree with this being the definitely best way to solve the issue?

Do you think rape (only if discovered) as a crime ought to be considered worse than being stubborn?

In the case of stubborn son, it meant that the person was evil and did bad things. Rapist is not necessary as evil, all though I think it is wrong. But if he would have been killed, it would have been bad for the child, that is why I think the solution was acceptable. Also, how often virgin men rape virgins?

8. Based on the previous questions and given the ability to know the difference between good and evil, can you explain why God is considered ultimately good?

Good seems to be very much subjective opinion. I think good is good, because He is merciful, just and righteous. I think it would not be good to allow evil to continue forever and by so make life eternal suffering for all.

9. Regardless of whether the law is in effect or not, can you explain how something that is considered all knowing and all powerful decided that this were the best laws, what do you think is his reasons for them to be like that?

It depends on what is the purpose of the law. If the purpose is to prevent crime and to give what people deserve, I think it is very good. If the purpose would be to make evil to flourish, then it is not very good.

10. Can you think of any more reasonable laws with more justifiable punishments than those God made in the laws mentioned above, even though you are not all powerful and ultimately good?

Actually, I think there is no more justifiable laws. The ones people usually nowadays make, serve the evil criminals and despise the victims.

 

[Nimos]

I used to be Catholic.
What the man said is kinda misleading.

Can't really comment on that

Who is my enemy?
The bible clearly identifies who is my enemy.
My enemy is the enemy of Christ [the antichrist].

So basically what Jesus is saying, is that anyone that is out to hurt him or that denies him and the father are those that we should consider our enemies and we should love them or not judge them for doing it. So it could explain why he doesn't put up a fight at the crucifixion maybe, is that correct? But it have no meaning for us as individuals? as its about enemies of Jesus and not those that is out to hurt or destroy you personally?

 

[Nimos]

I think evidence is what you want to make of it. I see evidence for God everywhere. If you don't, then there is nothing I can do about that. I have a real relationship with my God and I believe that he knew me long before I knew him. Our friendship actually began in childhood. I have all the "proof" I need for his existence and his ongoing presence in my life. I believe he found me, not that I found him.

I don't doubt that people have personal experiences of God and Jesus, which in some cases such as yours would make you believe. And don't get me wrong, I can understand that it must be rather frustrating why others, atheist, Christians, muslims etc. Just don't get it. But wouldn't you agree, that you are not the only one making such claim for what you believe in? I mean, I highly doubt that a terrorist that decide to blow himself up for what he/she might believe, is just as convinced of their beliefs as you are, regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong?

So why don't you think shouldn't accept their evidence on equal terms as yours?

That is why evidence is not a personal opinion of what one might think things ought to be. In that case, its simply a claim.

I do not have to prove God's existence to you or anyone else.....neither does he. That way he knows who are capable of faith.....and who are not.

As I mentioned to someone else, regarding "God works in mysteries way" and why it should not be seen as a valid explanation is what you are doing here. Anyone regardless of whether they are atheist, Christians, Muslims, Jews or whatever that does not share your view on what God is, basically just have to accept your claim as fact. Which makes it meaningless, its not how logic or reason works.

Again "The universe was created from nothing" therefore "God doesn't exist", that is just how it is, because I say so. No one would or should accept it just as they shouldn't accept your claim, even if they are Christians as it would ruin their own believe to do so and simply have to accept your view. And from people sharing their opinion here, who also believe they are Christians its obvious that they have lots of different views, some think God is not all good, not all knowing etc. Its not because im an atheist, it really should make sense to anyone regardless of their religion, why what you are saying is meaningless to anyone besides you.

 

[Nimos]

Right and wrong, or good and bad seems to be very subjective matters. I think it was enough for Adam and Eve to know what will happen, if they eat the fruit. Also, if they didn’t understand something, they had chance to ask directly from God anything, so there is really no excuse to act “without knowing”. The goodness of the act was not meaningful and actually it depends much of the point of view.

I get your view, don't get me wrong, I might be pushing you a bit here, in a friendly manner . But what question would Adam and Eve ask God? And how should he answer, as he can't explain or even suggest anything that is connected to good and evil as they wouldn't understand it?

I think Eve had already decided that she wants to eat the fruit, the serpent only gave here the excuse.

It could be, I can't deny that. But I would make the assumption that Adam and Eve did not eat from the tree the first day they were both made. But that they had actually lived in the Garden with God for more than that. So it quickly gets very speculative obviously, because I agree were their passages, where Adam and Eve constantly asked God why they couldn't eat from the tree or maybe verses that would indicate that they wondering whether the fruits on the tree would taste better than the rest, it would make a whole lot more sense I think. But its not really there as I see it, at least to me, I don't see any obvious evidence in the story of why Adam and Eve should desire the tree, besides not being aware or able to see that the serpent had ill intentions. But I think your assumption, could be a possible explanation, if we were to add and remove things from the story that is not actually possible to confirm.

I think there is no Biblical reason to think son should obey and do evil things. In the Bible, the son is evil and therefore deserves death penalty. I think death penalty is not wrong, if given to evil unrighteous people, because those would make life eternal suffering for all, if they would be allowed to live eternally.

Most parents experience stubborn kids, its a rather common thing. I doubt that the majority of parents if asked, how they would describe their stubborn son, would use the word evil and that they saw no issues trying to change the behavior of the son with threats of killing them if they didn't.

Difficult to say, what is the value of hand versus private parts. In that age private parts could have been even more valuable than a hand. Perhaps more correct would have been to give their children to the person who lost the ability to get own offspring? I think the price Bible gives is fair. However, I think the one who gives the judgment, should evaluate the situation and be merciful, if there is good reason for it. I think it is important to understand that the Bible gives the allowed judgment, but it was judges job to decide the right judgment in different situations.

Im not really sure if the bibles explain whether the judgement's should be as describes or simply guidelines. I can see the reasoning for what you are saying. But also for them not being so or there being a difference, depending on what law is in questioning.

But some of the laws are pretty straight forward I would say:

"He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

"He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

"You shall not allow a sorceress to live.

"He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed.

And there is a lot more, but you can't really do half a sacrifice can you? So maybe there is a difference between the laws, at least as far as I know, I haven't read anywhere in the bible, exactly how they are suppose to work. Simply that they are good and just.

 

[sealchan]

Maybe I misunderstand you, so please clarify if that is the case, my native language is not english, so I just want to be sure I understand you correctly.

So the contradictions we see are actual teachings by God and therefore not flaws as such, so God is not really "lying" since contradictions do actually exist. But we misunderstand the spiritual litterature, because we focus to much on rational thinking today, but these old writings were meant to address mystery and revelations rather than stating truth about reality?

Is that correctly understood or can you give a straight up example of what you mean?

Close but not quite. Here is an example...

A. Whether we are believers or not we feel an inward desire to do what is right and good that appears to be unique in the sphere of the animal realm. Indeed in the world a lot of injustice happens whether by nature or by humanity yet we feel this should not be so in our hearts. That is the mystery, why we have this moral sense in discontinuity with nature and even within ourselves.

B. The Biblical description of this mysterious reality is that it arose our of humanities' earliest experience having been created by God and put in a situation in which it might have been otherwise. The implication is that however one finds one self in a reality A. one can choose something better.

Now my view is that in today's over-emphasis on rationality and the factual, believers and non-believers read the Biblical story as B. first and A. second. They should BOTH however read the reality A as primary while using B as inspirational to continue the struggle to do good in an otherwise amoral or immoral reality.

The mystery, furthermore, allows one to conceive of a God caught up in a dilemma as a "caring parent" similar to our own. With our essence like that of God we must realize that choosing to do good always comes in a context where we might choose otherwise. Indeed in the references I have given this is shown as true of God.

But because we read the Bible literally (B before A) we get hung up on its historicity. We should all of us be reading in as literature (A before B) and finding its meaning in our common ground of human experience.

 

[sealchan]

I don't think there is anything wrong with using the argument or assumption that God is mysteries as long as one can at least suggest why that is. To use an example of what I mean with what I wrote.

Is basically that someone say that "God is all good" and I question that, and their answer to that is that "God works in mysteries way", I don't find that is an answer that makes a lot of sense, as its simply stating something that one might believe is a fact without evidence for it, and those of us who disagree with that can't argue against it and therefore the statement becomes meaningless.

And its not only meant for me or other atheist, it is the same even for people that believe in God, as they might share different views on whether God is all knowing or not.

This is entirely valid IMO. Of course many people might prefer to share with you their pat answer because they really dont have a better one. In the face of the mystery that is their answer and it is a valid one.

But there is a better answer in the form of a story whether it be a Biblical one or not. That story tells something about the state of things as we know it to be but also adds something not obvious or even demonstrable that gives us something more to work with even if it is "made up".

The best fiction imbeds itself deeply in what is obvious but then inserts something unobvious that allows us to for a significant moment transcend the obvious and discover a new possibility...the escape from the unwanted yet inevitable.

 

[Kenny]

[QUOTE="Nimos, post: 6085988, member: 52706"
Questions.

1. Is it possible for a person to distinguish between right and wrong, without knowing the difference between good and evil?

a. If the answer is no: How do you justify that God punishes Adam and Eve when they don't know the difference between them? And what reason would Eve have to assume that the snake is trying to deceive her?

b. If the answer is yes: Can you give an example of it?

2. It is written in the Bible Genesis "3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made."

Why do you believe God made the serpent more crafty than all the other animals? Why is it important for it to be highlighted in the text?

3. The above text say that God created the serpent and its believed that this is Satan

why do you think God allowed Satan do to evil in the Garden of eden?

4. The following is from Genesis 1 6,6: "6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled."

if God knows everything and can do anything he wants, how is it possible for him to regret, wouldn't he be able to foresee this?

5. God is commonly referred to as being ultimately good and unable to lie. In Deuteronomy 21,18-21 the law says the following: "18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him,19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."

Given the ability to distinguish good from evil, do you think this is a good way of dealing with such issue or a bad way?

Why do you believe that God, which is all good, thought that death were the best solution to this problem?

Do you agree with the statement that a son per definition should obey their parents, regardless of how the parents might behave?

Do you consider the punishment of death for being stubborn and rebellious towards your parents, justified or a murder?

a. If you consider it murder, doesn't it conflict with one of the ten commandments?

b. If you believe it is justifiable, why do you think that such law is not in effect today, at least in most countries and would you support such law, knowing that God is only good and unable to do evil?

6. Also in Deuteronomy 25, 11 it says the following: "11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

Of all the things God can do, why do you think this topic were so important that it needed to be added to the law? And do you think that the punishment for it is justifiable?

7. Deuteronomy 22, 28-29 it says the following: "28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Do you believe that a women or father experiencing something as described above, would agree with this being the definitely best way to solve the issue?

Do you think rape (only if discovered) as a crime ought to be considered worse than being stubborn?

8. Based on the previous questions and given the ability to know the difference between good and evil, can you explain why God is considered ultimately good?

9. Regardless of whether the law is in effect or not, can you explain how something that is considered all knowing and all powerful decided that this were the best laws, what do you think is his reasons for them to be like that?

10. Can you think of any more reasonable laws with more justifiable punishments than those God made in the laws mentioned above, even though you are not all powerful and ultimately good?

The only thing, I would like people not to do, is use the phrase "God work in mysteries ways", "We just can't understand God" etc. Be honest and just write "I don't know" if you have no answer to a specific question.

Thanks[/QUOTE]

1). Not so simple - yes and no. You can figure some things out but not all things when compared to what God says is right and wrong.

In the case of Adam and Eve - they did know. Although Eve was deceived because she added to the commandment statements that were not true - she still violated what she thought to be true. Adam knew better.

Everybody has some sense of what is right and wrong - even if they are wrong - they still violate their own sense of right and wrong and it is still sin for them.

Thus, everyone knows they need forgiveness

I think 10 questions might be hard to answer all at one time since I’m sure that with just one it will produce more questions and make the post too long.